Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

medium-format film + neg scanner....?
#1

Hmm..just woolgathering on another thread, but I'd really just value the thoughts of you on this:
I have the age-old dilemma of what to do next, kit-wise. My "thing" is landscapes and preferably at high resolution. My fave and only working field equipment has always ever been, whether in my old Nikon F4 days or my medium format days..or lately in my digi-days, 3 primes(wide, standard and tele).
Now, I'm debating whether to finally start scavving and saving to go full-frame(Canon D-something plus primes, I suppose, and their hideously inflated "pro" lenses[er, weren't they all this good 40 years ago?])....or am I able to gain satisfaction by the following...?
I've loved my heavy, beautiful Pentax 67Mk2 for years: stunning quality prime lenses...big enough to whip out and take monstrous hand-helds in front of smug 1D users..ya know the score. This kit has been seriously unused for yonks by me, yet am loth to get rid of it because of the sheer image quality.
Do any of you think that a solution would be for me to get a decent quality negative scanner?
Have any of you been in the same situation?
Am I missing something glaringly obvious in my assumption that all would now be well?
Any stray thoughts? I'd be really grateful for any musings, advice, laughter, etc;
ta,
Shaun

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#2

I suppose my question for you is, 'Why did you stop using your Medium Format camera in the first place?'

Now, normally I'd start thinking about the cost of film and the scanner, but if it's compared to the cost of a new 1Ds Mk3, then I guess film isn't that expensive after all. It's even less expensive than a MF back, if that's an option for your camera.

I've been tempted to get a 35mm film camera since I already have a slide scanner, but just haven't been able to justify even that minor (in comparison) cost. So while I empathize with your predicament, I can't say it's something I'd do.

matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Reply
#3

Well put Matthew; thanks for the assistance in the necessary self-questioning...hmmm...(thinks)...
....and I have to say that "ease of affordable post-shooting creative control" crops up.
On further rigorous and honest self-questioning, I'd also have to say that most of my work's output has not actually needed to be greater than, say 10x8;
I think, soberingly, that it was not that I felt I stopped using MF...I just started with digital, got used to the manky depth of field, aberrations, poor optics, the logarithmic obsolescence curve..then part of me "wised up" and thought, hey, I'd still quite like the crisp shimmer of decent resolution..and now am suffering from nothing more than shame and upgraditis.
hmm...if I drank beer, I'd be crying into it in a maudlin and self-sorrowful way...
slap me with a kipper and I'll be all right. Wink

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#4

I have a slide scanner and a decent 35 mm camera, but I have to say I don't use it much anymore. So much of my personal style is based on post processing of photos for effect that scanning just doesn't make sense workflow-wise. Now if I took landscapes as well as Zig, I might be tempted...
Reply
#5

Zig, it's okay, no need to get maudlin...

I didn't actually suggest that you shouldn't do it. It sounds like there's some issues of craft versus convenience. I can absolutely understand your desire to upgrade to the optical quality and resolution that you had before. And there's a lot of merit to the idea of getting a scanner and returning to the craft of the analog methods, if that's the old hands-on that you miss.

If its a matter of digital versus film to get high-quality results, then that's a different decision. Ultimately the cost will work out the same, it's just a question of when. But there may be options to the monster Canon FF cameras. What happens if you put the best prime money can buy on your current Rebel, and start stitching panoramas?

I don't know how many landscape photographers use the Leica M8, but that sounds like a camera that would perfectly embody angst.

matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Reply
#6

Zig - perhaps try a second hand 5D. The files from mine are beautiful - not medium format of course.

Might be a better cost/benifit option than the 1 series body.

Canon stuff.
Reply
#7

Bless you chaps.
Yes Chris, most certainly; yes indeedy in fact(mind you, I can't remember ever seeing one S/H in the UK and even new they're quite rare). In fact, I'd be able to slap a x2 converter on the Tamron 90, stick with the nifty-fifty 1.8...and then could get a wide-angle prime, which is certainly the biggest thing I miss since going all 350D.
In fact, here I've just uncovered the main tweak of angst and hadn't realised it...it is the sharp fall-off with the 10-20 that leaves me just a little bit constrained sometimes with my available "hi-res" apertures for wideangle stuff: and I've never been sand-boy happy at having to go without a superwide prime really. Also, having seen some of your, Combi's and Rufus's work, of course I most definitely agree with the quality.
Matt: typically thoughtful and wise there; I don't miss the chemicals or messing about traipsing to darkrooms, except when I get an attack of Old Git Syndrome("in my day, they used to blah blah blah..." Tongue ): yes, I've had some really creditable results with some standalone stitching stuff...except that depth of field(or lack of apparent d.o.f. for simulated wideangle stuff) is a bit ephemeral in terms of control. Also, I've found that parallax is a real problem with stitching wides.
Toad mentions workflow, echoing matt's observation on "craft v. convenience"...yes, I have to admit that my patience of yesteryear(washing and drying negs...sobbing as my best shots were ruined by reticulation...knackering a pair of trousers a week when I got fixer on them) has given way to that lovely, warm whittling away in front of a screen whereby I can dream that my shots are really 4 feet across...hmmm....
Well...I'm game on for Chris's suggestion: best of all worlds as far as I can surmise: anyone got a 5D body, "light amateur use only" going?? These things are still £1300 after cashback in the UK...about $2700 US at a wild guess...honestly, if anyone hears of a 5D going for a good deal, please let me know.

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#8

Zig, if I can figure out what you're saying, you're missing the high-quality wide angles that you used to love. Better quality is also needed but not to the level of a MF system.

You're willing to buy a new body, and will need to buy a new lens, but money is always an issue.

I'm not one to flog gear, but take a serious look at the Olympus 7-14 lens and an E-3 body. At B&H the 7-14 is selling for $230 less than the EF 14mm f2.8 USM -- the original, add another $450 for the mk2 version -- and only a little more than the EF 16-35. And while I don't yet know if the E-3 will rival the 5D for quality, it's guaranteed to be better than your Rebel. There's nothing as good, as wide, for anywhere near the money.

The flaw in the plan is that there aren't a lot of light, cheap, or fast primes in the 4/3 system -- you'd be lucky to get two of the three. The zooms also tend not to be cheap, but there are no bad ones at any price level. The kicker is the 7-14 f/4, which is an awesome lens.

matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Reply
#9

Sorry to add fuel to the fire Zig, but I've got a couple of other questions you might want to ponder as well. Just to make things a bit more confusing for you. Tongue

1. Is there any reason you can't go with both MF and digital?
If the only thing holding you back from using your old favourite MF gear is a neg scanner, then what are you waiting for? Even many cheap scanners these days are surprisingly good. And once you get a scanner, there's no reason you have to stop shooting digital.
The digital gear is there for convenience when you don't have the time or inclination to work with film, and the MF gear is there when you want absolute quality. You get the best of both worlds, and the pressure is no longer there to spend big $$$$ on digital gear to simply approach that of your MF gear. Mind you, once the replacement for the 5D is available there will be plenty of 2nd-hand 5Ds on the market if you do still want to go FF 35mm.

2. How about stitching panormas to achieve ultra-wide angles?
I know stitching together half a dozen shots isn't quite the same as taking that "one" photograph, and there are certain conditions (moving object, etc) that can cause problems with stitching... but apart from those limitations it is amazing what can be achieved with stitching given some good software (I use AutoPano Pro). And you can throw away many other limitations too. How wide do you want? 90deg? 180deg? 360deg? How tall? How about resolution? 8mp? 20mp? 50? 100?
I have a framed panorama on my wall that's over 3ft long, taken with my 350D and the kit lens! It is a 50+megapixel 180deg panorama consisting of 12 individual photos (each at around 50mm focal length from memory), and the resolution is just phenomonal. If you can use this technique effectively then you can easily overcome the shortcomings of 35mm digital gear.

Some people seem to always place image quality ahead of convenience when it comes to cameras and lenses, but I don't agree. I know myself well enough to know that if something is very inconvenient or cumbersome then I simply won't use it. As they say, the best camera in the world is the one in your hands (not in the cupboard at home).

I've often wanted to get into medium or large format photography, but I just know that I'll miss the convenience and control I get from digital too much.
Like your gear Zig, if I bought such gear it would just end up collecting dust..... just like my CD collection gathering dust since I ripped them all to MP3. I know that mp3's don't sound quite as good, but the huge added convenience of having them in this format outweighs the minor quality loss for me.

Of course I can appreciate high quality in both music and photography, but I listen to a lot more music now because of the convenience of mp3's, just as I am involved in a lot more photography since I went digital... and that can't be a bad thing either way.

Sorry, I just went off on a bit of a tangent. But I think Matthew's point about asking yourself why you don't use your MF is a very important one.
Let us know how you go.

Adrian Broughton
My Website: www.BroughtonPhoto.com.au
My Blog: blog.BroughtonPhoto.com.au
You can also visit me on Facebook!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.
Reply
#10

Boys, I'm deeply grateful for your excellent thoughts and the time it takes to compose such measured replies.
Yes Kombi, I've been revisiting these very issues. Likewise, I use PTGui with Enblend though not as much as I was doing...and therein lies a nubbin of clarity: I bought the Pentax67II for what I considered to be an excellent combo of hand-heldness(at a pinch), general SLR-like portability for landie work. When I was building up some large mosaics in PTGui I was indeed missing the "see it, compose it" experience.
Another forumite has helpfully pm-ed me re scanner solutions, to which I'm drawn considerably: I'm thinking the result will be a)less cash outlay; b) happy reacquaintance with the Pentax; c) a continuation in using the 350D for when it's the tool for the job/output....also, I still have my ancient and trusty Nikon F with a belter of a fifty-mil.....
... I think I might be feeling a surge of possibility...
By all means keep the thoughts coming; this is a very enjoyable thread....

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#11

Well I hadn't comment on this thread because I saw the medium format issue far from my own experience and unlikely to happen to me or to my best photo companion, G..... but....

Everthing started when G meets a workmate who is photographer and camera and photo gear collector. . This photographer is a Nikon freak as he calls himself, and among his treasure he has a Rolleiflex camera. He had been reading good references about the 5D, and G offered him to come home and make some comparition and test shots with low light conditions as he wanted. He in return, would bring his Rolleiflex for G to see.

After G saw the camera... I knew where the wind would come... the MF bug had stung him... and he would do his best to get a MF camera... I was not happy with the idea, if I am honest, specially when he told me that he wanted to make the devolopment at home. We got the reference of a second hand MF cameras dealer in Hamburg, and we visited the place last Saturday.

We saw many MF cameras, but among all there was one I really liked it, because it was so similar to my 5D and even lighter in weight... It was a Mamiya 645 film... somewhat 1,300 euros with a 80mm lens included... Wonderful camera I really liked it a lot.... Anyway, they were talking about cameras for half an hour... as we were leaving the place I said to the lady... well, maybe in two or three years I have the money to buy that mamiya I liked a lot...

She said Oh! No... in two or three years this camera won't give you more from what you will get with a digital camera. The tendency is going digital. (Not textual translation because it was in German ... but this was the idea... Smile... ) When we went out of the room we saw beautiful posters of the city, wonderful detail, colors, and of course we thought that those pictures were taken with a medium format camera, so G asked what camera was used for those huge pictures printed in canvas, btw. The lady with a broad smile said, with the same camera your wife has... Now, G is thinking about getting a 5D too...

At the end, I am happy that he doesn't want to get a film camera anymore, but a digital one....

A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.
Paul Cezanne
Reply
#12

Zig, although I do a lot of direct digital work now I still have and use my large (4X5) and MF equipment that I use primarily for B&W. I have an Epson Perfection 3200. I think that's the model. It has been replaced by higher resolution models now. It is remarkably good and scans all the way up to 4X5. Remember that if you are scanning a 6X7 negative at 3200ppi you get a 7550X8800 digital image. That's a 66.4MP image. In practice of course I never scan at that high a resolution because, as you observe, I don't print large enough to justify the size file that creates, but the capacity is there without further investment.

You can do similarly high rez images by stitching tiled images, even in multiple rows (check out <http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/index.html>) but that can be tedious, requires a tripod with a head that allows accurate panning & tilting with the optical center of the lens directly at the pivot point and you are limited to still subjects. I do stitched pans occasionally but I'm not keen on them.

Scanning gives me the same control over film images that I have with a direct digital image and, although most of mine ar B&W I scan color transparencies occasionally. Here's one I shot of an interior on 645.
[Image: Loj_1%20800x600.jpg]

I see digital as an expansion of what I can do photographically rather than a replacement to what I used to do. With a scanner film and digital can become one.
Reply
#13

Jim, a big welcome to you. Excellent observation and really helpful: "expansion rather than replacement" just about sums it up for me...thank you...a wise saying indeed. Yes, these file sizes do become a bit hectic...I take my hat(if Iwere to wear one) off to those guys who work in the gigapixel air of stitched mosaics; indeed, this has been one of my "workarounds" on many occasions. As I also surmise, horses for courses really.
Irma...yes,..when I first "upgraded" to medium format I too went 645(a Bronica)...I quickly went from there to the Pentax 67. I was speaking with Rufus the other day, who also speaks equally for the abilities of the 5D..your story is an exellent testimony of its quality.
Am just woolgathering here...here's a pano I did last year or so, using 10 vertical images with the 350D's 50mm, stitched with PTGui and blended with Enblend. It worked well and in this case justified the cumbersome method of its creation I reckon.

[Image: 9_BWlonglogcylin-crpd%20copyWEB.jpg]

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread / Author Replies Views Last Post
Last Post by Jocko
Jan 19, 2016, 07:59

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)