Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,469   Posts: 1,570,882   Online: 1076
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    Ignoring the digital side of your questions, the other advice is sound: a tripod will give the largest improvement in any image. Work from basics - technically you want slow film (125 ASA or less) correctly exposed (test your materials) with no camera shake (good tripod). The method of output is largely irrelevant if the stuff that comes out of the developer is substandard.

    In the absence of a darkroom, your only "traditional" method is to use an outside printer or perhaps use a local community darkroom: colleges and similar institutions often have them to hire or can be used at any time if you take an evening course. Outside printers are rarely satisfactory unless you can afford the kind that will charge you a couple of hundred dollars per print and work with you in his darkroom....

    For digital, you are, I'm afraid, barking up the wrong tripod here

    Good luck, Bob.

  2. #22
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by rrobinson54
    Again, if my question does not belong on this website, I apologize.
    Don't sweat it. Some of the locals get a mite jumpy, but what should matter is the pictures you make.

    I use 6x6 because I like the way the film looks -- much better than a digital camera with similar resolution. From there I'm happy to print my FILM NEGATIVE any way I see fit. Wet or dry, both start from the same neg (and sometimes the results have a different feeling, other times not -- but like anything else with photography, applying a "one way is best for all things" approach to ANY part of the process is to replace sensitive seeing with a set of stiffly inarticulate and external rules -- a guarantee of stiff and insensitive photography). Complaints about what you do with your own negs are just so much un-helpful posturing, don't worry about them.

    Comments about a tripod are spot-on.

    Many commerical labs will digi-print your work anyway. The only way to "protect our purity of essence" is to do it yourself. I like my little Durst 670 color enlarger, they can be had for a song these days and will work for multicontrast papers too.

    KB
    (Epson 2200 + Harrington Quadtone == pretty decent most of the time for B&W, 2200 for color (Mac driver) == poor green tones IMO)
    (Epson 2450 scanner + 6x6 == good SOME of the time, a huge chore to use, poor dmax for transparencies)


    [size=1]Ektachrome E100S, handheld (oops), scanned on 2450 just this past week, for this web page[/size]

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  3. #23
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,712
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by rrobinson54
    1. Film scanner vs. Flatbed scanner - I cannot spend more than an additional $1,000 on a good scanner and am leaning toward the dedicated film scanner (if I can find one for around $1,000). My question is: do the latest flatbed scanners by Epson & Canon come close to the performance of a mid-level medium format film scanner? The technology on the Minolta Multi Scan Pro is getting a bit old (2002). Is it still good enough for high quality film scanning?
    I was not impressed with the Epson flatbeds 2450 and 4870 for medium format, or even 4x5 once I saw the quality difference with a drum scanner. My opinion is most inexpensive CCD scanners do not look right to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrobinson54
    2. I have an HP7960 printer (8-1/2"X11"), which I plan to keep as a b&w printer. I plan to buy a good used Epson 2200. Is the Epson still considered one of the best printers (quality, life of print, color, etc.)? If not, what would be a better choice?
    The Epson 2200 is a great printer on matte paper, but it is not at all good on glossy. If you like glossy look at the new Epson R1800. Neither of these printers will produce as high of dmax as you can get on silver paper (color or B&W). They just look different. In my opinion again the 2200 combined with the QuadTone RIP makes stunning black and white on velvet paper. it doesn't look like a silver print at all but it is very nice. Look at some samples and see if you like the look. Also put them behind glass if you normally frame images this way - it really helps the look. If you don't like the inkjet output you can use many local labs to print you digital files on type C paper for not much money. After the cost of paper and ink this may be the cheapest way.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrobinson54
    3. I know that I will need to upgrade my current computer to handle the file sizes of medium format. I am still using an iMac G3 and am thinking of buying a used Apple G4, with enough memory to handle medium format files. Would I be smarter to buy a new iMac G5 or something else?
    You will need over 1GB on a PC for Photoshop if you scan 6x7 at 4000dpi. I assume a Mac will be the same. More memory always helps with digital imaging.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrobinson54
    4. Film - I normally use Fuji Astia, but will probably start using Velvia. Good or bad choice? I would prefer to stay with slide film and I am looking for the best quality film for landscapes and scanning purposes.
    I like Astia and Velvia. I really like Velvia for some images, but my wife always picks the Provia or Astia shot. So this is a matter of taste, so only you can decide.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrobinson54
    Any information or opinions would be much appreciated.
    I think I produce better color work in the darkroom than on the computer. It is easier to fix difficult images on the computer. It is far easier to make a C print from a well exposed negative than to scan, correct and then print on the computer. And cheaper if you get a drum scan made. So far digital has proven easier than Ilfochrome for me.

    You don't even need a lot of space for a darkroom. A medium format enlarger can be small and palced in a closet or bathroom. A Jobo on the bathroom or kitchen counter is all you need to process both film and either Ilfochrome or C prints.

  4. #24
    chuck94022's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    The Mamiya 6MF is 6x6 not 6x4.5.
    Actually, it is 6x6 and it is 6x4.5 (with the optional mask components). What it isn't is a "true" 6x4.5, in that it still consumes the same amount of film as a 6x6. So it is really a 6x6 image masked in camera to 6x4.5.

    I find that option useless, as I stated before. I own the 6MF system, and find it to be a *great* camera, due to its lenses, its quiet shutter and its portability. But a great 6x4.5 camera it isn't.

    Many folks opt for the earlier version the "new" Mamiya 6 (not MF), because the MF introduces extra lines in the viewfinder to represent the 6x4.5 and 35mm mask points. It is supposed to help you frame the shot when those masks are installed.

    Personally, I like the extra lines, bacause sometimes they are useful references mid-frame to help keep things visually level - especially when using the 50mm (wide angle) lens. But I've never had a need for the masks.

    I have no idea what motivated Mamiya to introduce this option. Looks like they accidentally staffed a bozo in the marketing department. It happens...

    -chuck

  5. #25
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    I will only tell what I use to give you some comparative ideas. I shoot a Hassey 503CW with slide film only. You'll get more in depth responses from other sites on these questions though.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrobinson54
    1. Film scanner vs. Flatbed scanner - My question is: do the latest flatbed scanners by Epson & Canon come close to the performance of a mid-level medium format film scanner?
    I currently use an Epson 3200 Photo but I have heard about and seen very good things from the Epson 4870 PRO - this has the calibration software and IT8 target included which makes a big difference. This is the scanner I plan to purchase when I have time to actually shop for it. Hopefully soon. Drum scanners are out of your price range, so to me, the comment about them is moot.

    The technology on the Minolta Multi Scan Pro is getting a bit old (2002). Is it still good enough for high quality film scanning?
    Don't know.

    2. I plan to buy a good used Epson 2200. Is the Epson still considered one of the best printers (quality, life of print, color, etc.)?
    Yes, by far. Several digital pros I know swear by it. I have seen results from it that are outstanding. This is the printer I have.

    3. Would I be smarter to buy a new iMac G5 or something else?
    Buy the very best that you can afford. The files you will scan in will be very big.

    4. I would prefer to stay with slide film and I am looking for the best quality film for landscapes and scanning purposes.
    I think film choice is irrelevnt for scanning purposes. Pick the best film for the type of photography you do and not whether it 'scans' well - scanning quality is a function of the scanner, not the film.

    Regards, Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  6. #26
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by L Gebhardt
    You will need over 1GB on a PC for Photoshop if you scan 6x7 at 4000dpi. I assume a Mac will be the same. More memory always helps with digital imaging...
    Don't do like me. I use a 1 GHz PC, 512MB RAM, Photoshop CS to open 325MB drum scans. Takes about 5 - 10 minutes to display. Let see - new computer or new lens (new lens wins every time).
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by rrobinson54
    If I put my questions about medium format in the wrong area, I apologize. All that I am trying to do is improve the quality of my landscape photographs by using medium format film cameras instead of 35mm & dslr cameras. I would love to have a home darkroom, but that is not possible in my house. I can only try to print my own images using the current digital technology. Maybe, I would be better off having a professional lab process & print my images (who would you recommend?). I would rather do my own prints, but would consider using outside prefessional services.

    Again, if my question does not belong on this website, I apologize.
    My apologies in turn. I've reread my reply and it seems harsh. It wasn't directed at you, it was directed at SatinSnow's dismissal of Mark's legitimate issue concerning the content of your post.

    APUG was founded to foster communication about analogue photography techniques, in reaction to the prevalent digitalization on other photo sites. It's a haven from digital by by design. Many APUG members use digital for some percentage of personal or professional work; it's just not where we talk about it.

    I think you've made an excellent choice with the Fuji 6x9. You have one of the best combinations of film size, sharp lens, convenience and cost in any one camera. I wish you the best with it. Ultimately, Bjorke is right, it's about the picture.
    Take care,
    Tom Duffy

  8. #28
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Well I do thank you for your comments Tom, even though I do disagree with them and I think the way the thread was going, it would have a tendancy to turn any new user of this system off and cause them to go elsewhere, I still don't think Mark's comment was legitimate or needed in this particular situation and did nothing to foster any more than the belief that Apug is being standoffish to new users..the base of the question, concerned Film Cameras and Film itself and based on the technology that is used by a great many of us, now adays deserved a legitimate answer.

    He was not talking about a hybrid situation and the comment, if it don't belong there, then it does not belong on this forum was not needed, and not friendly in the least!

    Dave

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    174
    1. Film scanner vs. Flatbed scanner - I cannot spend more than an additional $1,000 on a good scanner and am leaning toward the dedicated film scanner (if I can find one for around $1,000). My question is: do the latest flatbed scanners by Epson & Canon come close to the performance of a mid-level medium format film scanner? The technology on the Minolta Multi Scan Pro is getting a bit old (2002). Is it still good enough for high quality film scanning?

    Not even close. I have a Epson 4870 and a drum scanner. The epson is good for about 30-35 lp/mm but even at that it is fuzzy and it produces aome sort of halos around edges, maybe the newton effect. If you are shooting 50lp/mm at the film plane that extra 15lp/mm detail is just fuzzy info. I have some scan comparisons on my Pbase site.

    http://www.pbase.com/tammons/drum_comparisons

    Maybe a Nikon 8000 or 9000 if you can afford it. I think Minolta makes some decent MF scanners, but i have never tried one. If I had to have a sharp cheap flatbed I would take a look at a Artixscan 1800F, but i have never actually used one. It may be worth a look, but it is limited to 1800 optical dpi.

    Here are some scanner comparisons

    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

    http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeo...t_results.html

    http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ic/498605.html

    http://largeformatphotography.info/l...ic/499116.html

    2. I have an HP7960 printer (8-1/2"X11"), which I plan to keep as a b&w printer. I plan to buy a good used Epson 2200. Is the Epson still considered one of the best printers (quality, life of print, color, etc.)? If not, what would be a better choice?

    Probably but I have heard Canon is coming out with some sort of new technology that will be pretty much dotless.

    3. I know that I will need to upgrade my current computer to handle the file sizes of medium format. I am still using an iMac G3 and am thinking of buying a used Apple G4, with enough memory to handle medium format files. Would I be smarter to buy a new iMac G5 or something else?

    The bigger the better. A 16 bit 6x9 file is huge, especially over 2000 dpi.
    I had a 800mhz pentium with 2gb memory and it was crawling.

    I ended up with 2.4 GHz and it is much better, but still can bog down.

    4. Film - I normally use Fuji Astia, but will probably start using Velvia. Good or bad choice? I would prefer to stay with slide film and I am looking for the best quality film for landscapes and scanning purposes.

    I have gotten to where I like E100G, VS and GX films. They scan super clean. On my 4870 there is no apparent grain at all at 2400 dpi. On my drum scanner there is some, but it is minor especially with a wet scan.

    Any information or opinions would be much appreciated.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,243
    Images
    9
    Dave it is quite simple. This is Apug. A non-digital island. rrobinson54 is plenty welcome here but he has to realize that this is an analogue site, just like anyoneelse who comes here. Many people would love to be able to discuss digital here but that, according to sean, is not why this site exists. If it is standoffish and unfriendly to expect people to read the first page of the site then so be it.

    Welcome rrobinson54 this is a great place to discuss the analogue portion of your photography. Your camera choice is great and so is your film choice.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

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