Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,228   Posts: 1,532,712   Online: 774
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    398
    I did pretty much what trythis and hsandler suggests. First I got a camera (after looking at my old photos and realising how great they are). Then I got film developed and some prints. I liked it, so I got a daylight developing tank/chemicals/changing bag and did my own BW development. I found it easy and straightforward. I got v700 scanner. I don't have room for darkroom in my apartment. But I can still do my own development.

    If I get a mind blowing photo that requires better quality, I will do what other suggested, either get better scans or hire a darkroom to do some wet printing, depending on the desired output. Take it one step at a time and enjoy it.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    194
    Very interesting comment MDR. The bit about the V750 does worry me slightly though. Are you saying that having gone to all the trouble of capturing an analogue file, I am going to be dissapointed with the results. I have read that people do use the better scanning holder but I do not like the idea of dropping another £100 on a holder.
    I scan MF with a V700 and a betterscanning holder. IMO the betterscanning holder is worth the money. It's not just the holder, but a procedure to follow to ensure proper focus and optimum resolution. I think I can produce files from 645 plenty good enough for a 16x20 print.

    Short write-up.
    I bought two pieces of "anti-glare" glass that just fit in the width of the betterscanning grooves; a loose fit lengthwise. That is the ordinary anti-glare glass, not the pricey "museum" vacuum-coated glass. This is effectively anti-Newton glass. Betterscanning also sells AN glass, your decision.
    I tape the negative with the non-emulsion side against the underside of the glass, taping only the ends over the gaps. It helps if the camera exposes with wide gaps. Then lay the glass in the betterscanning holder. Taping + lateral ridges of holder + film natural curl result in film flat against glass plane.
    I found the optimum height of the adjustment screws by repeatedly scanning and saving in jpeg the same portion of an image with fine detail, and maximizing the size of the jpeg file.
    I apply an unsharp mask filter, with radius 1 and 100%. Sounds simple-minded, but actually the result of a systematic approach based on FTM; too long to explain here.

    I can send you a sample file if you'll PM me and provide your email.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    South Wales
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    21
    Don't forget to pop over to DPUG if you want to pursue scanning seriously ...

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    194
    I think I can produce files from 645 plenty good enough for a 16x20 print.
    I meant 12x16. Sorry about that.

  5. #25
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,218
    Images
    296
    Not that it belongs here, but the V750 is GREATLY improved by the wet mount kit. The difference is quite large.
    "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

  6. #26
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    745
    Images
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by IanBarber View Post
    Very interesting comment MDR. The bit about the V750 does worry me slightly though. Are you saying that having gone to all the trouble of capturing an analogue file, I am going to be dissapointed with the results. I have read that people do use the better scanning holder but I do not like the idea of dropping another £100 on a holder.
    The holder is worth it. The V700/750 is -not- a viable scanner for archival scanning or print production without one, due to the fact that its scanning lenses are set to two fixed focal distances, and it lacks any sort of calibration for them (hence the better scanning holder which you focus to your individual scanner).
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  7. #27
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    742
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    Personally I wouldn't bother with 645 as the quality isn't much (or any!) increase over what you get from a flagship DSLR and you lose all the high-iso performance and camera stabilisation by going to film. However if you shoot 6x7 or large format with slow film, there are huge gains to be made in final print quality..
    Ah, the age old debate about 'insufficient benefit' of 645 format...
    • Yes, 6x7 is 2.3x larger than the vertical size of 135 format, and
    • 4x5 is just short of 4x larger than the vertical size of 135.
    • No one disputes the benefit of 4x5 sheetfilm over 6x7 -- and it is a 'mere' 1.7x the vertical size of 6x7.
    • No one disputes the inadequacy of the APS film format (vs. 135) -- and 135 is a 'mere' 1.44x larger than the vertical size of APS film frame.


    And 645 is 1.79x larger than the vertical size of the 135 format frame.
    So if 1.44x larger makes a difference for 135 over APS, and if 1.7x makes a difference for 4x5 over 6x7, can someone justify why 1.79x is NOT 'enough of a difference' for 645 over 135 ?!

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    151
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    can someone justify why 1.79x is NOT 'enough of a difference' for 645 over 135 ?!
    I think that you're missing the point. The comparison is NOT 645 film versus 135 film but 645 film versus a flagship DSLR.

    I tend to agree with Polyglot. I shoot 645 film with a Mamiya 645 Pro with N glass and a 21 Mp DSLR (Canon 5Dmk2 with L glass). If I compare BW darkroom prints with the digital (Noritsu) colour prints, there's not much quality difference with respect to resolution and sharpness. If pushed, I would say that the digital prints are a bit sharper than the darkroom prints. I use a glass negative holder and a Componon-S enlarger lens. 6x6 is pretty much the same resolution as 645 if printed rectangular, so yes, 6x7 would be a minimum to potentially beat the flagship DSLR. One can argue about the quality of the Mamiya N lenses and claim that with Zeiss glass it would be totally different. But I doubt that the Bronica lenses are all that much better than the Mamiya lenses.

    I shoot film because I like the wet printing process and the prints better than the digital BW prints or inkjets done by a lab. Not because "film is superior". Both digital and films have their pros and cons but neither is superior. I don't bother with scanning film, too much hassle and no real benefit for me. If I need a colour print or a digital file, I'll use the DSLR. If I want to produce a BW print, I shoot film. That will give me the best quality.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    810
    If you're after improved sharpness then skip the Bronica 645. If you are after a different look then try it out.

    If I'm shooting sports, snapshots or Ebay photos then digital rules. For portraits, landscapes, and other "artistic" shots I prefer the look of film.

    This is of course my opinion and some people actually prefer the digital look. Of course those people have no taste!

  10. #30
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,193
    Images
    12
    Like spijker says. A good modern DSLR blows 135 out of the water in every possible way so any incremental improvement over 135 isn't relevant. 645 with the finest films will struggle to equal the quality of a D800. 6x7 will be better but only if you're shooting Ektar, TMX or similar. Put HP5 or 400TX in there and you can forget it, and that's without considering time spent developing/scanning/printing or the loss of ability to shoot clean high ISO with stabilisation.

    I would also dispute the benefit of 4x5 over 6x7. Those are the formats that I shoot the most and I can frequently get a sharper print from my RZ than from my 4x5 because my RZ lenses are better than my LF lenses; I use the latter when I want movements or just to have a play.

    One clear advantage of film though is that when making a small (8x10") wet print, you can get far better resolution onto the paper. A good enlarger lens will resolve down to as fine as you can see with a loupe whereas digital prints struggle to hit much more than 300dpi (6lp/mm) so they always look blurry to me now, even if the file they were made from was wonderful and properly sharpened for printing.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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