Advice for finding discontinued film

I saw some Centuria on sale at Hunts Photo and Video when I was in
there yesterday. While they don't list it on their website, you
may wish to give them a call at 800-221-1830.

That's great, thanks! I will definitely look into that.

On Oct 5, 9:04 pm, HeroOfSpielburg wrote:
Hello,

I'm particularly fond of Konica Minolta Centuria Super NH, a big part
of it may be that I have a DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II and the two go
together so well. Unfortunately, since Konica Minolta is out of the
film business, I've been having a hard time finding left over stock. I
did a little nosing around on Google and found some that seems to be
for sale from the site PhotoSuperia.com. However, the site's English
is a little dodgy and like a lot of photographic supply vendors owned
by some other holding firm with a physical address in Brooklyn
(maybe).

I've never bought anything from a photography speciality site before,
and I was just wondering if in general these places are fairly
reputable, or often sham businesses and risky to give a CC# to. If
there's any other place someone can recommend for finding discontinued
film in bulk, I'd be very much obliged!

Thank you for the advice!

Advice:

Forget about it. Fuji and Kodak make better films...


Another ****ing moron....

Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:56 pm, Toni Nikkanen wrote:
Annika1980 writes:
I'm particularly fond of Konica Minolta Centuria Super NH, a big part
of it may be that I have a DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II and the two go
together so well.
Why would it be any different from any other film?
What kind of question is that? All films are different, and if you
happen to like one particular kind it's only natural to want more of
it.

My question concerned his statement that the scanner performs well
with that particular film ("the two go together so well"). Why would
it perform well with that film and not Reala? There is a popular
thought that some films scan better than others, but I've never heard
a case of one scanner preferring a certain type of film. It might
also be interesting to know what software he is using to scan with.

Some films have grain structures that "grain alias" with the sampling
interval of the scanner. I seem to remember that scanning Kodak
Elitechrome was sometimes hard on the 5400 (though not on the older Scan
Dual at lower res).

One of the E100 series (GX?) was also harder than E100G on the 5400.

Portra 160NC was one of the easiest negatives in terms of color rendition.

.... they're all different...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne writes:

Some films have grain structures that "grain alias" with the sampling
interval of the scanner. I seem to remember that scanning Kodak
Elitechrome was sometimes hard on the 5400 (though not on the older
Scan Dual at lower res).

EliteChrome 100 was OK grain-wise on the 5400 II (though I dislike the
colour) but EliteColor 200 colour negative (or was it UltraColor? Hard
to remember) was the schoolbook example of grain aliasing. Happily GEM
took care of it, though with some softness.

On Oct 9, 9:39 am, Annika1980 wrote:
There is a popular
thought that some films scan better than others, but I've never heard
a case of one scanner preferring a certain type of film. It might
also be interesting to know what software he is using to scan with.

I would agree with the "popular thought" and comments here - film
scanners have their own light/sensor colour response curve, and of
course sensor resolution, optics and aliasing characteristics vary
also. Those all interact differently with different films, and
sometimes you just get horrid results no matter what you do, or
gorgeous results that you would swear were impossible for that scanner
to achieve.

I've worked with a number of scanners, inc:
Olympus 1770 ppi (low res, but gorgeous colour)
Canon 4000 ppi (very noisy, not very good dynamic range, but most
neutral colours and good resolution)
Nikon 4000 ppi (ok dynamic range, but ridiculously shallow d-o-f (it
was the led type), but good colours and resolution)
Acer/Benq 2700 ppi (surprisingly good dynamic range and optics, but
some films aliased terribly, and others just would *not* give good
colour balance)

And yes, I experimented (and wasted far too much of my life!) with
both the manufacturer supplied drivers, and Ed Hamrick's excellent but
quirky Vuescan. I'm over film scanning.

But one day I'll run into someone who owns this one:
http://www.icg.ltd.uk/products/drum-scanner-p-47.htm
... and I'll just borrow it for a few days.. (O;

On 2007-10-10 02:14:10 -0700, said:

On Oct 9, 9:39 am, Annika1980 wrote:
There is a popular
thought that some films scan better than others, but I've never heard
a case of one scanner preferring a certain type of film. It might
also be interesting to know what software he is using to scan with.

I would agree with the "popular thought" and comments here - film
scanners have their own light/sensor colour response curve, and of
course sensor resolution, optics and aliasing characteristics vary
also. Those all interact differently with different films, and
sometimes you just get horrid results no matter what you do, or
gorgeous results that you would swear were impossible for that scanner
to achieve.

I've worked with a number of scanners, inc:
Olympus 1770 ppi (low res, but gorgeous colour)
Canon 4000 ppi (very noisy, not very good dynamic range, but most
neutral colours and good resolution)
Nikon 4000 ppi (ok dynamic range, but ridiculously shallow d-o-f (it
was the led type), but good colours and resolution)
Acer/Benq 2700 ppi (surprisingly good dynamic range and optics, but
some films aliased terribly, and others just would *not* give good
colour balance)

And yes, I experimented (and wasted far too much of my life!) with
both the manufacturer supplied drivers, and Ed Hamrick's excellent but
quirky Vuescan. I'm over film scanning.

But one day I'll run into someone who owns this one:
http://www.icg.ltd.uk/products/drum-scanner-p-47.htm
.. and I'll just borrow it for a few days.. (O;

I cut my teeth on Crosfield, Hell, and DS drum scanners. Crosfield was
bought by Fuji, who I think makes only flatbeds now, but they should be
very good ones (their early attempts were pretty decent). Hell was
bought by Heidelberg, and I once had a Linotype-Heidelberg-Hell Jade II
desktop-size flatbed that was a great performer. It was SCSI-only, but
had extremely even definition and color accuracy over its entire 8.5
in. by 14 in. live area. Dainippon Screen made a sweet drum scanner and
they still do AFAIK; may be Screen USA now. Who can keep up?
--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic

"sheepdog 2007" wrote in message
news:2007101005402616807%barking@mailmannet...
On 2007-10-10 02:14:10 -0700, said:

On Oct 9, 9:39 am, Annika1980 wrote:
There is a popular
thought that some films scan better than others, but I've never heard
a case of one scanner preferring a certain type of film. It might
also be interesting to know what software he is using to scan with.


It is more likely the case that the operator has become familiar with the
scanner's response and learned to make the necessary corrections and
Photoshop "fixes" for one particular type of film, so he/she is
uncomfortable when scanning other types.

On 2007-10-10 09:24:19 -0700, "William Graham" said:


"sheepdog 2007" wrote in message
news:2007101005402616807%barking@mailmannet...
On 2007-10-10 02:14:10 -0700, said:

On Oct 9, 9:39 am, Annika1980 wrote:
There is a popular
thought that some films scan better than others, but I've never heard
a case of one scanner preferring a certain type of film. It might
also be interesting to know what software he is using to scan with.


It is more likely the case that the operator has become familiar with
the scanner's response and learned to make the necessary corrections
and Photoshop "fixes" for one particular type of film, so he/she is
uncomfortable when scanning other types.

I think your comment is ir\right on the money, but the way you edited
the post makes it look like I said part of what you quoted, when in
fact you snipped the entirety of my response.
--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic

"sheepdog 2007" wrote in message
news:2007101011154416807%barking@mailmannet...
On 2007-10-10 09:24:19 -0700, "William Graham" said:


"sheepdog 2007" wrote in message
news:2007101005402616807%barking@mailmannet...
On 2007-10-10 02:14:10 -0700, said:

On Oct 9, 9:39 am, Annika1980 wrote:
There is a popular
thought that some films scan better than others, but I've never heard
a case of one scanner preferring a certain type of film. It might
also be interesting to know what software he is using to scan with.


It is more likely the case that the operator has become familiar with the
scanner's response and learned to make the necessary corrections and
Photoshop "fixes" for one particular type of film, so he/she is
uncomfortable when scanning other types.

I think your comment is ir\right on the money, but the way you edited the
post makes it look like I said part of what you quoted, when in fact you
snipped the entirety of my response.

Sorry.....I was just jumping in on a discussion that I haven't been properly
following from the beginning, so it is quite reasonable that I seem to be
confused.....(I am confused most of the time, anyway....:^)

On 2007-10-10 13:04:00 -0700, "William Graham" said:


"sheepdog 2007" wrote in message
news:2007101011154416807%barking@mailmannet...
On 2007-10-10 09:24:19 -0700, "William Graham" said:


"sheepdog 2007" wrote in message
news:2007101005402616807%barking@mailmannet...
On 2007-10-10 02:14:10 -0700, said:

On Oct 9, 9:39 am, Annika1980 wrote:
There is a popular
thought that some films scan better than others, but I've never heard
a case of one scanner preferring a certain type of film. It might
also be interesting to know what software he is using to scan with.


It is more likely the case that the operator has become familiar with
the scanner's response and learned to make the necessary corrections
and Photoshop "fixes" for one particular type of film, so he/she is
uncomfortable when scanning other types.

I think your comment is ir\right on the money, but the way you edited
the post makes it look like I said part of what you quoted, when in
fact you snipped the entirety of my response.

Sorry.....I was just jumping in on a discussion that I haven't been
properly following from the beginning, so it is quite reasonable that I
seem to be confused.....(I am confused most of the time, anyway....:^)

No problem, and no great loss. Here it is about eight hours after I
posted my musings drum scanners, and I doubt anyone who read them
remembers any of what I wrote. Properly snipped, then. I was only
saying it was weird seeing the attribution without the quote.
--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic