[rollei_list] Re: Carl Zeiss Rolleiflex SL66 1:4/40 mm Distagon FLE HFT
- From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 07:47:06 -0400
Jim, there is nothing "native" about that transparency. The mismatch
between life and the contrast limitation of the medium is glaring. Had you
shot negative or digital, the result would have been dramatically different.
Your preferences/interpretation is another matter... All I can say is there
is no accounting for taste ;-)
Eric Goldstein
--
On Saturday, September 29, 2012, Jim Brick wrote:
> Uwe,
>
> It is not HDR. I didn't like the HDR version. I guess I wasn't clear.
> Sorry... You are seeing the original.
>
> I have an Imacon X1 scanner.
>
>
> Jim Brick
> Sunnyvale, CA
> http://www.photomojo.org
>
> On Sep 28, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Uwe Wolfgang Steinke wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> as I looked at the photo I thought "Wow, it looks like HDR - and it's just
> a scan from an analog photo - great!" Now that I know that it's HDR, I'd
> like to see the original - which I know is impossible...
>
> Anyway - which scanner do you use?
>
> Uwe
>
> 2012/9/29 Jim Brick <jim@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi John, I have been using HDR since HDR software has been available. I
> use it both in my digital capture and in scanning. Sometimes, things just
> look better (to me) in their native form. I do have both over and under of
> that Hunter Liggett photograph, and I did scan all three and run them
> through Photomatix. Still, for me, the way I have it, is the way I want it.
> Which, as I said, is the bottom line.
>
> HDR certainly has become more sophisticated since its inception. In the
> beginning, it was nearly impossible to use it with scanned frames as it
> couldn't figure out how to align them. Nowadays, programs like Photomatix
> and Photoshop CS6 have no trouble aligning multiple transparency scans.
>
> :-)
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Brick
> Sunnyvale, CA
> http://www.photomojo.org
>
> On Sep 28, 2012, at 1:02 AM, John Wild wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
> I have found that by scanning at 2 or 3 different exposures – one under,
> one over and one normally – and combining them in HDR software that I can
> get more out of an image. If a transparency, there may not be enough in the
> shadows and highlights to pull out anyway.
>
> John
>
>
> On 28/09/2012 07:12, "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> A digital sure would have done better with capturing contrast... no detail
> in the shadow areas that come through on the scan...
>
> Eric Goldstein
>
> --
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Uwe Wolfgang Steinke <
> paintingwithlenses@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> awesome - digital cameras can hardly reach that!
>
>
> 2012/9/28 Chris Burck <chris.burck@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> beautiful colors.
>
> On Sep 27, 2012 6:33 PM, "Jim Brick" <jim@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It depends on what your idea of affordable is...
>
> I have one of these lenses for my SL66 and it is absolutely outstanding!
>
> Here is an image via my 40mm FLE.
>
> http://www.photomojo.org/Yellow_Field_Oak_Tree-.jpg
>
>
>
> Jim Brick
> Sunnyvale, CA
> http://www.photomojo.org
>
> On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Uwe Wolfgang Steinke wrote:
>
> > Hi Carlos
> >
> > and thanks for the superb answer!
> >
> > Sooo, where do I get an affordable 4/40 FLE for my SL66 or 6008AF? Lots
> of wishes for the next Christmases.
> >
> > Uwe
> >
> >
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org <
> //www.freelists.org
>
>
Other related posts:
