Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/10/27

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Olympus Pen Ft
From: photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman)
Date: Mon Oct 27 13:12:43 2008
References: <B8B42CC3A8304F65BA414612264BF925@Family> <69975C1BE9D946FD84A5D92FCBE4BF4E@dadquad> <75B2CF5C-0AB1-49CE-95B1-5C871428CB5E@frozenlight.eu> <D124D872-76FB-4287-AFC3-2A20FA449E9F@protozoic.com>

Hi Tim,

While I realize that the real speed of Neopan 1600 is less than the  
nominal speed, my experience with it is far better than with either  
TMZ or Delta 3200. Large parts of my Seville gallery was done with  
Neopan 1600 (www.frozenlight.eu/fotosevilla).

I found Neopan to be much easier than the others in terms of both  
developing and scanning--especially the latter.

Nathan

Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com

Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog



On Oct 27, 2008, at 8:48 PM, Tim Gray wrote:

> Likewise, the 1600 in Neopan 1600 is pure marketing.  ;)
>
> TMZ is about 1000 speed film, Delta 3200 is a hair faster, and  
> Neopan is slower.  I've heard around 600.  All these films get  
> contrasty at their box speeds because they are all being pushed.
>
> That being said, I rather like TMZ at 1600 and 3200.  It's better  
> 1600...
>
> Tim
>
> On Oct 27, 2008, at 3:40 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>
>> I think TMZ at 3200 sucks. The 3200 speed is pure marketing, with  
>> no relation to reality. Try Fuji Neopan 1600 (at 1600) instead.  
>> Much better for scanning.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nathan
>>
>> Nathan Wajsman
>> Alicante, Spain
>> http://www.frozenlight.eu
>> http://www.greatpix.eu
>> http://www.nathanfoto.com
>>
>> Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0
>> PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
>> Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2008, at 11:53 PM, Geoff Hopkinson wrote:
>>
>>> Douglas B,
>>> There are several factors there, I think.
>>> You are scanning half of a 35mm frame
>>> You have used a high speed and very grainy film
>>> The light is soft, lower and low contrast
>>> The featureless sky will always emphasise grain
>>> Scanning BW film can emphasise the grain as well.
>>> You can't use any grain reducing software on scanned BW film (not  
>>> the CN
>>> emulsions)
>>> Scanning with a flatbed cannot capture as much range as a  
>>> dedicated scanner
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> I think that you are expecting too much from the little camera in  
>>> those
>>> circumstances.
>>> I've never tried any half-frame. I bought two of the more modern  
>>> Olympus
>>> 35mm compacts with the fixed 35mm lens (for my kids to learn  
>>> with), as I
>>> thought the lens would be better than a little zoom. I was very
>>> disappointed. In the 70's I sold hundreds of the classic Trip 35  
>>> and I don't
>>> remember anyone being disappointed in the results quality. Maybe  
>>> my memory
>>> has faded.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Geoff
>>> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/e
>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/
>>> Maike Harbets speaks on the S2. .... So we will drop down this  
>>> technology to
>>> our other systems.
>>> Our priority is to modernise the R system which will be in the end  
>>> an R10,
>>> definitely.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org
>>> [mailto:lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org] On  
>>> Behalf Of
>>> Douglas Barry
>>> Sent: Monday, 27 October 2008 07:35
>>> To: lug@leica-users.org
>>> Subject: [Leica] Olympus Pen Ft
>>>
>>> Following the recnt posts on the Pen F and its lens quality, I  
>>> went out an
>>> shot off a roll of Kodak P3200TMAX using my PenFT. Scanning the  
>>> negs in
>>> using my Epson 3200, I was astonished to see the level of grain  
>>> and lack of
>>> clarity in the images. This is an example.
>>>
>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/DouglasBray/kiosc2.jpg.html
>>>
>>> What am I doing wrong, or do these smaller negative images have to  
>>> be
>>> enlarged and printed chemically to get a better quality before the  
>>> prints
>>> are scanned?  The only other roll of film I ran through the Pen FT  
>>> was a C41
>>> colour roll which I gave to a minilab to be developed and printed.  
>>> The
>>> prints turned out fine.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions gratefully received.
>>>
>>> Douglas
>>> _________
>>> Douglas Barry
>>> Bray, Co. Wicklow
>>> Republic of Ireland
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from leica at screengang.com (Didier Ludwig) ([Leica] Olympus Pen Ft)
Reply from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Olympus Pen Ft)
Reply from tgray at 125px.com (Tim Gray) ([Leica] Olympus Pen Ft)
In reply to: Message from imra at iol.ie (Douglas Barry) ([Leica] Olympus Pen Ft)
Message from hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] Olympus Pen Ft)
Message from photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] Olympus Pen Ft)
Message from tgray at protozoic.com (Tim Gray) ([Leica] Olympus Pen Ft)