[dB Cooper]

UPDATE: 


I checked the settings against my Full Frame Digital camera, and the Nikkormat is only 1 stop different! In the same box as the old camera is a light meter. Guess I'm gonna drag that out... oh and another lens. 
Thanks and best regards.

IIRC there are particular silver batteries purpose-designed to replace the mercury cells, which put out a different voltage which throws the meter off. Sounds like this may be happening. You can either: Change the ASA setting on the internal meter (I find this confusing ), use the external meter exclusively, or use the specific mercury substitute battery. Some test shots should tell you what you need to know.

This thing should produce nice crisp images for you. Great find.

[Randy]

I carried one of those around for several months when I could in Viet Nam, 1970. It had many close encounters with dirt, mud, and rain and wasn't fazed a bit. The Asian version which I had was called Nikkomat. It was the spiffy all black version. They were built like tanks. One day back here in the states I had it on a tripod that somehow fell over backwards onto concrete. It got dented a bit but still worked as good as ever.

[bside123]

Just started using the ol' 35mm Film Camera. Here's a couple of portraits taken with the Nikkormat from the first roll of Kodak TRI-X B&W Film. Soon, I'll have a film scanner and the resolution will be better. I had these digitized along with their development at the camera shop, and I'm not quite satisfied with the resolution (dpi). Nonetheless, film has a different look. Very analog, very intriguing, and I'm looking forward to dialing it in.

** See new post below.

[SET Man]

Hey!

    Well, those are good starts for first test roll from camera that age and have been sitting around for years. Very nice Yeah, the lab's scan usually not great. Resolution a side, the handling of high light is not great there. Than again it is hard to tell without seeing how the negative it like.

  It does feel different taking picture with film doesn't it? I know that you started out with film so I don't think you would have much of a problem getting back to it. I could see younger photographer who never shoot with film before going crazy without the "instant gratification" of digital.

   It takes different mentality shooting film than digital. I still like to shoot with "film mentality" even when using digital camera, focus on the picture, the subject and the moment more than keep peeking at the LCD screen after every shot like most people.

  Anyway, which scanner did you get? Keep us posted, would love to see them from the new scanner.

Take care,
Buddy

[thunderbrick]

Know a guy who won an Emmy for his wildlife documentaries.  His take on digital?

"Pixels don't sing like silver!"

There's just sumpin' right about analog images.   

[bside123]

Hi Buddy,

I ordered an Epson V700 from B&H. It arrived today, so we'll see what dilemmas will happen next! The two B&W photos that I posted have got some of that film sweetness I like, but do to the resolution and highlight issues you mentioned, they're not "all the way there" as of yet. It will be very interesting to see the negatives and future negatives and slides, as I can control the scan with the V700. Wish me good luck on set-up. Off to my next techmology adventure!

[Randy]

Know a guy who won an Emmy for his wildlife documentaries.  His take on digital?

"Pixels don't sing like silver!"

There's just sumpin' right about analog images.   

Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you scan a photo and post it on a website the image is no longer analog. It's digital.

[thunderbrick]

OK, you're wrong!   

I have no experience with scanning, but I'd guess a quality scan will retain much of the film "look" that so many of us miss.

[bside123]

Okay Gang,

Here are the same shots using the Epson V700 scanner. Settings: 35mm, B&W, 4800 dpi, 16bit greyscale, developed in Lightroom 5. They're starting to look like photographs...

Big difference!

BEFORE

Before Scan


AFTER

Layton

BEFORE

Before Scan

AFTER

Ricky Old School

[Photon46]

I'm lucky enough to have a Heidelberg iQsmart3 scanner at work I use to scan film. The prints I can get scanning 4x5 films and then digitally printing on an Epson 7900 are stunning, much nicer than anything I could ever get in the wet darkroom. Like most ex-film guys, I can't ever imagine going back to wet darkroom enlarging. Scan film and then digitally print, the best of both worlds! As to a scanned film that's digitally printed  no longer being "analog," all I can say is keep an open mind and look at well done prints made this way. The visual character of the film is definitely retained, you're not going to mistake it for a digital image capture. I used pyro developer for the last ten years of my film work and the enhanced edge definition that is a hallmark of that developer is very readily apparent in digital prints.

[bside123]

Before & After Photos Added. ^^^

[Photon46]

Here's an example of scanned 4"x5" Ilford HP5+ developed in pyro. Shot in Utah near Capitol Reef at dusk with a long exposure. The detail is @ 100%, scanned at 2600 d.p.i.

[SET Man]

Hi Buddy,

I ordered an Epson V700 from B&H. It arrived today, so we'll see what dilemmas will happen next! The two B&W photos that I posted have got some of that film sweetness I like, but do to the resolution and highlight issues you mentioned, they're not "all the way there" as of yet. It will be very interesting to see the negatives and future negatives and slides, as I can control the scan with the V700. Wish me good luck on set-up. Off to my next techmology adventure!

Hey!

      Congratulation on the new scanner. That probably the best consumer flatbed scanner out there. The price is high but you do get what you paid for on this one. Unfortunately it a bit high for me right now so I have the cheaper V550... I wish it can do 4X5 like the V700. 

     Anyway, the result is looking good there for sure with better scanner like the Epson. The handling of highlight is now much better. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you scan a photo and post it on a website the image is no longer analog. It's digital.

   Yes and no. The final is digital but if the scan resolution is good or more than enough and the printing is fine enough than it will capture all the film's subtlety and feel. 

I'm lucky enough to have a Heidelberg iQsmart3 scanner at work I use to scan film. The prints I can get scanning 4x5 films and then digitally printing on an Epson 7900 are stunning, much nicer than anything I could ever get in the wet darkroom. Like most ex-film guys, I can't ever imagine going back to wet darkroom enlarging. Scan film and then digitally print, the best of both worlds! As to a scanned film that's digitally printed  no longer being "analog," all I can say is keep an open mind and look at well done prints made this way. The visual character of the film is definitely retained, you're not going to mistake it for a digital image capture. I used pyro developer for the last ten years of my film work and the enhanced edge definition that is a hallmark of that developer is very readily apparent in digital prints.

   Well, lucky you. 

    Yes, I totally agreed with you on the "analog" feel from film even from digital final. And I have to agreed on the hybrid work flow also with film scan. Even with my cheap Epson V550 I feel that I can pull out more details in both highlight and in shadow than I think I could with doing it in the darkroom, especially with double-pass scanning.

   As for not going back to wet darkroom? I'll be honest, I would love to get my hand wet in those trays again! (I'm just saying of course, I do my best not to get my hands wet with chemicals in darkroom)

     I missed that I have to say, the magic moment when the image start to appear on the paper in the tray. I don't know but this is just me I guess.

Take care,
Buddy

[Photon46]

I tell you what I DO miss in the darkroom Buddy; seeing a beautiful platinum or palladium print expose & develop. Those have got such wonderful subtle tonality. Digital printing just can't quite nail that look.

[gnuyork]

Nice Bside...I have the V750 and it scans nicely. I still prefer my Minolta for 35mm, but really the Epson is really good too. You can adjust the film holder height to optimize the scans. I had to experiment.

[gnuyork]

I'm lucky enough to have a Heidelberg iQsmart3 scanner at work I use to scan film. The prints I can get scanning 4x5 films and then digitally printing on an Epson 7900 are stunning, much nicer than anything I could ever get in the wet darkroom. Like most ex-film guys, I can't ever imagine going back to wet darkroom enlarging. Scan film and then digitally print, the best of both worlds! As to a scanned film that's digitally printed  no longer being "analog," all I can say is keep an open mind and look at well done prints made this way. The visual character of the film is definitely retained, you're not going to mistake it for a digital image capture. I used pyro developer for the last ten years of my film work and the enhanced edge definition that is a hallmark of that developer is very readily apparent in digital prints.

I agree. I still like well printed darkroom prints. but most of my work is all digital or a film scan/digital print solution now. However I have not had the pleasure of using a drum scanner yet, but my Minolta does quite well for 35mm at 5400 dpi scans. I use the V750 for 4x5 scans. I have made some pretty large prints that are quite respectable.

I have worked with a photographer that does 8x10 Velvia and Astia scans on a drum scanner and prints with lightjet. His prints are phenomenal - best I've seen.