I’ve missed this camera…

…which is silly, really.

It’s nearly 10 years old, and has no IBIS.  It really only goes to ISO 2000, and the whole mechanism is just so dang infuriating.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m no “sensor zealot…” But nothing really makes me as happy out-of-camera besides film.  (And believe me, I have tried lol).

I wonder how long this ‘ole piece of junk will last…

The Great Preset Test

Very excited to be able to bring these to you today (forgot we even did them…)

One of these is actual Ilford HP5+, and the other is VSCO’s idea of what HP5+ should look like…adjusted by me to actually look like Ilford HP5+.


Can you pick them out?

Which one do you prefer?

One was taken on the X-H1 with 35mm f/1.4 lens (53mm equivalent) the other on the M6 with Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 lens, and subsequently adjusted for equivalent FOV.  The only thing I can’t tell you is the aperture used in each case (as I wasn’t actually paying attention…) but I think it was similar.

In any case, one was certainly a lot easier than the other…


Well, I swore I was just going to do my TEN. BEST.

The photo had to grab me…or I wouldn’t mark it.

Then I had like 50 by the time I went through the catalog.

So I compromised, and thought “Ten film, Ten digital…”

And then I just gave up.

So in no particular order, here are about 35 photos that I can’t narrow down.

(…And I haven’t even touched medium format yet).


Plenty to be grateful for this year…I hope you enjoy.

(Oh and 21-14 in case you’re counting…)


A Different Sort of Portrait

I need to be honest with you:


I really want a Fuji GFX.

Like reeeeeeeeeeeeely.

With that 110/2 lens…Oy vey!

It is closer (price wise) to any possible version of reality than a recent Phase or Hasselblad digital MF camera or back.

There is only one problem:

It is not “really” Medium Format.


(okay, two problems…)

(2) Other than the stunning portraiture done by dudes like Jonas Rask (the guy is amazing…you should seriously check him out) anything I read online can’t seem to elicit a notable difference between the GFX50s, and the likes of a Sony A7Rii, Nikon D850, or possibly even D810.

Unless, of course, you print large.  (Like MASSIVE).

Which I don’t.

…Which brings me to the photo above.

It was taken with a Frankensteinian (is that even a word?) beast of a camera: A7Rii, with Nikon-mount “dumb” adapter, and Sigma 50 ART lens.  Manual focus, and nothing but a rough guess at aperture;

The image was then cropped, and further Frankensteinified.

And it sort of works.  (For me anyway…I mean, it’s not perfect)  Which kind of makes me think that I probably don’t neeeeeeeed a Fuji GFX.


But I still want one.




(And don’t you come at me with your “X1D” nonsense…I am OUT!!)

Noritsu vs Pakon – FIGHT!

While I ready Roll #2 for your enjoyment, I thought I would post these here for your perusal.

This is a quick comparison of the native output from the Noritsu LS-600 and the Pakon F135+ at equivalent resolution.  These are straight off each scanner.  The Pakon is outputting at its highest resolution (3000 x 2000) while this value represents the mid-level for the Noritsu.

Noritsu file first, with Pakon following…

Colour correction appears fairly similar.

Aside from minor differences in framing and white balance, the files appear fairly similar at first glance.  One hundred percent crops below–Noritsu at left, Pakon on the right

On closer inspection the Noritsu appears to output more grain (and grain-level sharpness) with the Pakon rendering a “smoother” file.  Despite equivalent resolutions, there also appears to be more detail preserved.  (This may, in part, be due to the ability to fine-tune scanner focus on the Noritsu).  Furthermore, the Noritsu tends toward a “greener” file, with the Pakon rendering slightly more toward the warmer/violet side.

Noritsu above, with Pakon below:

Again, comparison below; Noritsu at left.

And finally:

Noritsu above, with Pakon below:

100% Crops; Noritsu at left:

Do I have a preference?

Well, I certainly wouldn’t get rid of either, but the high resolution of the Noritsu sure is nice…



So, about that new thing I tried…


This is my first (and absolute VERY LAST) attempt at scanning film with a DSLR.

Knowing full well that a scanner is “just” a digital imaging system, I decided I would get on board with the “much ballyhooed” (LOL, Peter’s term, not mine…) DSLR scanning of film negatives.

I patiently assembled everything I needed from Flea-Bay, B&H, and the four corners of Middle Earth…


  • The Nikon PK-13 Macro Tube,
  • The Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Macro lens, and
  • The all-important Nikon ES-1 slide copying adapter

and dutifully read every tutorial while I patiently waited for it all to arrive.

That fateful day came yesterday, and I finally managed to assemble the unholy setup, crank it onto my D810, adjust the framing, fine-tune the exposure, and “scan” my first photo…

And it SUCKED.

To begin with, the process itself is EXTREMELY fiddly.

More importantly (while it is possible I am just being overly dramatic here…) the file honestly looks exactly like a digital photo, of a film image.

I can’t quite put my finger on it, but–despite the huge increase in resolution–the file loses something that a dedicated film scanner seems to preserve.

(And DO NOT even get me started on the dust and specks!!)

(…and yes I used compressed air).


Anyone want to buy a super-cheap Nikon macro setup?

Sorry gang…I am not a convert.