Picture(s) of the day

A couple of random pictures from some rolls of film I developed recently. Included in the rolls were pictures from Obama’s Baltimore speech on his train ride to DC. I wasn’t really able to get anything overly notable due to the distance and having only my Sigma 70-210/2.8 with me for a long lens.

However, I did have a couple of neat pictures on the rolls from other things. I am working my way through my first roll of Kodak Ektar, pictures soon(ish)

Sigma 24mm f/2.8, Alleyway Ellicott City

Sigma 24mm f/2.8, Evening sky

New lens

I decided recently to replace my Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 single coated lens with a newer Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 multicoated lens. I wasn’t able to find one with a serial number over 1.1m as those are supposed to be the best, though mine does have a serial number of 1,05x,xxx. I am going to try to compare them over the next few days before I make a decision about selling off the old lens (the likely result unless somehow the old lens proves to be better). I am going to do some testing comparing the two lenses at f/1.4, f/2, f/4 and f/8 using a tripod, mirror lockup, cable release and some sort of test target.

I haven’t been able to find out any information about if the lenses actually had any changes to their optics over the years other then a change in coatings, but I would imagine there was probably some sort of change. Cosmetically the newer multicoated lenses are 4mm longer, though most of it seems to be in the filter mount. The weight is identical. The coatings are actually pretty similar in apperance, though the multicoated lens has a bit of a greenish hue that the single coated lens lacks (hard to tell from the pictures).

Comparison Vivitar 135mm f/3.5

My new Epson 4490 is allowing me to do comparisons between different lenses, films and aperatures. The  following is a test of my Vivitar 135mm f/3.5 T-mount lens. The scans are at 3200dpi. Given some testing I have found that 3200dpi reveals a bit more detail then 2400dpi, but not a huge amount. 3200dpi really is the very edge of what the scanner can competently handle. The scans are deffinitely enough for an 8×12″, but really not any better without some up-resing utility.

The crops were taken from middle right (right most deck latice work). 100% enlargements at 3200dpi

 f/3.5

 f/5.6

 f/8

As you can see at f/3.5 the lens is pretty soft, but at f/5.6 is sharpens up a fair amount and f/8 is just a bit sharper. At f/3.5 the lens is capable of acceptable 5×7, at f/5.6 and above an 8×12 would be acceptable (especially at f/8-f/16). The lens is not super sharp, but for a 3rd party lens that is more then 40 years old it isn’t to bad if you don’t mind stopping down a bit.

New Scanner

I just unpackaged my new Epson 4490 flatbed photo scanner. I had issues installing it on my desktop (hopefully something I can fix). I did manage to get it installed on my wife’s laptop though. When I can get it to work it is really excellent. My only gripe other then not being able to get it to work on my desktop is that the included version of Adobe Elements (2) is rather limited, though it is still nicer then no editing program. I’ll probably give GIMP a try soon to see how good it is. Here is a comparison (small size still) comparing what the ancient Epson flatbed at work can do scanning a print compared to what the 4490 can do scanning the negative with digital ICE (click for larger version). A world of difference? I think so.

 

Epson 4490                                          Work flatbed

Epson 4490

Work flat bed

Something else I have noticed is that the 4490, despite its ‘limited’ dMax of 3.4, does a much better job then the Kodak minilab equipment (at least the stuff from my local Target). Especially the shadow areas. The shadows/highlights from the work flatbed don’t show quite how nice the prints are, since the scan is so crappy, but the 4490 scans do pull a fair amount out of the shadows and a bit more out of the highlights. I am just throwing stuff out there, but I’d say that the 4490 can do maybe a stop better in the shadows and a quarter stop in the highlights from the negative compared to what the prints from the Target minilab.