Any of the D40/D60/D3xxx/D5xxx cameras should be safe with pre-AI lenses. These camera bodies don't have any aperture-coupling lug to break.Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Any of the D40/D60/D3xxx/D5xxx cameras should be safe with pre-AI lenses. These camera bodies don't have any aperture-coupling lug to break.
Ari, that is what was stipulated in the OP. It's a personal choice on my part. My reasons for shooting large negatives are that I still like using in-camera negatives and I want large (relatively) contact prints (alt process and otherwise to hang on the wall. A very old-fashioned notion, I know. But that's what I like about photography. There is some wonderful work being done in the hybrid and full-digital realms. It's just not my cup of tea. However, I do want still to be able to share my work without excessive shipping charges. Being able to email a digital image of the finished print is important. And if I ever do anything worth sharing, I'd like to be able to upload an image to the Portraits thread. Plus there's one juried show this spring in my area that demands electronic entries. If you're invited, then you can hang the real print, but the electronic copies are what get you past the gate. Plus I have a small web site which I would like to populate with the work I intend to do. So my question for scanning the print came out of that. I'm not sure why anyone would even consider shooting 14x17 unless they intend to print from the negative. It's just too much work and too much expense. But I'm not trying to question motives, only explain my own.
Oren, thanks for that. I had not seen any sort of aperture-coupling lug and I looked three times!
Will, I know you're right about the contact printing and why one would shoot ULF without making a contact print. I just lack the space for that kind of darkroom.
One day, it may be possible, but for now, I don't have the room. I am eager to try a very large format and see how it goes, if I like it, but I know I won't be able to do justice to the entire process just yet.
And immediately after writing my post, I noticed the word "print" in the thread title.
Equally most higher end and newer Nikons will be damaged by non converted Pre AI lens. Including many Nikon film cameras.
My link to the hated Ken Rockwell site has all that info, he is one of the few to publish it all in one place.
Tin Can
For my mounted and framed (16x13) salt prints I've been hanging them on the wall and shooting them with a Canon G9 attached to a tripod. For lighting I use 2 small Photoflex soft boxes - one to each side. I take 3 shots of each image and pick the best one from the camera's preview and download into the laptop and open with PS CS3 and adjust the brightness, contrast and color (if toned) to match the print. From there I crop-out the wall (I'm learning how to crop) and downsize the image for the web. There's no need to spend thousands on a scanner when a decent (if ancient) point-n-shoot will get you there.
BTW, you don't need a darkroom for POP alternative printing. Just a dimly lit place to coat the paper and to wash and tone it after printing. Exposure is easily (and best) done using sunlight or open shade. All you need is a good contact printing frame and 1 or 2 trays regardless of the size of the negative.
Thomas
Neanderthal that I am, it occurs to me that the perfect should not become the enemy of the good.
Nothing is more irritating to me than sites and photographs that load slowly because the author wants me to see a resolution that is, for me, overkill. I'm interested in the image, I'm willing to forgive technical blips, and give credit that the photographer knows what he's doing, and has made sensible compromises for the web.
Well, watermarks are more irritating, but that's for another thread.
I care about the image.
So I guess that's a vote for the digicam. "Try it, you'll like it."
Bruce Barlow
author of "Finely Focused" and "Exercises in Photographic Composition"
www.brucewbarlow.com
Yes, resolution, meaning pixel dimensions should be appropriate for the viewing device. Even jpg quality settings can be vastly reduced without visible differences when using tiny screens such as phones and tablets.
The file size and pixel dimension rules this site uses are sufficient to grasp an image 'concept'.
Yet, we are all gaining higher resolution 'Retina' quality as we upgrade viewing screen qualities.
What looks OK here and now on this site, in a few years will not on newer devices. 6K monitors will change the game and make all older digitalization look like 1951 TV.
Tin Can
That's fine for silver prints. Alt process stuff isn't the same (IMHO). Spending the time to make an alt image is all lost if all you want to see is a thumbnail sketch of the graphic part of an image. And to convey the tonal qualities on a monitor almost requires more work and software than making the original alt process image.
It's kinda like looking at fine vintage silver prints in the AIC basement with no illumination - which is what you're forced to do by the curators. I won't go there to see a photography exhibit either. And I can't see the value of looking at a tiny representation of what WAS a print that took hours to make.
My opinion anyway.
John
One issue with using a high-res scan or dslr picture of a print for web use is that you have to down size it tremendously for the web. Photoshop doesn't do a very good job of that. My favorite program for that is Resample_by_Percentage_V122.bat by Bart van der Wolf. It's free. See: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/...c=91754.0;wap2 To use it you'd need ImageMagick on your machine. It's also free.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
So you really see a noticeable difference at 750 x 750 pixels and less than whatever it is here? 2.5 KB?
I'll try anything free.
Well maybe not. I feel any software without GUI is simply not ready for me.
I use CL only if absolutely forced to.
I read ImageMagick's offerings.
Last edited by Tin Can; 26-Feb-2015 at 19:49. Reason: GUI
Tin Can
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks