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.
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.
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.
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