Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,212   Posts: 1,532,079   Online: 1206
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
  1. #31
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,084
    Images
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by rrobinson54
    Despite my best efforts (tripod, slow film, etc.), the results when shooting landscapes are often disappointing. .
    hmmmm....the one question that comes to mind here is...what is disappointing about your landscapes that is not disappointing you in the other kinds of work you do? is it really an equipment issue at all? if you're using an E1 and looking at your work on screen, it should be excellent. so...is it skill in composition, light, design or just figuring out where to put the edges as Mark Citret would say that's really the problem?

    medium format is wonderful...i use a P67 as well as a large format camera...but, neither one makes a weak landscape any better.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  2. #32
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
    Ultimately, Bjorke is right, it's about the picture.
    Is it really? Hmm, time for a new thread.
    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

  3. #33
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    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.
    Well Mark, I just guess I read his questions differently than you did, you won't find to many more anal than I am about analog photography, but thought his questions were legitimate, and were worthly of an answer, as a manufacture, after what I have seen in the last couple of days with color of banners and then this, I would really question if I wanted to be a sponsor of this type of stuff, yes I agree, it is there and it should be read on the front page, but did not feel this guy was asking about digital imaging as he was asking about his Medium Format Camera and His Medium Format Film. He was not flooding the system telling us how much better digital is or anything of the nature that we have seen in the past, he was asking legitimate questions based on the resources he has, .

    But I guess I am off based and read the question wrong.

    Dave

  4. #34
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by rrobinson54
    Despite my best efforts (tripod, slow film, etc.), the results when shooting landscapes are often disappointing. In an effort to improve my landscapes,
    Sorry, you have had so many problems. I've done 11x14 prints from 35mm for years with no problems. Only reason I didn't do bigger, is because I couldn't afford 16x20 Cibachrome (at the time - I only do LF now).
    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

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Southern England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22
    Hello rr

    If you are trying to maximise quality, you NEED a proper medium format film scanner or better still a drum scanner. A flatbed scanner just will not cut it (even the latest 4990/9950F).

    If you can't afford a medium format film scanner, you are better off getting a good 35mm film scanner and sticking with your N1, and getting a proper darkroom for your MF work.

    OTOH, a relatively modest Epson 1290S can produce absolutely spectacular results!

    Julian

  6. #36
    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 Julian Hart
    Hello rr

    If you are trying to maximise quality, you NEED a proper medium format film scanner or better still a drum scanner. A flatbed scanner just will not cut it (even the latest 4990/9950F).

    If you can't afford a medium format film scanner, you are better off getting a good 35mm film scanner and sticking with your N1, and getting a proper darkroom for your MF work.

    Julian
    Julian, he clearly states in his original post that he is optimizing on cost - he can't spend over $1000 on a scanner. The question presented is whether the new flatbeds are close to the dedicated film scanners in the same price class.

    My experience says yes, they are. The Canon 9950F does a credible job for medium and large format. (Remember that larger formats tax these scanners less, because it is not necessary to scan larger format negatives at maximum resolution.) The quality gap between the latest photo flatbeds like the 9950F and the Epson 4870, and the dedicated film scanners like the Nikon and Minolta, is very small. Given that the Canon and Epson will also allow reflective scans, for me the scale tips to the flatbeds. (That way, when he does decide to produce a wet processed print, he can show it to us!)

    You are correct that these are not the best choices *if cost is no object*. But in this poster's case, cost obviously is. If cost were no object, of course he should get a drum scanner, or an Imacon at least. Plan to spend $3000-$15000 or more for that class of scanner.

    The Canon and Epson flatbeds can be had for $350 new over the web, less if you shop around.

    -chuck

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Southern England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22
    Hi Chuck

    I have direct experience with both a Coolscan 8000 and a Canon 9950F. I found the 8000 to be a good bit better than the Canon, no matter how much you apply USM/manipulate the 9950F's file.

    As I explained in my post, if the only option is a flatbed scanner for MF, I would not even bother with MF and use a 35mm camera and a decent 35mm dedicated film scanner (which is well within rr's suggested budget (of $1000))

    I do, however, agree that the 9950F does a reasonable job with LF. I do not deny the latest breed of good flatbed are very good value but they do not "get the most out of medium format" as rr so desires.

    Julian

  8. #38
    chuck94022's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    10
    Well, RR, you're hearing all sides. While Julian and I may disagree, I still maintain that a cheap flatbed will be useful, and with the money you save you can get lots of your best images commercially scanned if you need higher quality. (And with the difference between a cheap flatbed and a good dedicated film scanner you can equip a wet darkroom :-)

    But nonetheless, if you could get a pretty good film scanner and get better scans on your desk. As Julian points out, the Coolscan line is probably pretty good (I haven't used one.)

    For me, I also needed the ability to scan 4x5, and do reflective scans, so I went with the flatbed. I intend to either print my favorite images traditionally or scan the negatives on a friend's Imacon then send them for Lightjet printing locally. I don't expect to invest in an Imacon or better of my own any time soon.

    You can probably get a Super Coolscan 4000 on Ebay for <$1000. I'm sure that, or an 8000, or a used Imacon would do a great job for you. (The Imacon will definitely break your budget though.)

    Good luck, and let us know what you decide!

    -chuck

  9. #39
    kaiyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    bay area, california
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    331
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Julian Hart
    I have direct experience with both a Coolscan 8000 and a Canon 9950F. I found the 8000 to be a good bit better than the Canon,
    wow. I sure would hope so. Even used, the 8000 is like $1200-$1500, isn't it? And if you want the newer 9000, you're up at $2000 or so.

    If I had the money, there is absolutely no question that I'd get a Nikon 9000 or the Multi Pro from Minolta. But if I didn't have that much, I'd get an Epson flatbed for maximum versatility _in_conjunction_ with a 35mm dedicated scanner. I can go to at least 11x14 with my flatbed scans and can go larger depending on the image (some images are easier to enlarge then others, after all). I have gone to 44x36 with a couple of scans, even.

    To each his own.
    allan

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6
    I really appreciate all of the comments & suggestions to my question. I apologize if I caused any problems with my original question. Right now, I use a high quality Minolta Scan Elite 5400 film scanner for my 35mm images. I refuse to pay $2000 for the latest Nikon 9000 film scanner, but will be looking for a good used Minolta Multi Scan Pro or Nikon 8000. In the meantime, are there any recommendations on where I can get quality drum scans from my 6x9 (Fuji camera) images? I would love to set up my own darkroom, but that is not possibe right now.

    Again, thank you for all of your help to my questions.

Page 4 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