Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Repro question

Subject: Re: [OM] Repro question
From: "Marco" <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12 Feb 98 11:09:35 +0100
On Mer, 11 feb 1998 21:46, Gene Mayeda <mailto:gmayeda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: 
>I use TMX for copy work and develop normally.The highlights tend to
>block up with over exposure.This film needs to be exposed accurately
>unlike modern color neg films.

Gene, 

I agree with you. Only I think it is necessary to push *developing* process
a bit in order to get full range of contrast from a 5-stops object, as
reproductions are. My way to develope TMX negs taken from nature (7 stops
average contrast) is not the same I use for repro work. Exposure is the
same, that is mid-way between higher lights and lower shadows (black in
repro). 

Somebody recommended Panatomic-X.I haven't
>seen any for sale in years.The T-Max 100 does a better job anyway.

Sure. 
>
>Lately I have been using a scanner and Photoshop on my Power Mac G3.I
>think this is the way of the future so far as copying old photos goes.

Sure. I suggested yet simplier color-photocopy work.

>I have a permanent copy stand setup at work with polarizers in front of
>3200K lamps (2-1000 Watts).The camera is a Nikon F3 and has a waist
>finder installed and a grid screen.It is usually used to make slides and
>accurate cropping is crucial.There is color correction and a linear
>polarizer on the 55mm F/2.8 macro lens.I vary the exposures depending on
>the reproduction ratio I read off the lens when focused.I do not bracket
>under normal circumstances.

Well, world is little, isn't? I use a repro with four 3200 K lamps (but I
use two only for relatively small objects). 650 W lamps. No polarizers,
alas!  Before getting my wonderful 50 3.5 macro from a friend on this list
I used to work with a Nikon F with a 55 3.5 micro lens, with grid screen.
Of course I have to look at ratio in order to adjust exposure. No waist
finder, sorry, only rubber eye cup on a Photomic :-(

I'm not sure why but using a grey card and
>the camera meter does not work.It could be that the polarizers are the
>reason.A hand held meter is fooled too.I don't know how well an OM meter
>would do because the OM's are my personal cameras.

I use a Lunasix 3 (called Pro in USA) with repro-attachment. That is also
for checking enlightement uniformity. Not using polar filters I don't care
for corrections. Of course a B conversion filter for colors, when I don't
use a T film. Sometimes I check with a Minolta spot meter on the object. 
>
>These days it is easier to find somebody with a good scanner than a good
>copystand set-up.

Yes, a scanner is even cheaper than the four 650w lamps I burn out
sometimes :-(

Marco




############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version send mail to: listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|    with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list send a message to
|   listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions email: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|    htttp://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz