Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: sanzari on February 27, 2011, 02:52:54 pm
-
Living in the UK we make it even more difficult than most of the rest of the world to get most things done. I know that is sweeping as a statement, however spending hours on the internet to find a product or service that used to exist is all too common these days. Often when you find one it's in the US. I guess its simple economics of supply and demand but enough of my beef.
My question - If I still wanted to use film, develop it myself and then get it scanned I have a few questions -
1. Is there a service that scans still at sensible rates and what film types do they do ?? - sepia, b&W , colour
2. Whilst film is becoming more rare, how doe s PENTAX 6x7 or Fuji 68 film scan in ?? Quality vs effort
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.
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.
I am sure my US colleagues can answer most of the scanning and quality questions, if there is anyone in the UK that knows of a service to scan at high quality that would be great.
I am not interested in a complete darkroom set up, or a master printer - I want to get to photoshop as soon as I can. Or in particular a MAC. :-)
thanks as ever to the collective knowledge.
T
-
Hi,
I have done some testing with my Pentax 67 using Velvia vs. my Sony Alpha 900. In my view the Sony Alpha wins.
The article does not discuss convenience. But I made something like 40 exposures on film and just two on digital. With digital there is instantaneous feedback.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
If you find a good drum scanning service, that may be different.
Charly Cramer and Joseph Holmes seem to consider P45+ - p65+ to be on par with 4x5". You may also checks this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml
I have some links on MFDB vs. digital here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/25-dslr-vs-mfdb-vs-film
Best regards
Erik
Living in the UK we make it even more difficult than most of the rest of the world to get most things done. I know that is sweeping as a statement, however spending hours on the internet to find a product or service that used to exist is all too common these days. Often when you find one it's in the US. I guess its simple economics of supply and demand but enough of my beef.
My question - If I still wanted to use film, develop it myself and then get it scanned I have a few questions -
1. Is there a service that scans still at sensible rates and what film types do they do ?? - sepia, b&W , colour
2. Whilst film is becoming more rare, how doe s PENTAX 6x7 or Fuji 68 film scan in ?? Quality vs effort
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.
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.
I am sure my US colleagues can answer most of the scanning and quality questions, if there is anyone in the UK that knows of a service to scan at high quality that would be great.
I am not interested in a complete darkroom set up, or a master printer - I want to get to photoshop as soon as I can. Or in particular a MAC. :-)
thanks as ever to the collective knowledge.
T
-
I certainly wouldnt say film is getting "rare" ;D..... I get it next day from B&H , and still have it developed locally 35mm,120 and 4 x 5. Drum scanned 2 1/4 can yield fantastic results, I get fair results with my Canon 9950F (flatbed) and silverfast. Lot of effort though...a good scanner and operator can make all the difference ...but they aint cheap !
-
Hi T,
The only way you will know is to shoot for yourself and compare the results at the print sizes you wish to go to.
If you are talking about travel I assume you are looking at a Mamiya 7 or similar for film or 35mm/mf for digital.
Each of course has its pluses and minuses ranging from instant feedback, low after costs, quick turnaround, the look and film ,veracity of film, etc , etc.
There are many places her in the UK for scanning including major labs such as metro, spectrum, colour4colour,etc or individuals providing a scanning service...check out the uk lf forum for links to those who provide scanning services.
Personally I shoot on 54 color neg and drum scan for my project work because I like the look of portra 160 for my project, want the amount of rise fall I can get with this set up on all lenses, like the ability to print as large as I want and shooting on film works for me in other ways also compared to a dslr set up.
I dont mind the wait (I actually quite like the anticipation) of film processing but of course digital is more convenient in terms of time and no scanning, etc.( I shoot all my commercial work digitally so its nice to have the difference).
If I could justify the cost of a digital set up similar to my film one (tech camera such as arca rmd etc with highest end db then I would look at shooting that way)
Each chooses his own medium.
Zhang Xiao for instance has shot his 18000km of China's coastline on film whereas others might choose a 5dII for the same project.
Shoot what you feel comfortable.
Shoot what you feel is right.
Shoot what you can afford.
Marc
-
2. Whilst film is becoming more rare, how doe s PENTAX 6x7 or Fuji 68 film scan in ?? Quality vs effort
The Pentax 67 is a pretty common camera among the travel/lifestyle photographers in the editorial world. Cedric Angeles and David Nicolas are some of my favorites who uses the Pentax: http://cedricangeles.com/ and http://www.davidnicolas.com/
As I live in Los Angeles, I can't help much with finding you a local lab but I will say that if you find a local pro lab who processes MF film, they should be able to work with you in regards to scans and color correcting. As a bit of pragmatic advice, I would say you are more than fine with a machine scan from a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier as a means of digitizing your images at the time of processing. Save the drum scans, Imacon scans, home scans, etc., for your absolute best images when you are ready to make a master print. First, all those high end scanning solutions are really costly in money and in time. Second, I think the Noritsu/Fuji lab scans are quite nice for general prints up to about 11x14 when scanning MF film - just be sure your lab has the ability to customize the color/density settings to your liking. I use Richard's Photo Lab here in Los Angeles and they are amazing in terms of service, so you could probably email them with questions about the process of scanning.
-
Guys what a lovely set of responses. Thank you so much.
I have a D3s set up and generally am happy with results. But to go larger I was hoping to see viability of film. Perhaps process B&W myself as you say quick scan for keepers and the go for broke on 1 or 2. However the immediacy of Digital really hurts everything else.
I have developed a photo tourist route into Kenya places others don't get to see, so I wanted to capture in a different way.
Good suggestions and as u say perhaps I just rent and try !!
I w thinking pentax or mamiya not sure which, but size and quality probably pentax. Space mamiya ?
Thanks T
-
"I w thinking pentax or mamiya not sure which, but size and quality probably pentax. Space mamiya ?"
The Mamiya 7 lenses are some of the best lenses I've used for any format. The camera is light, the meter accurate, and the leaf shutters let you hand hold to absurdly low shutter speeds, like 1/4 of a second and still get acceptably sharp images. The Pentax has that huge mirror that isn't really dampened very well, which required AT LEAST 1/125, and is really very heavy.
-
Hi,
I have the Pentax 67. Lenses are 45/4, 90/2.8, 165/2.8, 300/4 (Non APO) + 1.4 extender and Fisheye.
That equipment has done me fine service. On the other hand shutter related vibrations has been an issue. I always use mirror lockup, so vibration from mirrors have not been an issue for me. Shutter related vibrations definitively a problem on Manfrotto 055 tripod with heavy head and Manfrotto Hex QR plates. Problem went away on Velbon Sherpa Pro 630 CF tripod.
The lenses I have are probably not top of the line. They seem to have issues with a lot of chromatic aberration stuff.
That said, I made magnificent images scanned from film (70x100 cm prints from scanned film, about 30x40").
Best regards
Erik
"I w thinking pentax or mamiya not sure which, but size and quality probably pentax. Space mamiya ?"
The Mamiya 7 lenses are some of the best lenses I've used for any format. The camera is light, the meter accurate, and the leaf shutters let you hand hold to absurdly low shutter speeds, like 1/4 of a second and still get acceptably sharp images. The Pentax has that huge mirror that isn't really dampened very well, which required AT LEAST 1/125, and is really very heavy.
-
Oh dear now you have me. I was resigned to pentax but shutter and clunky pushes me to mamiya. I think I read lenses do not go below f4 but leaf shutter means I get extended shutter sync with flash. ?
Can I get 200mm lenses with 7ii? I mean quality ones?
Just need to find the scanner now !! Hmm so much to consider and we thought digital was simplifyng the world.
-
I have lots of images shot on a Pentax 67 and I have scanned 100's of them. I still think the colour of film scanned beats my experience of shooting digital. My digital experience is Lodak SLR/n and Canon 1Ds mk II & III. I had my own drum scanner a Dainippon Screen1045i and a Coolscan 8000. The Coolscan was good enough for anything I needed, the drum was used for LF and Linhof 612. In all honesty I would not bother traveling with a Pentax 67, I have three of them and when I used them for work one would always be getting mended, on a couple of occasions all three were broken at the same time.
The time and effort in scanning is not worth it, neither is paying someone else worth it. I love the smoothness and depth of the colours in film, but overall you would do a better job with a Nikon D3X or if you can find the cash a couple of M9's and lenses, even better and still probably cheaper than drum scanning huge amounts of film a MFD.
I don't know how much you have used the Pentax 67, but it is not as versatile as it's bodyform suggests. If shooting at non fast shutter speeds you need to flip the mirror up prior to pressing the shutter, so no good for capturing fleeting moments and best on a sturdy tripod. Film has a "Look" neither my Canon or Kodak could really capture, but it is just a "Look" not necessarily better.
If I was traveling and shooting, film would be nowhere near my list of things to take. The problems of storage, x-ray's volume etc are so much better handled with digital. I know we did it with film and it can be done, but so is it possible to drive a nail through your cheek and some people do, but really why would you?
Kevin.
-
"I w thinking pentax or mamiya not sure which, but size and quality probably pentax. Space mamiya ?"
The Mamiya 7 lenses are some of the best lenses I've used for any format. The camera is light, the meter accurate, and the leaf shutters let you hand hold to absurdly low shutter speeds, like 1/4 of a second and still get acceptably sharp images. The Pentax has that huge mirror that isn't really dampened very well, which required AT LEAST 1/125, and is really very heavy.
TMARK, You are absolutly right.
However I am a reflex guy, and I have a hard time using the viewfinder on the Mamiya 6 or 7, I sold mine again for this reason.
I LOVE the sound of the Pentax 67, nothing like that sound.
I LOVE how it works with the extra wodden handle.
This camera has real mojo.
I tend to shoot handheld, wide open and fast shutter speeds.
On a tripod I would use mirror lock up.
I go for long travels with just the 105/2.4 lens.
The camera is heavy but not like a Mamiya RZ / RB.
I have the Pentax 67II, and it seems much more realiable than the older versions, and the lightmeeter is spot on.
Shooting negative film and wide open gives me a look that is very hard to reproduce with digital.
Cheers
TES
-
Ow no guys, I am getting what i asked for answers and passion.
Are you saying that the Mamiya is more reliable, but the PENTAX gives a better look ? or more unique rather ?
I was planning on cheap scanning the images that i process myself, and then DRUM scanning only the best ones.
I have looked at the D3X, and yes for most applications I am sure good enough, for large scale images I am still wondering if the Mamiya will give me a different look.
The PENTAX shooting complexity may be just a little too much like effort, if the mirror, etc reliability is an issue. So much confusion and thoughts.
I am not deliberating, but rather dithering publicly. I know someone will read the thread and just tell me to 'man-up' and make a decision but I love hearing the messages and thoughts as all are relevant. So yes I can make a decision on how to spend my money, in the meantime comments from TMARK, testfoto and others are gold dust. Thanks
-
terence patrick, you provide a couple of links to the photographers using pentax 67 ?? How do you know, i checked website and couple not see anything, its a trivial thing but just wanted to ask.
Thanks
T
-
If you're based in London the most efficient way to scan medium format film is to rent time on Imacon scanner. Various places have them (Calumet, Photofusion). £35 an hour. If you scan raw (3f) you can do about 15 scans in an hour. That's all you need if you shoot neg - even for huge prints. (If you shoot transparency, then it's worth paying the premium for drum scans.)
But in your position I'd buy a D3x.
-
terence patrick, you provide a couple of links to the photographers using pentax 67 ?? How do you know, i checked website and couple not see anything, its a trivial thing but just wanted to ask.
Thanks
T
I've read interviews and/or articles about those photographers where they discussed the equipment they use. Cedric now shoots some 35mm DSLR in some of his work and David also brings along an RZ67 kit according to an article in PDN. Here's another travel photographer that swears by the Pentax 67: http://www.andreafazzari.com/ (interview where she mentions her gear: http://nicolehill.blogspot.com/2009/08/friday-feature-andrea-fazzari.html)
I'm an RZ67 shooter myself and have taken the beast on unlikely assignments (I shot an editorial series on Japanese car racing with it) and traveled with it. It's obviously heavier and bulkier than a DSLR, but there's something satisfying to me about shooting with it in unexpected places. With my RZ67, 1/15 is very doable and as long as my subject isn't moving, the image will be sharp. I have shot with the Pentax 67 on a couple of occasions when I rented a kit out of curiosity and feel like the mirror slap issue is entirely overblown, at least in the style of shooting that I do. I rarely ever use a tripod and don't do a whole lot of slow-shutter work. I've shot handheld around 1/15 and the images were great to me, no discernible movement but the problem for me was that it was dark enough where manual focus was slightly off.
-
film is film and digital is digital - just like sun and moon - though we should not forget about eclipses.
crappy 6x7 scan is worse then good DSLR
good 6x7 scan is better than good full frame DSLR
cost of film + developing + good used imacon scanner may be less than cost of MF digital rig (not least because sure as beans if you go digital MF you will continue to upgrade to more expensive MF gear in future but if you stick with film you will probably stick with the same camera)
digital gives fast feedback and film doesn't
digital tolerates high temperatures and airport scanners better than film
good to develop B&W film yourself but not worth effort developing color film unless you are very picky
both digital and film is also an option for example with a Contax 645 + MF film back + digital MF back...
you could also take polaroids and scan them ;D
what is sepia film?
-
Just for some insight into medium format film scanning, here's a 100% view from a 3200 DPI 645 flatbed scan, you can see the relation to the entire frame in the upper left hand corner. The post-scan image is scaled down to 6000 X 4500, so about 27 MP in terms of absolute image size.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/schragkraft/c00d01d.jpg)
This is with a ~$250 Epson V500 flatbed. Portra 400(!)NC colour negative film & a beauty dish. I'm sure a finer grained film and a much better scanner could pull out more detail.
Final frame after export (note the colour difference from Pro Photo RGB to sRGB)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/schragkraft/c6d3219.jpg)
One day soon I'll have to print one of my MF scans, see how the ink spread affects perceived grain and sharpness.
-
Don't see anything c_soars...
-
As others have said, a D3x, 1Ds3, Big Sony(?) or M9 will do a very good job. But, in my experience (and only mine) a good scan from a good neg shot on a Mamiya 7 is better for big prints.
The Mamiya 7/7ii is a great camera and the lens are stupendous. The amount of detail that it can record on fine grained monchrome film (Tmax 100 or Rollei 80S) is fabulous. On colour film such as Ektar or Portra it is still very impresive. Lenses are available from 43mm to 210mm, but the 210 requires an external viewfinder and isn't focus coupled iirc, so probably best left on the shelf. The others are all outstanding (I believe the 150 is a true apo as well). Personally, I don't think the Pentax is anywhere near the Mamiya, but that's obviously a subjective opinion and I'd rather not get flamed:)
However, you need to be happy with the time or cost of procesing and scanning. I haven't found anywhere in the UK that will scan film for me at a price that I can afford and a quality that makes it worthwhile. Even dev and scan servievs tend to offer poor value and poor scans in my experience.
So if you are willing to spend the time necessary then film is a very viable option for very high quality, and has a look that is all its own. But, you must be willing to invest the time or it won't work for you.
I (now) have an M9 which gets a lot of use, but still use film when I want the look.
Where are you based?
Mike
-
I see the scans now...
That's pretty decent for 645, considering it's from a flatbed and 400 speed film
That gives me confidence in drum scanning some of my provia 100 4x5 sheets (haven't tried that yet). :)
-
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.
-
....
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.silverprint.co.uk) Also worth a visit if you're near Waterloo station.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/Pentax%2067II/img005-2.jpg)
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)
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
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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. ;D 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. ;)
-
There's more to film than resolution, as probably all of you know. Also, there's more to large formats than resolution.
Exactly!
-
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
-
At home with Mamiya
(http://stillsv3.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/yard-1a.jpg)
In Newcastle upon Tyne
(http://stillsv3.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/baltic-and-millenium-bridge.jpg)
And the bairns
(http://stillsv3.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/201006-hannah-and-naomi-1.jpg)
-
Scopello, Sicily. Mamiya C220 with 80mm, Fuji Provia.
(http://www.harrijahkola.com/img/italy/Italy_-_Sicily_-_Scopello_(_Rock_Formations_at_Tonnara).jpg)