Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: fredjeang on January 24, 2010, 01:34:16 pm
-
Hi,
I am looking for advice(s),
In French we use "old fox" (vieux renard) to qualify a person who has a lot of experience, who knows the tricks and bargains, etc... I'm not sure it means the same in English, maybe as risky as cats photography in the forum, but ... : unsure: I take it.
I want to start with medium format and have many doubts.
My only experience with large format was many years ago in Paris with Mamiya for a while until I quickly embraced Nikon F system, so it is close to zero.
Now that I plan to move to medium format, I both have the enthusiasm and the doubts of the beginner and would be grateful if experienced users of this forum could give me some good advice on the following points.
1- In the digital age, what gear would you recommend for starting to a beginner, considering that the cost is important (we are in crisis aren't we?), but also that it has to be a good investment for the future (no dead end systems).
2- I've always been fascinated by the Pentax 645 philosophy, I've been offered an entire system for a very low price, but I'm not sure. Do you really think that shooting film still make sense when starting from zero? The special film texture that does not have digital in big prints, is it still true now or is it just a myth? Also, having seen the Michael evaluation of the Pentax 645 here in TLL, it seems that it clearly under-performs compared to modern 35mm dslr in terms of IQ. Is there any current Pentax 645 user that could give me his thoughts about his system in the nowday context?
3- Considering that a higher number of users in medium format still use film, does the cost of film at the end is not higher that investing in a digital system? What are your thoughts about the real cost of film against digital. (films+developpement+scans). Why film is still so popular in medium format and what would you recommend to a beginner.
Thank you so much to the old (and young) medium format foxes for your answers.
Fred.
-
Hey Fred,
I can only comment from personal, film-shooter only experience, but I'll try to tackle some of your points here:
my questions to you(trying to clear my fuzzy brain up)
1. When you say "IQ(image quality)", what are you meaning exactly? I've found that for my work style, color negative films work very well for what I'm trying to achieve; the "look" I guess you could say. I personally like the Portra line of films from Kodak.
2. "Texture" (your Q #2), when you say texture, are you referring to film grain as opposed to digital noise?
Also, how large are you looking to print, and how many of those prints will you me printing/have printed for you?
3. From my experience with the Pentax 645 system, I like it. The only thing that irks me is that you don't have film backs, so you can't say carry a back with b/w in it, and another back with color. You'd have to carry 2 separate camera bodies, which can get bulky.
other than that, the lenses(mostly the most current Pentax designs) are great! They aren't as sharp as say hasselblad v or h-series glass, but if you're worried about longevity, and system stability over the longterm, I'd say look at hasselblad V(500 series bodies, 501 and 503cw). the lenses are super sharp(cfe,cfi and cf glass), and all the digi back manufacturers have the possibility of mounts for the V-system. lenses are super plentiful on the used market, and if you want to shoot film(lots of film+dev costs to cover the cost of a digi back, even one that's used).
I figure that over the last 2 years since I've gotten serious about my work(I'm 21 btw), I've probably shot about $2-3k worth of film(b/w, c-41 and e6) in 120/220 and 4x5(with some 8x10 occasionally). I develop ALL my b/w myself at home(easy if you haven't done it before), and c-41/e6 I have a line for cheap dip-n-dunk processing.
so, if you develop yourself(b/w, and even color), your costs can be very low.
shoot film, its great, you have something TANGIBLE that you can hold(if you're like me, I like things I can hold), and you can scan it at whatever res. you want!
Hasselblad V would be my best recommendation if you're looking to shoot film as well. Great system, no adapter plates to worry about(like with the RZ/RB's from Mamiya)
I shoot with an RZ67 btw, you can put a back on them, but you need an adapter plate.
-Dan
-
I want to start with medium format and have many doubts.
Fred,
I am just a slightly aging fox but have already gone back and forth twice between 35mm and MF, with some stops in LF on the way.
As somebody focused on 4 season landscape awar from the roads, my current choice is 35mm digital FX. I wouldn't use anything else even if it were given to me free of charge.
If I may ask, why do you want to go MF? A clear answer to that question will help the older fox on this forum give you a clear cut answer.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am old and tired. Not much of a fox any more.
I used to shoot a Mamiya 7ii with 6x7. Pro color film and developing came to about $1 per frame.
I was spending more than $5,000 a year on film and developing for personal work. Then you have the scanner, lab travel time, file folders and cabinets, plus scanning and retouching.
At that volume I could save money with **any** digital solution. I settled on a Canon 1dsII at the time at about $1,500 depreciation per year. Big savings!
I also had a Pentax 645, which I enjoyed. But the incremental size over 35mm did not give me the quality I was after.
I still shoot about 100-200 sheets of 4x5 a year - at about $5 per sheet (pro color film and lab again.) I have a Mamiya 645 that I never use. Digital gives me everything I want at that "image level." Film just isn't worth the cost or workflow hassle for 645 quality - to me.
Best,
Michael
-
The main reason why I want to go MF is that I now want to express myself in big format, color and B&W. I come primary from painting, photography has always been my passion but my "real nature", if I can say, is to express myself in big sizes. In fine arts I use to work with Balthasar Burkhard, a Master of large formats. We used to develop with enormous rolls of ilford paper, rolling them in a poultry feed. That was all an experience of coordination! The works I'm planning to acheive in photography are 1.8mx3.00 approx in 3 stripes for an art gallery. I've been trying 35mm full-frame for that purpose but I came to the conclusion that I need to work in MF-LF soon or later. So, my interest for MF is first based on the need of big sizes with maximum image quality that can afford my finances. But the finality is not directed to clients, it is for a personal artwork that as to developed in big size, so with all the time for post-prod etc... My second interest for MF is "organic", it seems to me "more camera". Maybe it is stupid or snob, but I admit to feel that MF and LF are "real cameras" compare to 35mm ( okay Bernard, I also admit to be a Nikon 35mm fan ) so MF attracts me, tempt me, physicaly.
As Dan, I like something I can hold. I use to develop my B&W and slides many years ago, but it 's been such a long time with digital that I doubt if I want to deal with it any more, but I'm from that "school" so I guess I would feel home. About the Texture feel, yes, I was refering to film grain as opposed to digital noise.
I saw recently Rio Branco pictures made with MF, big prints in color and the film grain is really something!
I will look very closely to the Hasselblad V as Dan suggest. Thank you for your detailled description about the advantages of this system.
When size really matter, when huge prints are required, would you say than digital backs have an advantage to films? (for a same size format)
Cheers,
Fred.
-
I am old and tired. Not much of a fox any more.
I used to shoot a Mamiya 7ii with 6x7. Pro color film and developing came to about $1 per frame.
I was spending more than $5,000 a year on film and developing for personal work. Then you have the scanner, lab travel time, file folders and cabinets, plus scanning and retouching.
At that volume I could save money with **any** digital solution. I settled on a Canon 1dsII at the time at about $1,500 depreciation per year. Big savings!
I also had a Pentax 645, which I enjoyed. But the incremental size over 35mm did not give me the quality I was after.
I still shoot about 100-200 sheets of 4x5 a year - at about $5 per sheet (pro color film and lab again.) I have a Mamiya 645 that I never use. Digital gives me everything I want at that "image level." Film just isn't worth the cost or workflow hassle for 645 quality - to me.
Best,
Michael
Thank you Michael.
Mmmm... interesting calculation. That is where my fear was about film.
-
My second interest for MF is "organic", it seems to me "more camera". Maybe it is stupid or snob, but I admit to feel that MF and LF are "real cameras" compare to 35mm ( okay Bernard, I also admit to be a Nikon 35mm fan ) so MF attracts me, tempt me, physicaly.
When size really matter, when huge prints are required, would you say than digital backs have an advantage to films? (for a same size format)
One word comes to mind... stitching... you've got to love gettting mad because your favorite B&W plug-in cannot deal with images larger than 30.000 pixels on the long end. Admitedely, stitching won't work for every application around. But if it does for yours, then forget about those smallish 8x10 negs...
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4242105973_3fd9769ed5_o.jpg)
For what it is worth, I am only a fan of 35mm Nikon bodies because I think that they are currently the best tool around for my applications. I admit to feeling lucky not to to be dealing with applications where a MFDB would be the best tool.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
When I went diital I was spending $1000 per month on film/processing
I got a loan to go digital $800 month for three years
The thing about the film is I could stop buying it - step away
With the loan I was commited to my business
Now the loan is paid and I have no gear lust (happy at 22mp)
Im also in a better position than I would have been
S
-
I am an old dog but my wife is foxy!
start with an affordable slr
get paying jobs
get those jobs to pay for your next camera
either an upgrade slr or mf
get better jobs with a better camera etc
until you are happy with the level of quality
I believe in the thin end of the wedge!
-
I am an old dog but my wife is foxy!
start with an affordable slr
get paying jobs
get those jobs to pay for your next camera
either an upgrade slr or mf
get better jobs with a better camera etc
until you are happy with the level of quality
I believe in the thin end of the wedge!
50th Birthday coming up too soon so qualify.
Totally with Marc on this one , avoid a long lease , buy a full frame SLR , something like the
5D MK11 or one of the new Nikons launching soon.
I still have just less than 2 years on my Leaf 75 , and these bills come steadily every month unlike
sometimes the work in this economy.
Best of luck.
Regards
Terence
-
Now I understand why old dogs have foxy whifes: Pragmatism.
If I make a balance from your answers I got:
1) Avoid film, unless you want your foxy lady leaves you for your banker.
2) Do not spend any stupid money in MF investement until your 35mm has paid the bills, and when you do, your bills
will increase exponentially.
3) Reconsider 35mm full frame as a serious option. (I actually loves very much the FF Nikons, and was considering also that option)
or if you insist in ruining your bank account go to Hasselblad.
4) or... try lottery.
I loved the pragmatism of many answers and thank the wises informations you all took the time to give me.
I will take in consideration all these points, even may reconsider for the moment a step in MF.
Cheers,
Fred.
ps: Thank you Bernard for this beautifull image.
-
a few points for you to consider
A) is film processing still going to be available at an affordable rate say... 2-3 years down the road ?
2 years ago I used to be able to send in a color slide in the morning and collect it in the evening. Today they only do
collections on monday nights and deliver on friday afternoons. Give it another 2 years, I might have to do my processing
overseas.
To answer your questions
1) Go with either Nikon or Canon
2) Read my point A
3) Don't waste silly money going to MF digital
cheers
rgs
rueyloon
http://www.36frames.com (http://www.36frames.com)
-
Hard to advise people without knowing anything about them, what they shoot or what they'd like to achieve. Personally speaking, MF is a means to an end for me and nothing to do with file sizes. I use it because of the lenses, I just can't get the same look with any 35mm dslrs, but I also use a small sensored p&s camera at some of my shoots for the very same aesthetic reasons.
As far as pricing goes, you can get a mint Contax 645 system very reasonably, gorgeous cameras and the lenses are still amazing. The choice of digital or film is entirely up to you, these days you can find excellent new and used digital backs from about 2k to 6k. The only gotcha if you've never had MF experience is the learning curve which depends on your current level of expertise and experience. You really need very good technique if you want to see a jump in quality with MF over 35mm today, you just can't wing it with and get away with mistakes like you can with 35mm...
-
The only gotcha if you've never had MF experience is the learning curve which depends on your current level of expertise and experience. You really need very good technique if you want to see a jump in quality with MF over 35mm today, you just can't wing it with and get away with mistakes like you can with 35mm...
Yes DDk, I'm aware of that and was ready to humbly learn to get a better technique. Sometimes you have to do the step even if it chalenges you for years, but it is also motivating and exciting.
But I'm very surprised of the overall answers. I would have thought MF users to strongly recommend embracing their format, but it is just the oposite, as most of you are saying "do not go here", "do not open the pandora box", 35mm FF Canon or Nikon is just the best rational choice.
I got your points and they are all interesting to take into consideration, that will help me to do a choice with better information.
just, surprising!
Cheers,
Fred
-
Did I miss the crucial question? What subject matter do you shoot?
-
I find this an interesting topic. I have just gotten a Contax 645 system after being a Nikon shooter for quite some time. I am not in a big rush to give up my Nikon gear and I think there some very valid points on going to MF digital or film. I started shooting as a teen with the Contax RTS system so I am already very partial to Contax.
Perspective is much different between the two systems and though my MFDB is one of the original Phase One 6.8 mp backs when printed side by side on my 9880 I find the Phase One images have a clarity that I am unable to achieve with any of my Nikon gear. I can also switch between film and digital in a couple of moments which is a big advantage though I haven't shot film through it yet, heck I don't think I can get 120 or 220 film locally but I guess that is why the net was invented, to find things not local.
So now I in a bit of a quandary, a new back or used back is anywhere from 2 to 8K for a 22 mp back or I could go whole hog sell the house and get a 65mp back for near 60K but that is only dreaming. I am in need of a new sensor and should it be a 22 mp Phase One new or used sits at about 8K. My other choice is a 3x which according to DXO labs is very close to the MF back which is close to the same 8K.
Going with the FF nikon I will have to invest in a new wide (12-24) and also a med tele to cover to the 70mm on my 70-200. So to move to the nikon body I need to invest in body and two lenses.
Going with a Phase One back I have the glass I need except a macro and they show up used for reasonable price and I can get by with my extension tubes on the Contax for now.
I have had the Contax system for over month now shooting daily tethered in studio, I invested in lights and slowly getting the feel for this camera though I suspect many months of work will be needed before I get comfortable shooting with it.
As I watch the changes in Nikon and how they and Cannon are pushing sensor development I think I am comfortable waiting to see that is new and exciting while continuing to work and learn the MF. I don't have the experience yet to say one or the other is better. For example PJ work needs higher iso's and I like the faster frame rate so I take my nikon gear. Other than that (I don't do sports) I tend to drag the MF gear out. Right now I am absolutely in love with the Contax and the images it produces.
Downside - old bodies, still serviced in the US and there is a good supply of parts. Lenses are no longer serviced period. Trash some glass you have to replace it. Upside - the glass, no vr no whistle and bells yet stunning images time after time.
Oh yes and the learning curve for Phase One Capture is steep. I have been converting raw images for the last six years or so which allows me to know what needs to be done, I just had to figure out how to do it in Phase One Capture.
I have pretty much sold myself on a new 22 mp back though that is a ways away till I can afford it. If I get really excited I can always go get a job that actually pays up on the ice for a month and then go buy a back. Who know what tomorrow holds, I do know my nikon gear sits idle these days while the Contax shoots at lot of frames every day. I note the site owner hasn't sold his Contax gear as of yet which I think is indicative of what may happen in the future of MF digital backs. Just where my thinking is these days.
Mark Prins
Inanda Images
Whitehorse YT
(http://inandaimages.com/images/Panoramas/2010/Grand-Forks/Large_Items/2010-01-19-largeItemPanorama.jpg)
Panorama of large items from the Grand Forks Project
Contax 645 80mm f22 8x3 stitch
-
thank you Mark.
I used to work for awhile with Contax gear in my film age and loved it.
Interesting commentaries, so as the picture.
I like this work. Are you going to have this project on-line somewhere?
Regards,
Fred.
-
Did I miss the crucial question? What subject matter do you shoot?
Need 1.80x3.00m size for projects in photography, mostly B&W, it is about twice my standard size of my paintings ( I come from painting, I'm not a real photographer but always used photography for work or passion since my early age but no experience in MF ). I'm in conversation with an art gallery for the moment, so I'm evaluating lots of points to a possible move to MF.
-
That's why I still use MF film. Because while DSLRs are getting close to MF film for color, they are worlds behind good black and white. And the advantage there is that it's dirt cheap(or nearly so) to set up and do your own developing for b/w film.
I never bought into the half-frame 35mm or sub-MF nonsense. I went straight to 6X6 and 6X7 and never looked back. It does great things for a reasonable cost. Sure, color is nice as well, but I'm spending hundreds a year at most on film and developing myself. Color would be a magnitude greater cost, obviously.
1.8X3.0M means you should be looking at 6X9. This will give you a nice "HD format" aspect ratio as well, or close to it, which people seem to be used to more and more these days. 6X7 also works, though you might have to crop it a tiny bit. You also misght consider a large format camera at maybe 3.5X5 or so.(basically crop the bottom edge a bit) It still has its uses. Black and white is one niche where film will always have a place.
Oh - interesting tidbit - B/W film scanned at a modest 2400DPI(I figure that's equivalent to 2000 DPI or so for color(b/w film is higher res than color) - way below what's considered "normal" for scanning film) nets a whopping 115 million pixels for a single 4X5 piece of film. No dithering, no moires, no Bayer pattern nonsense - just amazingly clean results. Even scanning on a flatbed scanner at 1200DPI yields almost 30MP. But if you calculate in Bayer pattern losses, that's actually close to 6400X 8000 for a digital back to equal a DIY 1200dpi scan on a cheap scanner. (51MP) But nobody scans that low resolution. Just using that as a worst-case example. And even in a worst-case DIY scenario, 4x5 film crushes digital for black and white.
Just comparing a sheet of 4x5 to 35mm side by side(heh) makes it obvious. But then again, you don't need to move to 4x5. Though, it would be tempting, since 4x5 cameras often cost less than good MF setups, thanks to their simplicity.
-
Mmmm...very interesting about B&W.
One of the reason why I started to seriously consider a direct move to MF without passing by the FF case, is after seeing a Rio Branco exhibition where I've been impressed by the quality and texture of some B&W (and also color) in big prints, asked the gallery if it was film and she anwsered somethink like: "Oh yes, what else!"
My doubts where if Digi in MF could rival and of course the cost aspect because it is important.
Thank you Plekto.
Fred.
-
I don't know if I qualify as an old fox. But my thoughts are included regardless...
If you want big prints, for my money - film is still a better value. But a big part of that is that my clients pay for processing and scanning (just as they would pay for equipment and digital time).
However, even shooting for personal work, you can shoot ALOT of 4x5 film for the $40,000 USD it takes to get a P65+ never mind the camera and lenses you need to buy to take advantage of that resolution. By contrast you can get a field camera and a few lenses for around 1k to start.
If your workflow doesn't require very short turnaround to the client, film (especially large format) still has much to offer.
If you're going to look at medium format, I would bypass 6x4.5 or 6x6 - and just look at 6x7 - 6x9. At least then you get some real estate to work with.
-
I believe in the thin end of the wedge!
hmm ... isn't that the end always get you in a jam?
-
Just to say part of the above in a different way:
Film cost is highly variable, depending on volume. You need to figure out your probable film use - 100 sheets 4x5, 1,000 sheets, etc. Then figure out what the "breakeven" would be in film/supplies to get a comparable digital kit at that quality level.
Look at yearly depreciation for the digital, not total out of pocket cost day 1 (It is a capital item)(Buy for $20K, use 3 years, sell for $8K. Net annualized cost is $12K/3 = $4K per year.)
You could also make digital cost less fixed and more "variable" by renting for 1-2 days if your shoots are long planning, short production (like 2 months building a set and doing "test" shots, then committing the final image to film/hq digital on 1 day.)
The part of photography I like is wandering and making images, so I am a "high volume" type shooter. Paid work tends to be fashion, which is also very high volume.
Look at the people producing the size and quality images that you envision. Paul Shambroom, Alec Soth, and Andreas Gursky and Gregory Crewdson at the extremes ($250k budget, camera operator, director of photography)
Then - test! There is a steep and costly learning curve to get to those gallery quality 2x3 meter prints! Capture is just the start .....
Fwiw, I shoot my B&W images on 4x5 color stock. I really value the ability to tweak grey values by "mixing" color translations in Lightroom at conversion time to B&W.
What seems to fall out above is: 4x5, or even 8x10 (Soth, older Shambroom, etc. ) For digital, stitch 35mm FF, stitch 22 or 35 MP MF, rent 60 MP on a daily basis.
Will you be able to sell the big pics for $5k US or so? Do your paintings bring good prices? If so, you are able to "leverage up" based on your current and anticipated income.
On foxes: when I was 17, my girlfriend kept asking me what a "fox" was. Some guy was hitting on her and calling her that. She didn't know what it meant.
She was, I was not. She had a tendency to "stray" with all the guys hitting on her all of the time. Better to be with someone you trust ....... There is a current song here to that effect. I'll find lyrics to quote.
Good luck!
Michael
-
John Mayer Lyrics
Stitched Up (With Herbie Hancock)
It was the right time
She was the real thing
I had to walk away ....
Who’s to say she’s single
And who’s to say she’s on her own
Girls like that don’t sleep alone
(Alright here's the thing, here's the thing)
That girl is flawless, and I know I’m not the first one to think that
And since I'm not the first, I sure won’t be the last
I'd spend my whole life looking behind my back
I just don’t think I’m up to that......
(See) Don’t wanna be, Stitched up, out of my mind
Feeling strung out, laggin’ behind
All trapped in, can’t do a thing because I’m
Locked down
Stitched up, feeling the burn
-
Look at the people producing the size and quality images that you envision. Paul Shambroom, Alec Soth, and Andreas Gursky and Gregory Crewdson at the extremes ($250k budget, camera operator, director of photography)
Then - test! There is a steep and costly learning curve to get to those gallery quality 2x3 meter prints! Capture is just the start .....
Yes, I'm totally aware it is a long way of learning. Love Gursky & Crewdson!
Will you be able to sell the big pics for $5k US or so? Do your paintings bring good prices? If so, you are able to "leverage up" based on your current and anticipated income.
My paintings works are sold to a medium ( for the biggest sizes ) 2500-3500Euros, it is more or less the position of an average artist, not too bad, not great...in the middle, that would correspond in photography to 1500-2000 (because paintings are always sold more expensive, pricing evaluation is a bit different).
But I do not produce a lot at the moment, actually I earn my life as an art director in a very small agency. Good life quality, no presure...but time to make a move. Photography has always lived with me and it is the moment to integrate it in my works. I'm very exited with all the process.
During all the learning curve for 2x3 prints, I will also and first produce much smaller sizes, and try to sell them, these incomes will allowd me to increase size step by step as my technique increase. It is a progresive path, I feel like I'm born again, no more technique, nothing...everything to learn.
Cheers
-
I was stunned to see Paul Shambrooms canvas images for "Security" a couple of years ago. They were a little smaller, maybe 1 meter by 2 meters, basically lifesize portraits.
They were incredibly detailed, stunning, beautiful color. Motivated me to buy an Epson 9600 (I already had 2 Epson 7600's.)
While Gursky and Crewdson levels seem unatainable in some ways, the Shambroom images seem more accessable/conceivable at my level of technical competency and income (but not my artistic vision, his work is stunning.)
http://www.paulshambroomart.com/art/homela...rity/index.html (http://www.paulshambroomart.com/art/homeland%20security/index.html)
So far I have not been able to find technical detail on his more recent work. The "Security" images had a really clean feel to them that seemed digital, but I doubt it given the time frame (2003-2007.) More likely just the canvas hiding the film noise.
Obviously the older work for the folks mentioned is mostly LF film. At the Crewdson & Gursky level, you are sometimes looking at many stitched sheets of 8x10. Soth is more of a straight, single 8x10, as is the nature of most portraits. But that all seems to be changing ...
For proofing I try to keep costs down so that I can see a lot of images on paper. I scan proofs on an Epson v700. I use lower priced ink and paper in one of my older 7600's, and proof all my 4x5 at 24in x 30in to start. I use thinner Epson Premium Semi-Gloss (170 weight) and outdated Epson K3 inks to keep costs down to make a **lot** of large proofs. (I upgraded the 7600 to K3 with 7 inks.)
That begins to give you a feel for what is in the image at a larger size. Then I will print strips, or move to the 9600 to print at 44in x 55 in or whatever the correct dimensions are.
Honestly, I have stopped working in photography for 1 year now due to health issues (chronic fatigue, pain.) I am getting some of those issues resolved so I hope to start again .... who knows if it will be the same direction though?
It sounds like you are on a good start. Welcome to the "ghetto" gallery scence of photography!
Though as an "artist using photography" rather than a pure "photographer", I am sure your images will command higher prices!
Cheers,
Michael
-
Last comment, then I will give you your thread back!
I was just thinking about the Jeff Wall show that I saw a few years ago. I was blown away by the images, as with Gursky, Crewdson, et. al.
But he was **really** pushing the technical limits of a single sheet of 8x10 in many images that were about 6 feet x 9 feet. He didn't always have the advantage of Photoshop in the older images. But many, many images were "crumbling" with big blobs of color ink clouds even at a normal viewing distance. You would have to test to see if that is an "aesthetic" that you could live with. He also uses rear illumination (backlighting) of Cibachrome, so diffrent tools. Great show though.
Finally, for large format b&w printing, you can buy an old Epson 7600 or 9600 for about $500 US. Then "mix" your own set of 5-7 b&w inks for around $300. I am going to switch from C6 to the HP-C6 with GLOP (gloss optimizer) in my other 7600 when I get going again this spring:
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf)
Also look at the Yahoo B&W Digitsl forums.
Cheers! Have fun!
-
Thank you very much for this nice and helpfull welcome Michael.
Hope you're also back on track, ilusion and projects are the best way to stay young because of the passion involved.
I'll look very closely to Shambroom's webpage that I don't know as much as Gursky.
When I was Student in Fine Arts, I worked for a time with Balthazar Burkhard : http://images.google.es/images?hl=es&r...l=1&start=0 (http://images.google.es/images?hl=es&rlz=1R2ADRA_esES351&um=1&ei=nI9fS5jeDYmh4QansK2qDA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=balthasar+burkhard&spell=1&start=0)
He used to developp really big as well 3x3, 2.5x2.5, but it wasn't print, it was with enourmous rolls of Ilford paper.
So the technic was with the help of a poultry feed so we would roll the paper into ID11 mixture and de-roll...same for fixation ect...it was whaoooo...like you're going to the limits! Very good photograph Balthazar. Nobody was talking about pixels or so, now everything seems confusing and complicated.
but very interesting as well.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
(I upgraded the 7600 to K3 with 7 inks.)
Cheers,
Michael
How did you do this? Did you eliminate the LLK? Would you care to share some details?
Kumar
-
How did you do this? Did you eliminate the LLK? Would you care to share some details?
Kumar
There is a company located in New England, USA (I think) that supplies B/W ink in 7 different shades to be used with most modern fine art inkjets, override software is of course supplied. I know that they supply 3 different sets as well, a neutral, cool, and selenium tone ink sets. Check out this site:
http://shopping.netsuite.com/inkjetmall (http://shopping.netsuite.com/inkjetmall)
I have never used them, but have heard good things about the smoothness of tonal transitions approaching silver. The only thing is that the DMax of their black is not as high as the DMax of epson's matte black, or at least that was a fact a couple of years ago. They also supply refillable cartridges, so if you really wanted to go nuts you could make your own silver halide emulsion without any gelatin, expose to light while still in solution to get the silver to fall out and blacken, then add selenium toner, and filter out the silver-senledide from the solution. Grind and mix with printer resin and you would have one hell of a dark ink for your printer, although very expensive and involved (and maybe dangerous, depending if you choose to deal with raw selenium).
-
Joe, thanks for the info. I know about piezography, and have used MIS B/W inks. As you noted, the smoothness is comparable to silver prints. I was specifically asking about the use of K3 inks in a 7600.
Kumar
-
Fred - not meant as a provocation, just as an input to overcome any possible inhibition of thinking:
Why not consider 4x5''?
MF Cameras are very heavy and big - so if you take this burden and even consider film:
Why not take the step and go for a really huge format which would deliver good results even
with a not-so-overly-high resolution scanner?
And just keep 35mm for everything which requires speed.
Actually thats the point where I might go to (still pondering and learning myself).
Cheers
~Chris
-
How did you do this? Did you eliminate the LLK? Would you care to share some details?
Yes, exactly!
I use refillable carts and a syringe to suck ink out of whatever size K3 carts I can find cheaply. I am able to buy K3 in bulk at about the same price per liter as the decent 3rd party inks.
I have an i1 Pro, so I create profiles for the new inks on the 7600. I can share profiless for Epson Premium Semi-Gloss, Premium Luster, and Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta with K3 on the 7600 if that will help.
I consider the 7600 that last, great "open source" print engine. They are the last ones that you are really able to set and reset most of the printer options. Epson ties 1 machine to 1 ink set, but there are obviously more capable than that.
They do use proportionally more ink than the newer models, so at some point it is not going to be worth the bother. But for large print proofing with cheaper inks, especially with with self-mixed B&W at maybe $20 for a 220 ml cart. I'll find a spreadsheet with my cost calcuations if y'all don't mind the OT posts.
Cheers!
Michael
-
Michael,
Perhaps we should continue this discussion here: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=41165 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41165)
Cheers,
Kumar
-
Fred - not meant as a provocation, just as an input to overcome any possible inhibition of thinking:
Why not consider 4x5''?
MF Cameras are very heavy and big - so if you take this burden and even consider film:
Why not take the step and go for a really huge format which would deliver good results even
with a not-so-overly-high resolution scanner?
And just keep 35mm for everything which requires speed.
Actually thats the point where I might go to (still pondering and learning myself).
Cheers
~Chris
This idea is strongly growing step by step in my mind...
Cheers,
Fred.
-
At the risk of recreating the scene from the Woody Allen movie Annie Hall (where Marshall Mcluhan responds to a conversation about him in a movie line, and I am NOT equating myself wih him in any way...) I'm going to jump in here. My Security portraits were shot with 4X5, drum scanned, quite a bit of digital manipulation (selective sharpening and softening, some cloning and major tonal adjustments) then printed in my studio on an Epson 9800, coated with Premier Eco Shield, stretched and framed, dimensions 38 x 63 inches. I would have loved tohave worked with digital MF for these but the cost/benefit just didn't work out at the time. Traveling with 4x5 Readyloads has never been fun, I don't like working with 4X5 but do when I have to. I shot medium format on a 2 year project I just finished, and flew after the Detroit NWA bomb attempt, the security with the film was no different than before. TSA has always (mostly) been efficient and polite with me.
-Paul Shambroom
-
Thank you so much for sharing that Paul! That is very helpful.
I don't know who Woody Allen is, but I can attest that your "Security" work is absolutely stunning, both visually and conceptually. I am very happy that I had a chance to see the show in Chicago at the MCP.
Fred, if you are able to see one of these pieces at a gallery or museum, it will give you an excellent feel of what can be achieved with 4x5 and digital output. I don't think you will be disappointed in any way!
I was in a photography MFA program around 1982. The main professor was active in the New York gallery scene. He was constantly talking about how photography needed to "get big" to compete with painting (Richter, et. al.). Seems like the old new is still the "new new"? At least we have better output tools, and work like Paul's certainly needs to be seen at that size!
Cheers! Thanks again for sharing Paul.
Best,
Michael
-
3- Considering that a higher number of users in medium format still use film, does the cost of film at the end is not higher that investing in a digital system? What are your thoughts about the real cost of film against digital. (films+developpement+scans). Why film is still so popular in medium format and what would you recommend to a beginner.
Fred.
Hi Fred,
Film certainly has its charm; I am using both film and digital back for Rolleiflex 6008 AF (soon Hy6 too) and it all depends on what you want to achieve and which process you like most. On financial comparisons: if you count the price of a decent digital back I believe you will be able to shoot and develop film for many years... most likely at least for the entire lifespan of the digital back. At least, if you are not a professional user for whom this is bread and butter. Again, the main consideration should not be financial.
Pascal
-
I would like to thank all of you for these very useful advices. You took time to answer my questions and gave me important clews that have helped me a lot.
For all the posters, a big thank you.
Cheers,
Fred.