1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Wrist ache...

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by nicxx, Mar 19, 2003.

  1. nicxx

    nicxx Well-Known Member

    Well, I finally got to use my new (ie Clive's old) sexy three stone lens at a gig last night!! And God was it hard work!

    Well, it wasn't as hard as I was expecting, cos I was dreading it, in an excited sort of way. But my arm is aching and I need more than four fingers. It definitely made a big difference to the timing though, the exposure was much easier.

    Still don't think I'm going to get anything amazing out of these films though, I think this one's going to need a bit of practise! Oh I did get asked twice though if I was photographing for anyone in particular and got handed their business cards so hey!

    ermx
     
  2. dungbeetle

    dungbeetle Well-Known Member

    You obviously look the part now then.
    Just think how heavy the kit would be if you swapped that F80 for an F5.

    Wilko (alter ego mode)
     
  3. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Ouch!! Now that would be a weighty combo - it might just have slightly better overall balance with the F5, but nothing more.

    Tim BSRIPN
    [​IMG]
     
  4. dungbeetle

    dungbeetle Well-Known Member

    Yes, it would be heavy at the front and the back instead of just the front... but think of the damping effect on any vibration as your muscles start to tremble and seize up from lactic acid overload.

    Wilko (alter ego mode)
     
  5. nicxx

    nicxx Well-Known Member

    Ooh bo****ks. Well they're absolutely f**ed.

    Sorry about that but I have well and truly buggered that lot up.

    I know what did it, it's the fact I'm a moron (surprisingly!). I thought I'd pushed one film one stop and the other two stops, just to get a feel of what was available, I was just experimenting a bit at first. Unfortunately as I set my ISO to 3200 and 6400 respectively I unfortunately also had my +/- set to +1 without knowing it. So I now have film pushed three stops.

    I did notice as I took it out when I checked things, so I knew to push it three stops in the dev. I was a bit (understatement!!) wary of doing this but thought I might as well try but Oh My God. Oh Dear.

    Unfortunately(?) my scanner has died on it's arse so i can't scan them in and show you. This is, however, a Good Thing because it means I now have an excuse to buy a new scanner. What I really, really want is the Nikon SuperCoolscan 4000 (about £1000). But I think that's a tad expensive. I also want it with the adaptor to scan a whole film at once, which is about an extra £250.

    Anyway, the house I want needs a new dampcourse and half a new roof and new kitchen fittings so sod that. So I can spend it on a scanner instead.

    Oh and the Canoscan 9000's new version is out in May so I might get the Canoscan 900) a bit cheaper too.

    Tra la la.

    ermx
     
  6. Ian_A

    Ian_A Well-Known Member

    ><font color=#006600>Oh and the Canoscan 9000's new version is out in May

    Sorry to hear your films were f***ed!

    I ordered 2 Canoscans 9900F's for work the other day, mainly because they can scan 120 film. Are Canoscans generally good, compared to, say, the Epson scanners?</p>

    Ian A(ctually!)

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I've got a Canonscan D2400UF - it rated slightly higher than the Epson 2450 in the AP test, and is a pretty good scanner. I've been scanning 5x4 trannies with a friend all evening, and the scans are splendid.

    Nick BSRIPN
     
  8. JMACNALLY

    JMACNALLY RIP

    Agree that, best value and performer for the money. It also connected and worked first time with XP! Shame it isn't supported by Hamrick's Vuescan prog which is a great improver of most scanners.

    Johnmac
     
  9. Ian_A

    Ian_A Well-Known Member

    Nick, John, thanks for the response. It looks as if I may not have made a bad choice there.

    The company I work for is replacing our old PCs - Compaq P200MMX jobs running Win 95 or NT4 - with IBM 2.4GHz PCs running Windows 2000. Sadly our ancient HP scanners have been very reluctant to work with them, hence the opportunity to get some more. If they work fine with 120 film, I'll have to buy one for home use.

    Ian A(ctually!)

    [​IMG]
     
  10. SiFowler

    SiFowler Well-Known Member

    Well Ian, it's been a couple of months now. What do you think of the Canon scanner? I'm tempted myself, but wonna know more!

    If you got one, is it any good with 35mm as well as 120?



    <font color=red> Simon </font color=red> /img/wwwthreads/wink.gif
    <font color=blue> Be pesimistic, then life is full of surprises!</font color=blue>
     
  11. Ian_A

    Ian_A Well-Known Member

    >What do you think of the Canon scanner?

    Well - it's nice and fast (unless you leave 'FARE' enabled when scanning prints), and gives sharp clear results - much better than with HP and Epson scanners I've used in the past. Build quality is good. It took some installing on Windows 2000 - I think the problem was to do with USB drivers.</p>

    Because I don't have a decent inkjet printer readily available, I've not bothered doing much fim scanning - so far I've only scanned a few 35mm transparencies, and 1 120 negative! It wouldn't let me scan the 120 neg above 800dpi, claiming lack of memory (only 256Mb on the PC it's attached to). Probably the best thing is if I do some serious testing tomorrow & post some results over the weekend.</p>

    Ian A(ctually!)

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page