Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,573   Posts: 1,545,698   Online: 778
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64
  1. #21
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,535
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    One last evil scanner talk thingy: Plustek is bringing out a dedicated dual 35/120 scanner, it's not simply an opticfilm with 120 capability (which would already would be a huge win on IQ for medium format shooters), they've revealed their goal is to exceed the CoolScan 9000. They say they've already got better dMax, and that release dates will be announced soon. (it's been a long time coming).

    This has been a long time in the works, so long that I'm wondering if it's now vaporware. With film sales/demand still falling, this killer scanner would have to deliver enormous bang for the $ at a very reasonable price. Why did Nikon axe its scanners?

    I'm seeing less-than-awful prints pulled from Epson V700-V750--even 500--scans of 6x6 and 6x7 negs. YMMV, as always.
    It's not vapor ware, I'll pm you about it as it's beyond responding to workflow issues with film now.
    Last edited by Athiril; 05-29-2012 at 04:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    It's not vapor ware, I'll pm you about it as it's beyond responding to workflow issues with film now.
    Thank you for taking that stuff off-line Athiril.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  3. #23
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,128
    Quote Originally Posted by AFenvy View Post
    So I'm primarily a 35mm shooter here. I am quite happy with the results I get with it, but sometimes get the yearning for the smooth tones and lovely depth of field that are possible with medium format. I have heard that the difference between 35mm and 645 is not that much, and I should go to 6x7 to really notice a marked improvement. How true is this statement? Is 6x7 much better than 645?
    6x6 will be better than 645. 6x7 will be slightly better that 6x6. A 6x7 will be bulkier that a Hasselblad or Rollei SLR.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  4. #24
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,128
    6x6 and 6x7 for that same number of photographs on 120 or 220 will help Kodak, Ilford and Fuji better than 35mm would. Remember if one starves the suppliers, film will be harder to find.

    Who really loves you? Kodak, Ilford and Fuji!
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  5. #25
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    6x6 will be better than 645.
    Unless you crop to 4:3!
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  6. #26
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,128
    Come on lxdude, you know that I crop in the viewfinder. Its them amateurs who have to crop in the darkroom.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  7. #27
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Unless you crop to 4:3!
    Which way?

    Cropping 6x6 to 4:3 yields 6x45 vertical or horizontal. Cropping 645 "against the grain" yields something smaller.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Alamo City, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,321
    Yes, cropping to a particular aspect ratio affects usable film real estate. I prefer longer images... minimum 1.5:1 (2:3)... so I'd be comparing 135, 6x4.5cm and 6x7cm to 6x9cm. Losing a bit off the short end of 135 increases the quality difference with 6x4.5cm but cropping a bit off of the long edge of 6x4.5 decreases the difference. If we go to 6x12cm then there's effectively no advantage going to 4x5. There's absolutely no comparison between 135 and 6x9cm, IMHO.

    ETA: Every little bit counts though the difference between two adjacent formats can be like demanding a penny in change back after spending a dollar. Okay, it's more like demanding a dime or fifteen cents back... or maybe 35 cents.
    Last edited by Old-N-Feeble; 05-30-2012 at 09:03 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #29
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,657
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Which way?

    Cropping 6x6 to 4:3 yields 6x45 vertical or horizontal. Cropping 645 "against the grain" yields something smaller.
    Notice I said "Unless you crop to 4:3", "you" in this case being Steve, who is so Siriusly in love with his Hasselblad he thinks of its format as sex-by-sex!
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  10. #30
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    The question you should really ask yourself: Is the 35mm negative good enough for what I wish to achieve? If you can say yes to that question, get on with the photography and don’t look back. It seems to me you are mighty pleased with what you achieve. If you’re happy with the 16x20” prints, then what else do you need?

    I think you answered your own question. What everybody else thinks is not really a concern, unless the prints you make are for something like a wedding, professional portrait, or some other form of work that you sell to a customer. If that’s the case, you should take their demands in print size into account. If somebody asked you to make a 30x40” print from the same negative, could you do it? Is that important?
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin