-
Im gonna look into going halves with someone as I think it might be useful to have in the future.
Thank you, much appreciated :-) Nearly all of the previous posts are 35mm then scanned using the epson 750 flatbeds which I hated (they only just got the v850's in) then using photoshop and then sizing down to 10mb. I only just got granted access to the FT and am currently in the process of archiving the majority of my negatives so some will be reposted. The most recent 120 shots posted are scanned with the FT and I don't seem to see anything wrong with them? can you point out any that you have noticed in particular?
I can see a few 35mm posts already that are pretty badly scanned/edited and will be going through the posts checking and deleting them. This one is 35mm and scanned on the FT so when I look back through the quality of the others you can really tell how bad they are :-(
BigH-
Yea, some of the 35mm ones are quite rough (quite possibly due to bad scanning with the flatbeds), but I was referring to the last one on your tumblr, which, for some reason, I assumed was shot with the Mamiya - and made me wonder why image quality isn't better.
Sorry for the confusion. For 35mm (and especially for 35mm black&white film) scanned with a 750 it's pretty good.
salad
If it really has been stored in a cool enviroment the whole time it probably doesn't matter much, though high-ISO film is generally more sensible I think.
Personally I wouldn't risk buying 30 rolls of the stuff.
By the way I like the last post on your tumblr a lot, just do not get why you make the effort of shooting medium format, and then not scanning properly (you have access to a Flextight you said??)..
Cheers.