5x4, 6x7 , 645 FILM and scanning

[sanzari]

Hey Mike thanks for the thoughts, I like the Mamiya I must admit, like others I cannot see the scan, I am based in England, Epsom in Surrey. I am interested that you cannot find anyone in the UK to do the processing and scanning - so where do you get it done ??


Hope you like you M9, I have a very good friend who knows that camera well.

[DanielStone]

....
1. Is there a service that scans still at sensible rates and what film types do they do ?? Where in the world are you referring to? In the UK you have a # of good labs, a friend of mine recommended METRO(London) highly. http://www.metroimaging.co.uk/otherservices/processing.asp
2. Whilst film is becoming more rare, how doe s PENTAX 6x7 or Fuji 68 film scan in ?? It depends on the scanner, and the operator(most important part of the process IMO). Drum scans can deliver the best "quality", but only when driven by the best operator.
3. The new Media backs are clearly there with IQ180 etc but at $44k its beyond the realms of most, unless there is serious justification or customer base to pay the fees. Learn to shoot 1st. A $44k digital back doesn't make you a better photographer, it just shows you have money(or did prior to buying it )

Reason I ask, if I wanted to spend some money on a film world, for travel to grab some unique styles of the past at huge quality, can I do this with film and scan - or will i just get frustrated, poor and ache for a Medium format back all too soon.

I mentioned travel as I am not interested in Studio work with larger format.

for me, shooting film is about the result. I prefer the "look" of film, straight out of the camera. I'm 23, and started with digital, but quickly moved to MF(and LF) film after seeing the wonderful results capable with it. So far, I'm not going back . I've shot with a 5dII(great camera) and a D3x, but IMO, if I had a choice, I'd shoot film for almost everything.

IMO film and people photography goes hand in hand. It softens skin and renders it in a different, more "human" way than I've been able to get digital to do. But maybe that's just me.

use what you're comfortable with. I self-develop ALL my own black and white, 35mm-8x10 sheet film. It isn't hard. I do my own color(c-41, 35mm-8x10) because I have access to the chemicals at school, E-6 I send out by mail(www.samys805.com) for all formats.

Black and white I do in the darkroom, just b/c I prefer the look of hand printed negatives. I then scan(flatbed) the prints. Color film: I still print optically when given the chance(and time), but 90% of the time, I scan(after making proofsheets in the darkroom).

whatever you choose, make sure you're comfortable using it, or you'll be kicking yourself to high heaven

cheers,

-Dan

[pflower]

Metro is good - but not cheap if you are shooting a lot of film.  For B&W I would recommend doing your own processing - all you need is a changing bag and a tank or two.

I have an old Polaroid Sprintscan 120 which produces good results with Silverfast software.  But for smaller prints results from the Epson flatbeds come very close.  If you really need high quality scans then there are places such as Printspace in Shoreditch and Photofusion in Brixton which offer imacon and Hasselblad scanners at a reasonable price - currently £35 per hour.  The cheapest way is to do your own proofing and work prints on something like the Epson V750 and then if you need larger or higher quality do the final prints at Printspace.

[c_soars]

I've changed the image links to a new host, so you should be able to see the scan examples on page 1 now.

My Mamiya 645AFD, 120 back, 55mm & 150mm lenses cost me $1200.  A roll of colour 120 + development costs me ~$16 CAD, or about a dollar a frame.   I shoot maybe 20-30 rolls a year.  Assuming I could pay up front for film and developing, I could shoot film for almost 42 years at my current rate before spending enough for a $20 000 MF digital back with a crop factor requiring me to mask my viewfinder and buy (more expensive) shorter lenses to maintain the angles of view I work with.

What it lacks in absolute resolution and convenience, film makes up for it with tonality, colour palette and (for me) cost effectiveness.  I applaud Kodak for working on new emulsions well into the 2010's, such as the Portra and Ektar lines.

[sanzari]

So for completeness and as a thank you to all who respond a few points I can answer.

I am 42 wish is was 23 and used Bronica back in the day before it was stolen. I used to run my school darkroom so self processing is a given. I would stick to B&W

My camera of choice will be mamiya 7ii and 3 lenses most likely if budget stretches or I can go cheap.

I will flatbed scan and choose the best to drum scan at calumet or printspace the best ones. I am focused on fine art in Africa with this process. So I plan to sometimes shoot with a flash so sync will be good at all speeds.

I will look for a good source of B&W film on line I am sure they exist still and am often in the US so can buy there also I guess. I will be careful with scanners for X-ray but I recall only 800ISo was a problem with fogging.

I think I am hankering for a quality that I perceive to be there with 6x7 film, and I guess all I can do is try it.

I will run a separate thread in the mamiya about lenses and film etc

Thanks to all. Now need to play and spend some money perhaps. Anyone in South East England that can offer help or a shoot would love to connect.

Thanks. Tony

[AndrewMcD]

I've been scanning my 4x5 with the Epson v750 and the Epson fluid mount. The quality is decent, but not stellar. I shoot color neg, which presents it's own scanning challenge.

The thing is, there is so much more to capturing images than sharpness viewed under a loupe.

I am always underwhelmed by my images taken with a DSLR. I prefer the work I capture with my MF or 4x5 film. I absolutely love the crappy lens on my Crown Graphic, and the images are as close as I can get to what I'm "seeing." There's just a combination of camera, lens, capture medium (whether film or digital) + a the photographer's eye that doesn't come across in pixel peeping.

I finally feel free of the tyranny of the way things "should" be. I love looking at the images you are all capturing, and I'm fascinated by the choice of process that each chooses. There's just no right way.

[sojournerphoto]

Tony

This sounds to me like a very good choice.

Think about your Mamiya lenses. The cheapest kit is the body with 80mm. That's a good start, but some people prefer the 65 to the 80 as their 'standard'.

The 150 chooses itself and then you've a wide or very wide choice in the 50 and 43. Think of the 43 as being like a 21 wide on 35mm with more height and the 50 as a 24 or 25.

Your scanning approach is sensible I think. If you are only doing a few really good scans then sending out is more cost effective.

Shame I'm in the frozen north as I'd oterhwsie be up for a day out shooting.

Mike

[IanB]

I will look for a good source of B&W film on line I am sure they exist still Thanks. Tony

Yes - here: http://www.silverprint.co.uk Also worth a visit if you're near Waterloo station.

[sanzari]

Mike/ Ian

Thanks for the extra bits. I wanted to ask on mamiya apart from the 210mm and 43mm do all other lenses work with auto frame adjustments ?

I know the meter goes from spot to average weighted as focal length rises. But what happens to frame lines ?

Thanks again

[sojournerphoto]

Hi Tony

Both the 43 and 50 use external viewfinders (supplied), but a rangefinder coupled. The 210 uses a viewfinder and isn't coupled. The frames are there for the 65, 80 and 150 lenses and are parallax corrected (i.e. they move as you focus). The frames, like any rangefinder, are not accurate like an slr finder, but as they always include a bit more at normal distances it's never been a problem for me.

The meter is not ttl, so you'll need to remember filter factors if you use them. Basically the meter's angle of view stays the same even though the lens coverage changes. However, it works better than it sounds with the 85 and 150. If you have any problems an incident/spot meter will solve them.

I usually buy film from AG Photographic - http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/ - and sometimes Silverprint. Both are good.

I am looking froward to rading about your experiences.

Mike

[sanzari]

Mike we can take our chat offline at some point to avoid boring people, but while it is informational and valid I will continue.

Thank you for your great support. I am very keyed up as i move towards fine art with this little beast.

I have already completed a pilot project in Kenya www.tthebrit.com please feel free to visit and look at the people images mainly. I return in May to finish part 1 and then I have several trips next year where I am taking photographers to some pretty remote but amazing places around Kenya with guides I have built a relationship with.

If you want to come :-)

I am hoping to tracj down a good priced unit in the next couple of weeks to start playing. Thanks for the on-line film company tips. If you know of any 7ii going I am all ears, perhaps there are some favoured medium format dealers.

I know mr Cad, ffordes, camtech Uk I am avoiding ebay for now although I am looking secondhand, or else looking for a single persons flat as my wife keeps warning.

Hope to update soon,

Tony

[KevinA]

Hi,
As you have decided to go the film direction, I would also suggest looking out for an A3 scanner secondhand. A3 will allow you to batch scan a greater quantity and if you get hold of a quality A3 scanner you might find the additional expense of drum scanning unnecessary. I have seen top quality Creo's and even a Fuji Lanovia only fetch a few hundred pounds on e-bay. I had my own Drum scanner for a few years, but to be honest it's a big effort to scan more than a few images. I have a Nikon 8000 and a Heidelberg A3 flatbed, the Heidelberg is not a top quality flatbed in the scheme of things. I do find it very good, so good in fact that the extra effort needed for drum scanning 5x4's or 612 did not really show in real world output enough to warrant having a drum scanner. Something like a Fuji Lanovia would solve all your scanning needs.

Kevin.

[feppe]

Hi,
As you have decided to go the film direction, I would also suggest looking out for an A3 scanner secondhand. A3 will allow you to batch scan a greater quantity and if you get hold of a quality A3 scanner you might find the additional expense of drum scanning unnecessary. I have seen top quality Creo's and even a Fuji Lanovia only fetch a few hundred pounds on e-bay. I had my own Drum scanner for a few years, but to be honest it's a big effort to scan more than a few images. I have a Nikon 8000 and a Heidelberg A3 flatbed, the Heidelberg is not a top quality flatbed in the scheme of things. I do find it very good, so good in fact that the extra effort needed for drum scanning 5x4's or 612 did not really show in real world output enough to warrant having a drum scanner. Something like a Fuji Lanovia would solve all your scanning needs.

Kevin.

Good to check that there are drivers for your current computer before buying.

[Makten]

I'm using a Pentax 67II, and I think this mirror slap thing is totally overblown. Perhaps the earlier 6x7 and 67 are worse, but I'm getting just as sharp results with the 67II at 1/30 second as I do with my Nikon D700. The inertia of the camera is large enough to actually dampen the huge mirror movement. I'm not familiar with longer lenses as I only own the 75/4.5, 90/2.8 and 105/2.4.
For me, the P67II is a camera for handholding, and a very capable one. The grip is awesome, the viewfinder bright and nice, the metering accurate.

Now, since I don't do prints (yes, I know, I'm mad), my Epson V700 gives me more than I'll ever need. But, after some testing I've found out that it can deliver a resolution that is higher than what the D700 gives even with quite grainy 400 B&W film, developed at home. A better scanner with slower film will certainly blow away your D3S in terms of resolution.

But the most important thing to me is the look of the images, that I can't get with digital. Also, I love the narrower aspect ratio that makes me feel "at home".
Here's the legendary 105/2.4 wide open. It's like using a ~50/1.2 on 35 mm, but SHARP and with no spherical aberration even wide open.



Edit: For some stupid reason the images are resized, so here's the larger one I wanted to post: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/Pentax%2067II/img005-2.jpg


Oh, and handholding? This one is with the 105 @ f/4 and 1/30 second, handheld...



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/Pentax%2067II/img004-3.jpg

Yes, there is traces of camera shake if you examine at 100%. But not worse than I would have had with a 50 mm lens on the D700.
And finally, here's a quick test regarding resolution: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-medium-format-645-6x7-645d/134572-nikon-d700-vs-pentax-67ii-pictures.html

[feppe]

I'm using a Pentax 67II, and I think this mirror slap thing is totally overblown. Perhaps the earlier 6x7 and 67 are worse, but I'm getting just as sharp results with the 67II at 1/30 second as I do with my Nikon D700. The inertia of the camera is large enough to actually dampen the huge mirror movement. I'm not familiar with longer lenses as I only own the 75/4.5, 90/2.8 and 105/2.4.
For me, the P67II is a camera for handholding, and a very capable one. The grip is awesome, the viewfinder bright and nice, the metering accurate.

Now, since I don't do prints (yes, I know, I'm mad), my Epson V700 gives me more than I'll ever need. But, after some testing I've found out that it can deliver a resolution that is higher than what the D700 gives even with quite grainy 400 B&W film, developed at home. A better scanner with slower film will certainly blow away your D3S in terms of resolution.

But the most important thing to me is the look of the images, that I can't get with digital. Also, I love the narrower aspect ratio that makes me feel "at home".
Here's the legendary 105/2.4 wide open. It's like using a ~50/1.2 on 35 mm, but SHARP and with no spherical aberration even wide open.
...
Oh, and handholding? This one is with the 105 @ f/4 and 1/30 second, handheld...
...
Yes, there is traces of camera shake if you examine at 100%. But not worse than I would have had with a 50 mm lens on the D700.
And finally, here's a quick test regarding resolution: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-medium-format-645-6x7-645d/134572-nikon-d700-vs-pentax-67ii-pictures.html

The fact that you don't do prints is a rather important qualifier; pretty much any camera can produce amazing results at web resolutions.

[Makten]

The fact that you don't do prints is a rather important qualifier; pretty much any camera can produce amazing results at web resolutions.

No, they can't if you want a certain look. I'm not interested in resolution and the 6x7 format gives a whole different look than smaller formats.
I'm soooo tired (and bored) of this talk about "prints is all that matters". Obviously it isn't.

A large negative gives you the possibility to tweak your contrast and curves to perfection without too much noise or grain. From that perspective, the D700 sensor just fails compared to the Epson V700 and 6x7 B&W film. And yes, it can be seen at such small sizes as 1024 pixels on the web.

[feppe]

No, they can't if you want a certain look. I'm not interested in resolution and the 6x7 format gives a whole different look than smaller formats.
I'm soooo tired (and bored) of this talk about "prints is all that matters". Obviously it isn't.

A large negative gives you the possibility to tweak your contrast and curves to perfection without too much noise or grain. From that perspective, the D700 sensor just fails compared to the Epson V700 and 6x7 B&W film. And yes, it can be seen at such small sizes as 1024 pixels on the web.

No reason to get defensive; it was you after all who started comparing digital vs film - now that's a tired discussion. And I didn't say what you quoted.

As long as it works out for you is all that really matters.

[Makten]

No reason to get defensive; it was you after all who started comparing digital vs film - now that's a tired discussion. And I didn't say what you quoted.

As long as it works out for you is all that really matters.

Sorry, but the thread starter is the one wondering about the difference between digital and film. I just thought that I'd share my (different) view of it.
There's more to film than resolution, as probably all of you know. Also, there's more to large formats than resolution.

No offense taken.

[feppe]

There's more to film than resolution, as probably all of you know. Also, there's more to large formats than resolution.

Exactly!

[sanzari]

Malden now u have gone and done it! Thanks for sharing those images. U can see the quality and I love shooting wide open

I will play with a pentax as well. Kevin good tip on scanner drives I am a mac man so will watch out

Keep those images coming.  I am dreaming even more