Film to Digital to Film

[Rob C]

Not sure what you mean by "not seeing a single unit of form", I typically don't even look in the viewfinder of my camera when I shoot the frames of my panos. I look straight at the scene. That will always be a superior experience to me compared to seeing the world through 10 layers of glass.

The only time I use the viewfinder is to check the "corners" of the pano for an accurate framing.  

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard -

I am trying to say that when you see the picture framed in the camera, then you know exactly what its kinetic or, rather, potential energy is all about, the very same kick that the viewer gets when he sees the thing framed.

You can't do that by looking at the scene with just your eyes. They can't frame unless, of course, you have tunnel vision which may explain vignettes.

Rob C

[ErikKaffehr]

Well,

In my view this is a bit about what you are selling and your customer buying. Is he buying an image or a piece of artisan work? The image is not dependent on the means it was achieved. The image couldn't care less about it being cropped or uncropped.

If you take a picture with a flat film panoramic camera you have essentially one rendition, with a rotational panorama you have far more options regarding projection (rectilinear, spherical, cylindrical, Mercator and others) and angle of view. So rotational stitched panoramas give you a lot of artistic options. Now, you may forsake those options, that is an artistic option, like constraining one self to a single lens or black and white.

Another issue is that there may be little technical advantage to using a panorama camera like the X-PAN compared to cropping a 6x7 film image. The size of image will be about the same. The same relation also applies to larger formats, except possibly special wide angle cameras using 120 film.

Best regards
Erik

Not sure what you mean by "not seeing a single unit of form", I typically don't even look in the viewfinder of my camera when I shoot the frames of my panos. I look straight at the scene. That will always be a superior experience to me compared to seeing the world through 10 layers of glass.

The only time I use the viewfinder is to check the "corners" of the pano for an accurate framing.  

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Everyone works differently and I feel there is no right or wrong.

Exactly!

I have been considering for a long time the purchase of a Ebony 617 and would already have one had I had the required cash. Combined with the latest Ektar 100 it appears to be an amazing combo for a high quality film/scanning workflow!

Aren't we incredibly lucky to have all these options made available to us?

Cheers,
Bernard

[aaron]

Exactly!

I have been considering for a long time the purchase of a Ebony 617 and would already have one had I had the required cash. Combined with the latest Ektar 100 it appears to be an amazing combo for a high quality film/scanning workflow!

Aren't we incredibly lucky to have all these options made available to us?

Cheers,
Bernard

The 617 options do sound appealing until you get to the actual scanning stage. The options for scanning are quite limited it appears. You have some older Hasselblad/Imacons which can handle up to 5x7 but the newer ones X1-X5 are limited to 4x5. I know some people scan 617 with the Nikon Scanners in two sections and then join them up in PS but that sounds like trouble.

So that leaves drum scanning if your prepared to let someone else do it for you.

[ejnewman]

The 617 options do sound appealing until you get to the actual scanning stage. The options for scanning are quite limited it appears. You have some older Hasselblad/Imacons which can handle up to 5x7 but the newer ones X1-X5 are limited to 4x5. I know some people scan 617 with the Nikon Scanners in two sections and then join them up in PS but that sounds like trouble.

So that leaves drum scanning if your prepared to let someone else do it for you.

I thought the x1 and x5 could handle 6x17? and the x5 could also handle 6x24? Yes it is a point that I now need to look into, I'm thinking of getting a cheap flatbed to start with, and going with a 617 or 624 used camera system. that way I keep the cost down during a trial period, and if its the way to go I can look at a higher spec scanner, but before all of this can happen I need to make sure I can get a half decent scanner, the x5 is out of my price range, so I was hoping an older flextight would fit the bill but sounds like you just answered that question.

[Anders_HK]

The Epson V700/V750 is an option.

Viewcamera.com had a very good article in the Jan-Fab issue last year, titled High-End Scanning on a Budget, in which they optimized the results from V750, including software update, scanning calibration targets and film holders.

Based on the article, the results were much improved.

Regards
Anders

[BernardLanguillier]

The 617 options do sound appealing until you get to the actual scanning stage. The options for scanning are quite limited it appears. You have some older Hasselblad/Imacons which can handle up to 5x7 but the newer ones X1-X5 are limited to 4x5. I know some people scan 617 with the Nikon Scanners in two sections and then join them up in PS but that sounds like trouble.

So that leaves drum scanning if your prepared to let someone else do it for you.

My Imacon Precision III handles that just fine.

Cheers,
Bernard

[sojournerphoto]

Exactly!

I have been considering for a long time the purchase of a Ebony 617 and would already have one had I had the required cash. Combined with the latest Ektar 100 it appears to be an amazing combo for a high quality film/scanning workflow!

Aren't we incredibly lucky to have all these options made available to us?

Cheers,
Bernard

Scanned 120 Ektar 100 offers excellent quality when compared to a 1Ds3 for example. I prepared a couple of test prints the other night Mamiya 7ii with 80mm lens against 1Ds3 with Zeiss 35/2 biogon focused with live view and both on the same tripod. At a print of 22 inches high the Mamiya frame clearly shows more detail and sharpness than the 1Ds3 frame. Without the comparator you'd likely be happy with the 1Ds3 output though.

I think my Nikon 9000 will scan 6 by 17, and I have to admit I've been considering a 617 camera to add to the kit. If you are shooting low volume and are happy with/enjoy the film workflow it still has alot to offer.

Mike

[aaron]

I thought the x1 and x5 could handle 6x17? and the x5 could also handle 6x24? Yes it is a point that I now need to look into, I'm thinking of getting a cheap flatbed to start with, and going with a 617 or 624 used camera system. that way I keep the cost down during a trial period, and if its the way to go I can look at a higher spec scanner, but before all of this can happen I need to make sure I can get a half decent scanner, the x5 is out of my price range, so I was hoping an older flextight would fit the bill but sounds like you just answered that question.

Actually, I better correct myself as i may have mislead you the X5. I had asked a Hasselblad rep if it would scan 5x7 and was informed that the max was 4x5. While that is correct in one way, it appears that the limitation is only on the widt of the film -100mm (4inch) but it can scan 100mm x 245mm, so could in fact cover the 6 x 24 format even.

Now if only the price was incorrect too

[ejnewman]

I cannot seem to be able to find a film scanner that does 6x24 other than the x5, which is out of my budget, but seems there are many more options for 6x17 film scanners such as used Imacons that could potentially fit my budget.

Does anybody know of a film scanner other that the x5 that can do 6x24? I don't want to have to scan twice and stitch.

If there is no option then it boils down to either 6x17 + film scanner, or 6x24 + flatbed scanner. I like the wider format of 624, but am worried about the quality I would be able to get from a flatbed.

[sojournerphoto]

I cannot seem to be able to find a film scanner that does 6x24 other than the x5, which is out of my budget, but seems there are many more options for 6x17 film scanners such as used Imacons that could potentially fit my budget.

Does anybody know of a film scanner other that the x5 that can do 6x24? I don't want to have to scan twice and stitch.

If there is no option then it boils down to either 6x17 + film scanner, or 6x24 + flatbed scanner. I like the wider format of 624, but am worried about the quality I would be able to get from a flatbed.

I don't think there's a film scanner below the Flextight that can do 6 by 24 in one pass. The Nikon can do in two passes and stitch with the rotating glass holder I think and the Epson v750 in one pass, but you may end up wet scanning everything to try an get near to the nikon in quality. Even then I'm not sure it matches up - I have both and use the epson for preview and quick small scans.

Mike

[DanielStone]

to be quite frank:

1. Pony up to get quality scans made. This means DRUM SCANS. If you're going to the trouble to shoot 6x17 rather than taking your DSLR out and stitching at home on the PC while sipping a latte, IMO, its worth it to shell out the dough. ESPECIALLY if you're intending on selling prints.
2. Find a lab that allows you to work with the scanner operator to edit before the final scan is done. This allows you more control, and less post-work in the end, starting with a color-corrected, and density adjusted scan allows your 1. more time in the field to shoot more photographs, and 2. more time to photograph. Plain and simple. Less time in front of the computer moving sliders and going clickity-clack(if that's your thing, I'm sorry), and more field time. This is what most photographers want I'm sure of.
3. Shoot less, and compose carefully. I've found that shooting 6x24 through my friends camera helps to "zen" my thought-process and if I feel that I'm not happy with a photograph the way its panning(no pun intended  ) out in front of me, I'll either return at a later date(or another time), and re-approach it with fresh eyes. Generally not however. Personally, I've only found myself shooting about 25% of the amount I shot last year, primarily because I'm becoming more 'choosy' of my photographs. I don't want to waste time or energy photographing something that doesn't move me, emotionally or morally. And I don't want to spend the little amount of $$$ I can dedicate to my craft(even though I'm still in school, photo major actually) to photographs I never want to print.

I'm sorry if I have come across as being offensive or brash, and if you have plenty of $$$ to throw at a 6x17 or 6x24 setup, but I don't think you do(as per your previous posts). I'm just trying to help you from going down the "I MIGHT want this down the road" type of mentality. This type of thinking is dangerous, and very expensive in the long run. Use what you have, to the best of your ability, and the tools that help to bring your vision out as faithfully as possible.

definitely get drum scans, its cheaper than having to go back out into the field, re-compose, re-meter, and not including your time(the most expensive part of all). Get quality scans made, and just shoot more carefully

-Dan

[aaron]

A great 617 option would be Walker Cameras 5x7 with the Canham 6x17cm motorised roll-film holder. The Walker cameras are rock solid.

http://www.walkercameras.com/XL5x7.html

http://www.walkercameras.com/a_canham.html


Price is reasonable and it would allow one to shoot conventional 5x7 sheet film too (or 4x5 with the reducing back).

A major plus over the dedicated 617 cameras is the option to use large format lenses without the expensive dedicated mounts.

Also of course you get tilt/shift/swing movements on the front standard.


Aaron.

[BernardLanguillier]

A major plus over the dedicated 617 cameras is the option to use large format lenses without the expensive dedicated mounts.

An important point indeed.

This advantage being shared with the Ebony mentioned above.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Anders_HK]

The Walker cameras are rock solid.
...

A major plus over the dedicated 617 cameras is the option to use large format lenses without the expensive dedicated mounts.

Also of course you get tilt/shift/swing movements on the front standard.

No 4x5 is as rock solid as a dedicated 617 camera with a helical focus. Only if need lens movements may one be needed, but then... why not go with a 4x10 or larger? A Shen-Hao with a quality lens will do same job as an Ebony, but cheaper and cheaper accessories. A camera is simply just only a box with adjustments of lens and between it and the film.

With Fotoman there are no expensive dedicated mounts. They are all affordable and exchangeable.

I tried 617 roll film holder on my Shen-Hao prior to buying my Fotoman 617. The 617 roll film holder was a mess in non simplicity of mounting first focus adapter, then roll film adapter. AND, it was no less weight to carry than I have now with my Fotoman 617, actually it was bit more with roll film adapter to 4x5...

As indicated in an above post, simplicity is what is good for photography thus so we can do more photography, or at least focus on subject when we shoot instead of on the equipment.

Check out Peter Lik @ peterlik.com and do a search of him on youtube.com. The bulk of his photos are from an old beaten up Linhof 617, no lens movements. He appear to recent also quick have gone through Dslr -> Hassy Digi -> P45+ on Alpa. In landscape photos, per judging on the BBC video of him on youtube, he sounds as the in $$$ most successful landscape photographer ever. No fiddling in field, merely simplicity.

After above, ask why you need complexity when you can get more or less same photos with much ease for much less $$ than some of suggestions by posters above?

A used Linhof or Fuji works, but a new Fotoman is cheaper. I have no experience of using a Linhof or Fuji, but my Fotoman is a precision carved out of metal, far above the quality I have seen from e.g. Gaoersi. The very important in choice is the choice of lens, and to pick a quality Schneider or Rodenstock, and to research for which is a very sharp and correct focal length for preference. Check Ebay, some go for very cheap. For focals, for 617 the popular seem to be 72mm, 90mm and 105mm, and as second focal 180mm. It depends on our eye for preference. The 90mm is my favorite. Why? In 35mm equivalents, it equals about 22mm in width and 45mm in height, two of my very favorite focals that I have for my other cameras as well.

Do bear in mind that a 624 camera is bulkier to carry than a 617, thus you will carry it less often. A 612 is smaller yet than a 617. I think the important in choice is the preference for format between them, and compromise.

B.t.w. Fotoman also have its "Shift Adapter" for lens rise and fall, but... it adds half a kg extra.

Best of luck on your choice, and above all on photography.  

Regards
Anders

[BernardLanguillier]

A Shen-Hao with a quality lens will do same job as an Ebony, but cheaper and cheaper accessories. A camera is simply just only a box with adjustments of lens and between it and the film.

Sure, that is the difference between the original and a shameless copy. The whole shen hao line is just that, a rip-off of Ebony's designs.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Anders_HK]

Sure, that is the difference between the original and a shameless copy. The whole shen hao line is just that, a rip-off of Ebony's designs.

Cheers,
Bernard

@ Bernard,

As always you and I can agree to disagree, if you accept to leave at that this time. You have different opinion but I choose not to bash yours or the products you use by words such as "shameless copy" or "rip-off". Shen-Hao's are not copies of Ebony and to brushed off as such. I have seen both and my choice was clear on Shen-Hao. They are of same CONCEPT of a camera, no more than the companies who based on same concept as Tachihara, or as another example than a DSLR such as a Nikon vs. Canon, of if you will a Linhof, Fuji, Fotoman or Gaoersi.

@ Others

Shen-Hao's are a great choice and indeed they work very very well. The lens is far more important. However, for Panoramic a dedicated panoramic camera without lens movements is far simpler and ease of use. Fotoman helical focal and viewfinder beats Gaoersi hands down based on the one Gaoersi I was able to get a hands on view of.

Regards
Anders

[BernardLanguillier]

@ Bernard,

As always you and I can agree to disagree, if you accept to leave at that this time. You have different opinion but I choose not to bash yours or the products you use by words such as "shameless copy" or "rip-off". Shen-Hao's are not copies of Ebony and to brushed off as such. I have seen both and my choice was clear on Shen-Hao. They are of same CONCEPT of a camera, no more than the companies who based on same concept as Tachihara, or as another example than a DSLR such as a Nikon vs. Canon, of if you will a Linhof, Fuji, Fotoman or Gaoersi.

Anders,

We seem indeed to have diverging views on many topics. Most of these belong to the realm of preferences and I do respect yours.

Shen Hao vs Ebony is a different matter though. There are only 2 companies I know of doing non folding LF cameras on this vast planet. Ebony created the original design years before Shen Hao came up with "theirs".

To be fair, the probability that they didn't copy Ebony is not zero, but it is within the tolerances of fine measurement instruments. I have to say that I am impressed by their attention to details. The only thing they couldn't copy is the welding of the standard metal parts that are a bit mode challenging technologically and perhaps the assymetric back tilt?  

http://www.ebonycamera.com/
http://www.shen-hao.com/

The sad truth though is that by tapping into the cheap labor costs of China without having to invest in R&D they threaten the ability of creative companies like Ebony to survive.

Now I am one of these idiots paying for his software and renting his DVDs. My values might be off.  

Cheers,
Bernard