Pentax 67II vs. 645

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Yes. The upper glass (towards the light) is anti-Newton glass and can
touch
the film without problem. The lower glass (towards the lens) is plain
glass.
The emulsion side goes down, and the unevenness of the emulsion is
supposed
to break up Newton's rings. It doesn't for clear blue skies and other
similarly smooth areas, so most of the time you need to hold the film
off
the lower glass with a mask.


Seems somewhat pointless then...

Unlike the standard carrier, it's actually possible to get the film flat.


But not without introducing a problem of its own. I understand the problem
isn't present all the time, but for $200+, well, it's not encouraging, is
it.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:
Unlike the standard carrier, it's actually possible to get the film
flat.

But not without introducing a problem of its own. I understand the
problem isn't present all the time, but for $200+, well, it's not
encouraging, is it.

That's what I was thinking. I've been on the verge of buying this
glass holder for over a week now, but something is holding me back.
I'm also thinking that for an extra $200+ that there should be any
issues at all.

--
"I ain't evil, I'm just good lookin'..."

"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Yes. The upper glass (towards the light) is anti-Newton glass and can
touch
the film without problem. The lower glass (towards the lens) is plain
glass.
The emulsion side goes down, and the unevenness of the emulsion is
supposed
to break up Newton's rings. It doesn't for clear blue skies and other
similarly smooth areas, so most of the time you need to hold the film
off
the lower glass with a mask.


Seems somewhat pointless then...

Unlike the standard carrier, it's actually possible to get the film flat.


But not without introducing a problem of its own. I understand the
problem
isn't present all the time, but for $200+, well, it's not encouraging, is
it.

And what problem would that be?

The experience here is that with a bit of work, it is actually possible to
get film critically flat with the glass carrier and to get good scans. The
larger the film the harder it is (6x17 is nearly impossible to hold flat,
645 is essentially always possible), but it is possible.

The wet-mounting carrier will provide slightly better contrast/slightly
lower grain, but at the cost of toxic fumes in your lungs and scanner.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

And what problem would that be?

The experience here is that with a bit of work, it is actually possible to
get film critically flat with the glass carrier and to get good scans. The
larger the film the harder it is (6x17 is nearly impossible to hold flat,
645 is essentially always possible), but it is possible.

Still, with the technology, there should be an easier way to hold the film,
without the use of masks, and endless trial and error scans, to produce a
print.

"Robert C." wrote:
And what problem would that be?

The experience here is that with a bit of work, it is actually possible
to get film critically flat with the glass carrier and to get good scans.
The larger the film the harder it is (6x17 is nearly impossible to hold
flat, 645 is essentially always possible), but it is possible.

Still, with the technology, there should be an easier way to hold the
film, without the use of masks, and endless trial and error scans, to
produce a print.

Pressing the film onto a mask with the anti-newton glass is the best one is
going to be able to do, short of using wet mounting, for anything other than
the rare frame that doesn't produce Newton's rings.

Trial scans are never needed: one just measures the focus distance at a few
points across the film. If the range of focus distances is less than one's
requirements (which one determines by making test scans of a small crop at
various focus offsets) you are home free with the scanner manually set to
the middle of the measured range, and if the range is larger, you reload the
film. With the film curling up in the holder, the top glass will usually
bring it flat except for perversely curled film, which you can leave pressed
flat overnight. I seriously doubt that the Imacons can hold a perversely
curled frame any flatter than the Nikon.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Robert C. wrote:
And what problem would that be?

The experience here is that with a bit of work, it is actually possible to
get film critically flat with the glass carrier and to get good scans. The
larger the film the harder it is (6x17 is nearly impossible to hold flat,
645 is essentially always possible), but it is possible.

Still, with the technology, there should be an easier way to hold the film,
without the use of masks, and endless trial and error scans, to produce a
print.


Yes, the essential non-existance of development on keeping 6x17 or even
6x12 flat is puzzling. Maybe right now is not the right time...

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Yes. The upper glass (towards the light) is anti-Newton glass and
can
touch
the film without problem. The lower glass (towards the lens) is
plain
glass.
The emulsion side goes down, and the unevenness of the emulsion is
supposed
to break up Newton's rings. It doesn't for clear blue skies and
other
similarly smooth areas, so most of the time you need to hold the
film
off
the lower glass with a mask.


Seems somewhat pointless then...

Unlike the standard carrier, it's actually possible to get the film
flat.


But not without introducing a problem of its own. I understand the
problem
isn't present all the time, but for $200+, well, it's not encouraging,
is
it.

And what problem would that be?


You know, the newton rings you brought up on 10/11/05 in this thread--you're
like that fish Dory in Finding Nemo... ;-)

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Yes. The upper glass (towards the light) is anti-Newton glass and
can
touch
the film without problem. The lower glass (towards the lens) is
plain
glass.
The emulsion side goes down, and the unevenness of the emulsion is
supposed
to break up Newton's rings. It doesn't for clear blue skies and
other
similarly smooth areas, so most of the time you need to hold the
film
off
the lower glass with a mask.


Seems somewhat pointless then...

Unlike the standard carrier, it's actually possible to get the film
flat.


But not without introducing a problem of its own. I understand the
problem
isn't present all the time, but for $200+, well, it's not encouraging,
is
it.

And what problem would that be?


You know, the newton rings you brought up on 10/11/05 in this
thread--you're
like that fish Dory in Finding Nemo... ;-)

I don't know what "Finding Nemo" is, but I know Newton's rings aren't a
problem with a mask.

It's a hassle, but it works...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...


And what problem would that be?


You know, the newton rings you brought up on 10/11/05 in this
thread--you're
like that fish Dory in Finding Nemo... ;-)

I don't know what "Finding Nemo" is, but I know Newton's rings aren't a
problem with a mask.

It's a hassle, but it works...

I am considering one, as film flatness can be a real hassle as well--I'd
just like the $200 solution to not have hassles all its own.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
. ..
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...


And what problem would that be?


You know, the newton rings you brought up on 10/11/05 in this
thread--you're
like that fish Dory in Finding Nemo... ;-)

I don't know what "Finding Nemo" is, but I know Newton's rings aren't a
problem with a mask.

It's a hassle, but it works...

I am considering one, as film flatness can be a real hassle as well--I'd
just like the $200 solution to not have hassles all its own.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com


I agree; $200 should buy a hassle-free solution.

~Robert C.