Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,479   Posts: 1,644,403   Online: 814

Just got a new Camera

  1. Steaphany
    Well, not exactly new, but it sure looks like it came straight from Mamiya:


    A Mamiya RB67 Pro SD with a 150mm f/4.0 Variable Soft Focus Lens and a 6x8 120/220 motorized film back.

    I shot a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 today with it.
    The camera is fully functional and I just need to see how my first light images turn out.
  2. Trail Images
    Trail Images
    Steaphany, congratulations on your purchase. It sure looks almost new to me too......wonderful looking camera from your posted image.
    I've had my ProSD so long now I cannot recall when I got it exactly. Lets just say it was over 15 years ago now. However, I just got the 150mm Soft Focus lens a month or so back now. If you look at my thread on the 150mm posted in this group I have linked a couple shots with mine.
    Did you get the 3 different disks with the lens?
  3. Steaphany
    Steaphany
    Seems the only things lacking were the Softness Control Discs, and I even did a double search through the packing materials in case I missed them.

    Yes, I did read the thread you started on the Mamiya 150mm Soft Focus Lens, wonderful images.

    I just got my first light test roll of Ektar processed and scanned. Due to flaws on the film, I need to find a better lab than local Metro Photo in Wichita Falls Texas. ( in the scaled down full frame image below, you can easily find the emulsion damage / dirt, other frames had the wonderful cloud structure ruined by solution flow blemishes ) but the RB67 ProSD itself is 100%.


    Pixel Peepers 100% Crop


    The full RB67 6x8 frame, scaled down to fit
  4. Trail Images
    Trail Images
    Looks like you're on track overall. I only shoot transparency films and B&W, so, I'm not up to speed on Ektar usage at all. Color seems fairly natural looking. Good luck going forward with your new rig.
  5. Steaphany
    Steaphany
    Thank you
  6. houdel
    houdel
    I had a similar problem finding a lab to process 120 film; there are none locally. I asked for suggestions on several photo websites, collected a ton of info, and loaded it all into a spreadsheet which is now in Google Docs. I have personally used North Coast Photo Services and Photoworks. Both were excellent; Photoworks sends you a CD with TIFF files but their turnaround is a bit slow. Here is the link to the spreadsheet:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...qeUtOeWc#gid=0
    or in case that link doesn't work:
    http://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/c...qeUtOeWc#gid=0
  7. Trail Images
    Trail Images
  8. Steaphany
    Steaphany
    Thanks for the link, that is a nice list.

    From discussions that I have been having lately, I feel my best direction would be to use a dip / dunk processing lab for the film development just until I can get my personal wet darkroom back in operation, even color is easy, it's just a few more solutions and the critical temperature only really applies to the developer, and bite the bullet getting a scanner that's up to delivering what I'm looking for.

    The whole idea behind shooting film and scanning is to achieve images that digital camera technology can't achieve. A 6x8 frame, specifically 56 x 77 mm, should easily yield 11.2k x 15.4k, 172.5 MP, if scanned at 200 pixels per mm with a bit depth of 16 bits per color channel. Even a 35mm film frame would still yield a 34.6 MP scan at that resolution.

    The scans that I got back from Metro Photo could have easily have been out done had I shot with my Sigma SD-14. Why would anyone botherif film scans could only achieve 36.6 pixels per mm ?

    There are two things I took from my experience with Metro Photo. 1. My Mamiya RB67 ProSD is fully functional and 2. not to bother with Metro Photo again.
  9. Trail Images
    Trail Images
    Just to clarify Steaphany the 6x8 size is only obtainable at vertical usage. Horizontal is still at the 6x7 size. At least this is my understanding after seeing it posted on various sites. Let us know if you get different results as I've often thought about a 6x8 back, but was not clear on that aspect of usage.
  10. Steaphany
    Steaphany
    With my first light test roll, the exposed frame measures 76 or 77mm with a frame to frame spacing of 7mm. The RB shot 9 exposures on the 120 roll, but I had the film back in a horizontal orientation the whole time. I also heard of the landscape / portrait orientation limitations with the 6x8, so I'll need to experiment and see for myself how it performs.
  11. Trail Images
    Trail Images
    The RB shot 9 exposures on the 120 roll

    I suspect that would be normal to lose 1 frame with the back anticipating the use of extra frame length size. However, the reason I did not buy 6x8 back is 90% of my shots are horizontal / landscape shots. So, there was nothing gained beyond the bit of extra weight in batteries and actual drive motor.
    Anyway, it is there for bigger portraiture or vertical use as you might need it.
  12. Steaphany
    Steaphany
    I feel it was a good package since the 6x8 was already included.
  13. Trail Images
    Trail Images
    I feel it was a good package since the 6x8 was already included.

    Fully understood Steaphany. It's always nice to get a neat extra like that in a purchase. If the aspect ratio would have worked in both vertical and horizontal I would have bought one by now.
  14. Steaphany
    Steaphany
    Progress Report:

    Based on this video:


    I decided to go with the Canon CanoScan 9000F Mark II flat bed scanner, and using the same source negative that the above image examples came from, I was able to greatly out do the lab.

    For comparison, I asked the lab for High resolution, High bit depth, TIF formatted scans. They provided images with a resolution of 2761 x 2048 pixel files which corresponds to ~1K PPI ( which weren't even square ) or an equivalent film resolution of 18 lp/mm for a 5.6 MP image. Worse still was the scanned bit depth was only up to a JPG level of 8 bits per channel, 24 bits per pixel. This completely destroys any advantage of using film in the first place, especially when you consider this was a 6x8 negative shot with my Mamiya RB67 Pro SD and C 150mm f/4.0 Variable Soft Focus lens.

    My scan of the 6x8 negative was performed at a film resolution of 94 lp/mm, 4800 PPI, and at a full bit depth of 48 bits per pixel. The resulting image was 150 MP comprising 14,160 x 10,544 pixels and a file size of 875MB.

    Here is my RB67 scan:


    The full RB67 6x8 frame, scaled down to fit

    The only adjustment performed was to brighten the exposure of the bloom in the center of the frame. I know this caused the sky to be blown out. No adjustment was done to the color balance or saturation, this is just how the image came from the 9000F.

    and for pixel peepers:


    Pixel Peepers 100% Crop

    I am aware of the noise, dust, and scratch, this shows the extent that the negative was abused by the lab.

    I have since purchased a Mamiya K/L 65mm f/4.0 L lens, so there will be more to come.
  15. Trail Images
    Trail Images
    Steaphany, nice to see your recent update or progress report here. Sounds like you're well on your way to establishing a workflow from your newly acquired camera through scanning with your newer purchase of the scanner.

    The improved scan over your first posted images is quite significant. As time goes by you will get better with the camera, the scanner, and post processing. I do think you might entertain lower settings with the scanner as time goes by. The huge files can be very cumbersome especially if you start adding layers in post processing in Photoshop. As I do a lot of post processing and usually a good amount of additional layers I scan my 6x7 images at 2400ppi and my 4x5 images at 1800ppi. There are times of late where I'm scanning 3 images of 6x7 to make a panoramic scene stitched in PS that can easily become a gig in size. I've got a good PC and plenty of ram, but it still starts to chug at times with larger files. Anyway, just a thought. My scanner will scan at 3200ppi without interpolating and up to 6400ppi if I need to with interpolating. However, even 35mm I scan at the maximum of 3200 without interpolating.

    Please continue to share your results and your settings as time goes by. It is always of interest and of help to know how things were done or how things are set too.
  16. Steaphany
    Steaphany
    Thanks for the suggestions on scan resolutions. I'll play and see what works out.

    Whether I'm post processing film or digital captures, my flow tends to only address white balance, dynamic range, dust/noise removal, and cropping. Generally, my photographs are as captured by the camera, so huge and complex multi-layer files aren't a problem for me.

    Though, I will need to experiment and see how a four exposure vertical oriented landscape panorama composite through the 150mm would compare with a single horizontal exposure through the 65mm.
Results 1 to 16 of 16


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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