See my response to David, but yes I'm beginning to like the first one the most, though I had originally envisioned the more contrasty versions seen in #2 and #3.
The #3 was shot using my 5D and my 17-40 lens. I did the post processing in PS Camera Raw, playing with the settings to make the contrasty image.
It's been a long time since I calibrated my monitor, but I doubt it's diverged too much, so yes I suspect we may be looking at very similar renditions.
I'm using a Imacon Precision II. It's max optical resolution for 4x5" is 2040 dpi, which is what I scanned these at. At that resolution it still produces a massive 83 megapixel scan.
Any comments on the subject matter? Boring? Interesting?
Oh one other thing, the development time on these images was about the same, taking into account the long exposure time and temperature differences of my chemicals when I processed them both, there was probably a 15-30 second difference in development time. Since we're talking about a ~10 minute development time (ID-11/D76 1:1 dilution), 15-30 seconds isn't a huge difference.
I thought about getting a v750 pro but opted for the imacon. I probably shouldn't have purchased the imacon in retrospect, perhaps more than I really need, but I'm happy with it. The artixscan M1 or whatever the brand was called looked very appealing as well, but release delays and my haste lead me to the imacon. I really wish I could do a wet scan with the imacon, supposively there is a way, but doing so on the flatbed scanners is infinitely easier and safer.
jason
--
http://walkaboutgalleries.com/
http://pbase.com/jgsampso