A quiet place

[Minox]

Minox IIIs, Ilford Pan F50, own process.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Nice. Romania?

 

[albada]

Good work! It looks like a larger format than Minox.

 

[Minox]

Nice. Romania?

No, Stephaneum University campus - Piliscaba, Hungary.

 

[Minox]

Good work! It looks like a larger format than Minox.

It does, doesn't it? It's Minox however

 

[Minox]

This is another building in that campus, Minox LX with Konica VX 400 Monochrome.

 

[Anon Ymous]

No, Stephaneum University campus - Piliscaba, Hungary.

Close enough

 

[Minox]

Close enough

Yes, they are close

 

[snusmumriken]

Does ‘Emericanum’ mean this is a burger restaurant?

Very impressive for so small format.

 

[guangong]

Your pics always impressive.
I have a question. How big can you enlarge photos? Many years ago there were one or two Minox users who exhibited huge gallery sized prints. My own attempts are much more modest.

 

[Minox]

Modest are mine, too, I'm afraid. But then again, I was never one for printing larger than A6, I guess.

 

[Huss]

Very nice! Not just in quality but for me to see other parts of the world.

 

[Minox]

I believe that one of the best things the internet added to photography is that we all can now to see parts of the world, where (more than probable) we'll never visit in person.

And this is great !!

 

[Helge]

What are you scanning with? Looks like there is a lot more there than apparent here.

 

[guangong]

Modest are mine, too, I'm afraid. But then again, I was never one for printing larger than A6, I guess.

I prefer smaller prints. My friend Bob Conover made very detailed huge 3 ft. etchings of decaying riverfront docks, etc., and they worked for his style and subject matter, but for myself, I preferred much smaller etchings. Same with photographic prints.
Again, great results from tiny Minox.

 

[Minox]

What are you scanning with? Looks like there is a lot more there than apparent here.

My scanner is about to give up the ghost, but I am still using it. It's an old model, Plustek OpticFilm 7200, with a 8x11 format adapter made by me. I need to get a new one, but I'm still pondering on which one, as I need one to scan 35 and 120 as well ...yes, I know, asking too much

 

[Minox]

I prefer smaller prints. My friend Bob Conover made very detailed huge 3 ft. etchings of decaying riverfront docks, etc., and they worked for his style and subject matter, but for myself, I preferred much smaller etchings. Same with photographic prints.
Again, great results from tiny Minox.

Thank you, Guangong, appreciated ! Can you send me a link to your friend's work, please? Thx!

 

[Helge]

My scanner is about to give up the ghost, but I am still using it. It's an old model, Plustek OpticFilm 7200, with a 8x11 format adapter made by me. I need to get a new one, but I'm still pondering on which one, as I need one to scan 35 and 120 as well ...yes, I know, asking too much

I’d think camera scanning would be the obvious answer for both Minox and 120. And probably 135 too.

 

[Minox]

I’d think camera scanning would be the obvious answer for both Minox and 120. And probably 135 too.

I do agree. I have a digital Nikon D3200 which I guess is good enough, and I need a good lens and the obvious rig and stuff. One of these days

 

[Donald Qualls]

I use an Epson V850, it claims enough resolution to do well with 16 mm and even 8x11 negatives (6400 ppi should give about 5.5 megapixels from Minox negatives). Even if you don't believe that maximum resolution (many don't) you'd get about 1.4+ megapixels at 3200 -- and the same scanner will handle 16 mm (with an adapter), 35 mm, 127 (with an adapter), 120, and 4x5 in holders, plus 8x10 flat on the glass (with Newton rings) or propped up with a simple cardboard or foam core frame. Then again, if you're buying for just Minox, a DSLR or mirrorless with a macro lens and slide duplicator will cost significantly less...

 

[Minox]

The V850 Pro is on the top of my list, but cost wise it's a bit on the steep side, tbh. The pros are that indeed it can handle all the film formats I am interested in. So, yes, it is a good tool for the job, together with the various adapters.

Resolution is something that any Minox or submini user should be aware of, when scanning these tiny negative. Back in the 2000's, the scanners I employed for Minox (and less for 35mm) were Minolta D'Ímage III and Nikon Coolscan LS30. So, yes, true resolution (not interpolated) is best, together with the software ( last I used was Silverfast).

 

[xya]

The V850 Pro is on the top of my list, but cost wise it's a bit on the steep side, tbh. The pros are that indeed it can handle all the film formats I am interested in. So, yes, it is a good tool for the job, together with the various adapters.

AFAIK from V700 to 850 you buy basically the same machine. They changed the light source from fluorescent (7xx) to LED and the X50 claim better coating on the lens, but neither has been confirmed to be better for the results. Flourescent need more time to warm up. They also changed the holders between V7xx and V8xx, both versions have their pros and cons, just look what suits you best. V8xx holders hold less negatives, are said to better for flatness, but add another source to collect dust.

V700 series scanners are much cheaper, so that's why I have a V750 second hand and I'm quite happy with it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The V850 Pro is on the top of my list, but cost wise it's a bit on the steep side, tbh.

The biggest difference from the lower numbered models is, as mentioned above, LED vs. cold cathode light source (no long lamp warmup for every scan run for LED) and the width of the transparency scanning path. The V850 does 8x10 transparencies; IIRC the 750 handles 4x5 and the 650 does 120 at max. I believe all the ones ending in 50 have LED and 6400 ppi (claimed), mine drops to 4800, same as reflective, on 8x10 transparency (seemingly needing to switch to the reflective scan sensor or change lens focal length for the wide path).

For up to 120, any of them with LED light source will be equal -- and the 650 is quite a bit less than the 850. I bought the 850 because I had a windfall and I still hope to eventually be able to shoot 8x10.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

The biggest difference from the lower numbered models is, as mentioned above, LED vs. cold cathode light source (no long lamp warmup for every scan run for LED) and the width of the transparency scanning path. The V850 does 8x10 transparencies; IIRC the 750 handles 4x5 and the 650 does 120 at max. I believe all the ones ending in 50 have LED and 6400 ppi (claimed), mine drops to 4800, same as reflective, on 8x10 transparency (seemingly needing to switch to the reflective scan sensor or change lens focal length for the wide path).

For up to 120, any of them with LED light source will be equal -- and the 650 is quite a bit less than the 850. I bought the 850 because I had a windfall and I still hope to eventually be able to shoot 8x10.

There's a V600, but no V650 AFAIK. The V800 and V850 are indeed 2 different models, but I'm not sure how they differ. The V600 and V800 both have LED light sources.

I started with a V600 and similarly upgraded to a V800 for the 8x10 transparency unit versus the 120 width in the V600. My refurb/open box V800 had some original invoices indicating it came from (defunct?) business in New Zealand. I hate to say it, but my scanner may be more well-traveled than I am.

 

[Donald Qualls]

There's a V600, but no V650 AFAIK. The V800 and V850 are indeed 2 different models, but I'm not sure how they differ.

There was a minor change with the light source, but the 850 might have been designated for the jump to 6400 ppi. I don't recall, I just bought one that would scan 8x10 and 16 mm (with an adapter) at useful file sizes.