Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ejnewman on June 14, 2010, 03:15:04 pm
-
Subject: Film to Digital to Film for Panoramics
About 5 years ago I rekindled my love for photography and invested in a new medium format camera system. I mainly shot transparencies (645, 67) and scanned them to a film scanner, I wanted the highest quality I could afford, my intention was to build up a portfolio which I can enlarge to vast sizes. I spent a long time looking at the digital options, but decided that an old film system would be the best option for my limited budget.
I spent my college years as a art and photography student, which involved quite a large range of topics, so I was keen to learn more about my current interests with the intention of finding my niche with this newly acquired camera system. Over the recent years I shot people, macro, street, landscapes and panoramic landscapes with the use of image stitching. The more images I shot the more I realised it was the latter that gave me the most pleasure and satisfaction, so I started doing less of the rest in a bid to hone in on my skills.
The post process was quite long winded, I had a glass holder for my scanner to keep the film flat, but it would only accept 1 frame at a time, so a 4 frame stitch would be quite a repetitive process, not to mention the scan times (nikon 8000) - I only seemed to get desirable scans on a setting which meant each scan took about 15 minutes -that was after about 6 months of scanning trial and error! With a full time job meaning I am away from 0700, returning at 2000, the time problems where causing real productivity issues, not to mention the issues with stitching the frames later, having to position each frame in the glass holder to a precise location to avoid any issues was a very delicate practice.
As time moved on, so did technology, the price of a used DSLR had dropped massively and suddenly within my price range. I weighed up all the pros and cons of my current setup, and came to the conclusion that I would be far better off switching to a digital system.
Sold the film gear, including scanner and along came the 16MP DSLR, with a full frame sensor and instant access to the files - no more scanning! Each image lined up so made stitching a much more pleasant experience.
I also got into bracketing the images to retain good noise levels in the shadows, and no clipping in the highlights - something I never did with the MF gear. I actually think the quality I get now from the vertically stitched digital images surpasses the MF images I shot previously.
GREAT! .... BUT ....
I seem to have developed a big issue: COMPOSITION.
Now of course this would have been the case whether shooting digital or film when image stitching is needed, but as I continue to develop it is something that I truly miss with single shot images. I always knew there were specialist panoramic film cameras available before I invested in the digital system, but I guess I felt the more simplified digital capture process outweighed the advantages of a single shot panoramic film camera.
Well, I'm starting to question that judgement now. I'm not displeased with my current portfolio, but I do feel that if I could have composed the image before capture I would have ended up with a better image, I'm currently cropping quite heavily as I tend to shoot wider than I need to, knowing that I don't want to miss anything, or crop off anything, but that leaves me with a portfolio with a very inconsistent image ratio, which to me doesn't look very polished. I would prefer it if I did no cropping, and what I shot and saw on the day is what I end up with as an image, and my portfolio was all consistent image sizes. I also of course have problems with movement, any water scenes are hard to pull off, unless I use a super long exposure and blur the water out completely - but I don't always like that.
So that's my current thought process. My minds not made up yet, I'm starting to look at the 617 and 624 solutions, although I would be happy to get rid of the stitching process, I'm also not really looking forward to developing and scanning all over again... not to mention all the nice stuff you get with digital.
I guess you can't have it all in this game, at least not until they bring out a 617 digital back, but maybe I'll be waiting a while (oh and a scanning back is not an option for reasons I wont get into)
Elliot.
-
Seitz Roundshot has the 6x17 Digital: http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/...8/d925/f934.cfm (http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm)
-
What I believe has happened to you is a simple case of seduction.
You were right first time and probably going back to a 'single exposure is IT' situation is the way for you to fly. I think it's reflected or, rather, is a reflection of your art training. Because a new method of doing something is dreamed up, becomes popular and has a horde of willing adopters doesn't make it any better than the system that has served mankind since the days of cave scratching.
I suspect that all these clever-clogs techniques are often used as an alternative to actually having anything valid to say. This probably doesn't hold within the professional field, because most professional photography is nothing more than just a job to order. You have to achieve this and that or whatever; you use a tool that turns in a result, but if it's for yourself, then it becomes another matter, in which case I wonder just how much monitor masturbation is involved, the process overtaking the product in the final stakes.
So much time seems to be spent on finding new ways of boiling an egg.
Rob C
-
As a person who scans 4x5 and shoots stitched panoramics on a dslr, I find the stitching less cumbersome than the scanning. That being said, consider looking at a 4x5 or 5x7 camera and either cropping the full size sheet film, or getting a 6x12 or 6x17 adapter for the back. Depending on budget, you can pick up a used 4x5 pretty cheap. That way you get your image in one shot.
I'm getting pretty good at figuring the bounds of a panoramic (though I don't go much past 1:2 aspect ratio, and have a couple of aspect ratios I use) through practice. I don't know how well a framing card would do to match a stitched panoramic (hmmm. . . I'll have to put that on the to-do list for testing), but the easiest solution might be to cut a 6x17 aspect ratio hole in a piece of mat board, and see how well that does for composing exactly what you put in your stitched images.
Cheers!
Bill
-
Hi,
Seen this: http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/product.asp?P...4&PT_ID=498 (http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/product.asp?P_ID=2974&PT_ID=498)
You may just try one of those optical viewfinders film makers use, or a wide angle viewfinder for Leica and similar cameras.
On the other hand, you can just shot a bit wider and crop in postprocessing. Shooting that way may feel you more like an engineer than an artist.
Finally, there are specialist cameras like Seitz Roundshot and the Noblex.
In my view, a full frame DSL with 20 MP or more would be a good match for 120 film.
Some articles I wrote on the issue:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...a-and-stitching (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/panorama-and-stitching)
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...-sony-alpha-900 (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900)
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...s-quick-a-dirty (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/21-panoramas-quick-a-dirty)
Also, consider that if you go to film beyond the capacity of your scanner you also need a new scanner. I don't think that a flatbed scanner will match the image quality of your Nikon 8000. You can of course make drum scans, but I guess that is a quite expensive option.
Best regards
Erik
Subject: Film to Digital to Film for Panoramics
About 5 years ago I rekindled my love for photography and invested in a new medium format camera system. I mainly shot transparencies (645, 67) and scanned them to a film scanner, I wanted the highest quality I could afford, my intention was to build up a portfolio which I can enlarge to vast sizes. I spent a long time looking at the digital options, but decided that an old film system would be the best option for my limited budget.
I spent my college years as a art and photography student, which involved quite a large range of topics, so I was keen to learn more about my current interests with the intention of finding my niche with this newly acquired camera system. Over the recent years I shot people, macro, street, landscapes and panoramic landscapes with the use of image stitching. The more images I shot the more I realised it was the latter that gave me the most pleasure and satisfaction, so I started doing less of the rest in a bid to hone in on my skills.
The post process was quite long winded, I had a glass holder for my scanner to keep the film flat, but it would only accept 1 frame at a time, so a 4 frame stitch would be quite a repetitive process, not to mention the scan times (nikon 8000) - I only seemed to get desirable scans on a setting which meant each scan took about 15 minutes -that was after about 6 months of scanning trial and error! With a full time job meaning I am away from 0700, returning at 2000, the time problems where causing real productivity issues, not to mention the issues with stitching the frames later, having to position each frame in the glass holder to a precise location to avoid any issues was a very delicate practice.
As time moved on, so did technology, the price of a used DSLR had dropped massively and suddenly within my price range. I weighed up all the pros and cons of my current setup, and came to the conclusion that I would be far better off switching to a digital system.
Sold the film gear, including scanner and along came the 16MP DSLR, with a full frame sensor and instant access to the files - no more scanning! Each image lined up so made stitching a much more pleasant experience.
I also got into bracketing the images to retain good noise levels in the shadows, and no clipping in the highlights - something I never did with the MF gear. I actually think the quality I get now from the vertically stitched digital images surpasses the MF images I shot previously.
GREAT! .... BUT ....
I seem to have developed a big issue: COMPOSITION.
Now of course this would have been the case whether shooting digital or film when image stitching is needed, but as I continue to develop it is something that I truly miss with single shot images. I always knew there were specialist panoramic film cameras available before I invested in the digital system, but I guess I felt the more simplified digital capture process outweighed the advantages of a single shot panoramic film camera.
Well, I'm starting to question that judgement now. I'm not displeased with my current portfolio, but I do feel that if I could have composed the image before capture I would have ended up with a better image, I'm currently cropping quite heavily as I tend to shoot wider than I need to, knowing that I don't want to miss anything, or crop off anything, but that leaves me with a portfolio with a very inconsistent image ratio, which to me doesn't look very polished. I would prefer it if I did no cropping, and what I shot and saw on the day is what I end up with as an image, and my portfolio was all consistent image sizes. I also of course have problems with movement, any water scenes are hard to pull off, unless I use a super long exposure and blur the water out completely - but I don't always like that.
So that's my current thought process. My minds not made up yet, I'm starting to look at the 617 and 624 solutions, although I would be happy to get rid of the stitching process, I'm also not really looking forward to developing and scanning all over again... not to mention all the nice stuff you get with digital.
I guess you can't have it all in this game, at least not until they bring out a 617 digital back, but maybe I'll be waiting a while (oh and a scanning back is not an option for reasons I wont get into)
Elliot.
-
Hi Elliot,
This is a digital forum, and as such you can expect to get replies that will argue virtues of digital and stitching, and doing so without a viewfinder, but...
as you describe I much agree there is a big but...
It sounds as you have come to conclude that you want to control accurate what you put in your frame, and what the frame is. Those in fact are fundamentals in photography.
I know three options;
1. Use of a 617 camera and shoot film of course, it is just one shot and image is captured. After that film scanning.
2. Use a 617/612 viewfinder with a DSLR or MFDB for stitching. First using the 617 viewfinder to control the image size and what is in frame. Thus you will need a viewfinder that match the equivalence of focal length by height of your sensor compared to 612/617.
3. Using a wider lens to compose. If you use a 3:2 proportion sensor, then if using a 100mm lens to stitch to 3:1 proportions, you would need a 50mm lens to compose and mentally approximate a horizontal line in viewfinder as a border.
For 1 and 2 I can recommend Fotoman. They are still in business in China.
Viewfinder - http://www.fotomancamera.com.cn/accessories.asp (http://www.fotomancamera.com.cn/accessories.asp)
617 - http://www.fotomancamera.com.cn/617_camera.asp (http://www.fotomancamera.com.cn/617_camera.asp)
You can contact their owner and inventor Charlie and his staff by email here [email protected]
Fotoman have a reputation for quality cameras and accessories made in China. I own a Fotoman 617 and it is a much enjoyable camera and enable ease for composing and a pleasure to use. My lens is a Schneider 90/9 which is SHARP.
As for image quality, it is totally different with a quality slide film to digital. Per my experience a quality digital back of around 20MP does not come near sharp lenses on 6x7 and a QUALITY SCAN. In pixel peeping perhaps resolution of my 28MP do. However, the rendering is completely difference. As such I would urge you to consider what you shoot. For landscapes it is difficult to put aside slide film such as Velvia 50. Colors and rendering of transient light is rendered magnificent by Velvia and still struggle with a quality digital back under such conditions. DSLR have less image quality that digital backs of equal MP. I shoot Leaf Aptus, 4x5, 617 and some 6x7.
Regards
Anders
-
Just jotting down a quick summary of my impression of the advantages of both options:
Film Advantages:
No stitching
In-camera composition/framing
Single shot opens up more shooting options (ie water)
Consistent image ratio without the need to crop in post
Digital Advantages:
No film development time or cost
No scanning
Easier bracketing
Capture review in the field
No film loading
No cost restrictions on number of shots
full exif data
ThomasK
Thanks, but I don't see myself lugging around a laptop everywhere I go.
Bill Lawrence
Yes 4x5 is an option, although I'm leaning towards 6x17 or 6x24
ErikKaffehr
Yes I will need a new scanner, I don't own the 8000 anymore anyway. Maybe I need to look at picking up an Imacon or something.
The other option thats a compromise is using a digital back on a technical camera with back movements - like an alpa 12 MAX, I wonder what image ratio I would get with one of these by stitching using the shift of the back? say with a p45... If I could use a ground glass I could compose the shot too... not single shot convenience, but at least it may solve my composition issues.
Elliot
-
This is a digital forum, and as such you can expect to get replies that will argue virtues of digital and stitching, and doing so without a viewfinder, but...
Anders - no it's not just a digital forum. We have the word "film" quite clearly in the heading.
John
-
Just jotting down a quick summary of my impression of the advantages of both options:
Film Advantages:
No stitching
In-camera composition/framing
Single shot opens up more shooting options (ie water)
Consistent image ratio without the need to crop in post
How about an Ebony 6x17?
http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html (http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html)
They have been shamelessly copied by chinese competitors, but this is the real deal. You benefit from all the 4x5 movements in a light, compact and super robust package.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Anders, thanks but the only option I see viable of the three you mention is the 617 film camera. I just can't see myself using a viewfinder with a DSLR to estimate the framing in that way, I would just get frustrated, plus I'm not sure how it would work given Im rotating the camera around its nodal point thus seeing quite an extreme angle. Your third option is not what I'm after either.
Bernard , I'll consider the specifics once I can come to some sort of conclusion, I'm still in the midst of deciding to go back to film, although it seems I am leaning that way. I know I can get a decent camera, its the lens choice and the scanner choice that I need to look into budget-wise.
Does anyone have any experience with using the Alpa 12 Max system? Does it give you the ability to compose the shot in the correct aspect on the ground glass or viewfinder when using a digital back to stitch the image? Also I would be interested in knowing what the aspect would be, and whether it gets anywhere near 6x17... because that would be half decent compromise, I would still stitch but I would gain ability to compose, I also like the idea of shift-stitching as opposed to rotate-stitching.
Elliot
-
I am using a Horseman 617 with Schneider 72, 110 and 180 lenses. I love the results and can make really big prints from the scans. I have a Hasselblad H4D 50 for the non panoramic imagery. I want my clients that purchase my prints through galleries to know it was one shot and that none of the images were cropped. Travelling can be a pain with the film - so far I have made out OK. I now have to order my film a month before I go away for a shoot.
Slowing down, using the viewfinders to find compositions and focusing on the ground glass just seems to suit what I am trying to do.
If you like have a look at my site - just about all the panoramas are from the Horseman using Velvia 50 film. Some of the older panoramics are from a Hasselblad XPAN using Velvia 50 film.
Steven
Visit My Website (http://www.friedmanphoto.com)
-
i'll second the ebony 617, which i use it for panoramic work. a luxurious camera. but if you don't like scanning...
How about an Ebony 6x17?
http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html (http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html)
They have been shamelessly copied by chinese competitors, but this is the real deal. You benefit from all the 4x5 movements in a light, compact and super robust package.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
there a few options that I can see.
if you shoot 6x24, you can crop it down to whatever you want, 6x12, 6x17, 6x19, etc....
this also means however, that your lenses need to be a little longer to compensate for the longer FOV.
A friend of mine picked up the Fotoman 6x24 off of ebay, its pretty much the only camera he uses now. He is using a 90xl S.A., 72mmXL S.A., 150mm symmar HM(blue ring), and a 210mm APO Symmar.
he got this:
http://www.gaoersi-camera.com/cp_detail.ph...th=&catid=0 (http://www.gaoersi-camera.com/cp_detail.php?id=10520&nowmenuid=3300&cpath=&catid=0)
has shift, so you can do minor movements for correction.
-Dan
-
I am using a Horseman 617 with Schneider 72, 110 and 180 lenses. I love the results and can make really big prints from the scans. I have a Hasselblad H4D 50 for the non panoramic imagery. I want my clients that purchase my prints through galleries to know it was one shot and that none of the images were cropped. Travelling can be a pain with the film - so far I have made out OK. I now have to order my film a month before I go away for a shoot.
Slowing down, using the viewfinders to find compositions and focusing on the ground glass just seems to suit what I am trying to do.
If you like have a look at my site - just about all the panoramas are from the Horseman using Velvia 50 film. Some of the older panoramics are from a Hasselblad XPAN using Velvia 50 film.
Steven
Visit My Website (http://www.friedmanphoto.com)
Beautiful photographs.
Perhaps the first thing to register in my mind when I open in to the pictures is that the effect of the panoramics is to understand at once that this is no case of point the camera and shoot! There is an immediate sense of considered viewpoint, composition and balance. In short - the work looks intentional, and no happy accident.
Though it's the same photographer, I do not read the same sense of deliberation with the other formats. Yes, they are all very impressive images, but there isn't (for me) the same sense of purpose. It's the intangible that separates the studied from the snap, however good the latter may be, and I do not for a moment suggest any less dedication went into the making of the non-panoramics.
And that's also why I think the single shot wide is the superior system of work.
I don't imagine that anyone can possibly split their inner eye into separate compartments and create the same wholeness of final outcome. As I said earlier, all that stitching etc. is all very clever, but I think it is something other, and less than, photography; it is a solution to a set of problems, a make-do.
There's no personal axe to grind here: I own no LF camera, don't do this sort of work and have no idea how to stitch and could not care less. I simply react as any photographer might on seeing good work. In fact, I think that not being in competition gives an even clearer sense of what one is seeing; objectivity becomes slightly more possible when one hasn't been sniffing the same glue as everyone else.
Rob C
-
I have been shooting 617 for only about 7 months, thus my experience is so far limited. Something I sense and experience very clear from my experience though;
617 is a an extremely powerful format. With a mere slice of the 5x7 format one captures a slice of reality. Just one click and a nailed shot becomes very very striking, perhaps more so when vertical, because unexpected.
The viewfinder is a tool. The colors of Velvia 50 add to the experience and sensation of the photographic experience, lovely colors and rendering.
If no need for lens movements in 6x7, then little need for it in 617. A Linhof, Horseman or Fotoman are far simpler yield amazing results. The Fotoman I mentioned above cost less new than a Linhof or Horseman used. The camera is a sturdy box merely, but do make sure to get a quality and sharp lens.
Here http://www.gt-photography.com/articles/Fot...17%20Review.pdf (http://www.gt-photography.com/articles/Fotoman%20617%20Review.pdf)
and lenses;
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm)
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm)
If use viewfinder, then can get by with a f/8 which is lighter weight and cheaper. If focus by groundglass then is better with wider. I bought my 90/8 Schneider used --- very sharp, light weight & good price.
Regards
Anders
-
If no need for lens movements in 6x7, then little need for it in 617.
I guess that it depends on your type of photography.
Many photographers need lens movements on 35mm cameras to get optimal sharpness, it can come very handy when shooting 6x17 as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't imagine that anyone can possibly split their inner eye into separate compartments and create the same wholeness of final outcome. As I said earlier, all that stitching etc. is all very clever, but I think it is something other, and less than, photography; it is a solution to a set of problems, a make-do.
I guess that in the end it really depends on the way we create images.
For me the only value of a viewfinder is to fine tune crop. The perspective and composition are decided before I bring the camera to the eye. It is also the case when I don't do panos, I just don't walk around with a camera stitcked to the right eye.
From that standpoint there is very little factual difference between using a viewfinder to crop on the spot vs capturing a bit more information at capture with stitching and fine tuning the crop in post. It all starts by deciding what part of a scene works as a photograph, and I am deeply convinced that an eye and a brain are the only 2 mandatory items to conduct that task.
I suspect that most photographers do in fact share this approach and ability, but many of us simply have never really exercised the ability to commit on an image without validating the crop through a viewfinder. This process can IMHO start by acknowledging the fact that most of us just use the viewfinder to validate a decision that is in fact already taken.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess that in the end it really depends on the way we create images.
For me the only value of a viewfinder is to fine tune crop. The perspective and composition are decided before I bring the camera to the eye. It is also the case when I don't do panos, I just don't walk around with a camera stitcked to the right eye.
From that standpoint there is very little factual difference between using a viewfinder to crop on the spot vs capturing a bit more information at capture with stitching and fine tuning the crop in post. It all starts by deciding what part of a scene works as a photograph, and I am deeply convinced that an eye and a brain are the only 2 mandatory items to conduct that task.
I suspect that most photographers do in fact share this approach and ability, but many of us simply have never really exercised the ability to commit on an image without validating the crop through a viewfinder. This process can IMHO start by acknowledging the fact that most of us just use the viewfinder to validate a decision that is in fact already taken.
Cheers,
Bernard
You are probably right that the decision to shoot something has already been made on a subliminal level, but the final bit of fine-tuning is done in the camera. My contention is that I can't see how that can be done as well if the entire composition is not visible at the one time within a frame. Then, you are not seeing a single unit of form; then you are thinking and working at the level of educated guess - not the same thing at all.
Rob C
-
You are probably right that the decision to shoot something has already been made on a subliminal level, but the final bit of fine-tuning is done in the camera. My contention is that I can't see how that can be done as well if the entire composition is not visible at the one time within a frame. Then, you are not seeing a single unit of form; then you are thinking and working at the level of educated guess - not the same thing at all.
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
-
Stitching or shooting with a 617 to get a panoramic is a matter of the photographers choice. I don't see that it matters in the end. For me it comes down to wanting the galleries that sell my work to know it is one shot. I take the slides to the galleries and I actually give them slides, so the clients can see the origional. Velvia slides are incredible to see and they help to sell the prints.
Some of my images have been shot over a 4 or 5 year period visiting the same stand of trees in the autumn. I want the client and gallery owners to know it was one shot and I am very careful and deliberate in the way I get these images. It is part of the story that helps to sell the images.
Bernard's panoramics are beautiful and I think that stitching works for him - it is obvious when you look at his panoramics. Everyone works differently and I feel there is no right or wrong.
Once you start to shoot panoramic it becomes addictive - I always look at a scene thinking is there a panoramic image than think can I shoot this non-panoramic.
The Horseman 617 and the Linhof both have the abilities to shift but no tilt. The Schneider 72mm and 110mm lenses using Hyperfocal focus seems to work fine for my style of photography.
Steven
Visit My Website (http://www.friedmanphoto.com)
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 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
-
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
-
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/XL5x7.html)
http://www.walkercameras.com/a_canham.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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@ 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.ebonycamera.com/)
http://www.shen-hao.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