What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Stick with film and get a decent scanner

Thanx Colin...I"ll probably spend the Nikon repair money on an Epson now. I've also run ads in local papers in an effort to collect stray cats for export to your native land to help in controlling these nefarious beasts.
biggrin.gif


Franc...excellent advice! I did use a continuity meter to check the connection at the circuit board inside the scanner and found no problems, but alas I'm not learned enough to search out other places on the board that might act as "breakers" in such an event. I'm convinced it's probably a 37 cent part that's broken, but the board replacement will set me back more than a several hundred dollars. I've checked the scanner with several other computers who also failed to "see" it and my own will "see" the camera when plugged in so I know it isn't the firewire card.

Thanx guys!
 
Here's a follow up on this thread that should trigger some discussion.

I recently installed an Epson 3800 Pro printer with Colorburst RIP ... which allows 17X22 prints. The RIP definitely makes a difference in print quality ... which I confirmed by printing the same exact file with and without the RIP.

I then proceeded to print a number of display images at the maximum size. Bigger prints tend to separate the men from the boys, and this proved truer than I ever suspected.

The shots printed were from various cameras and lens combinations: some digital shots from a Canon 1DsMKII and 5D, a few from a Hasselblad H2D/39 using both H/C lenses and Zeiss 500 series CFi or CFE glass, and some Hasselblad film shots from a 503CW and 203FE, both using color and B&W ISO 400 films. I've not printed any CFV shots yet.

In EVERY case, the film shots stood out as more life like and produced a greater sense of depth. The film shots scanned on the Imacon 949 were the best of the best, but even those scanned on a Minolta MF scanner were better than the digital work in this regard.

Don't get me wrong, the digital files were detail rich, sharp and clean, with the H2D/39 files the best and the Canon files the worst. But they all feel flat ... which one probably wouldn't notice if viewed by themselves. But sitting next to a shot done on film and it's a different story.

The ultimate test of this observation will be when I shoot the H camera on a tripod using a Zeiss 100/3.5 lens, and capture a shot on the 39 meg back, then swap it out for a H film back and take the same shot. When I get time to do that I'll report back again. I'll be awhile since my busy season is starting up again.

In the meantime, I'm going to shoot more film than I've been doing in the past few years.

I just ordered 50 more rolls of film as a result.
 
G'Day Marc:

Nice investigative report! I concur, having done much the same a few weeks ago in parallel with a pro. friend here shooting a combination of cameras - his digital Canon, Contax, and my 503 with film, same day same time same still life subject etc. Didn't have the 949, but used the V750m. Very noticeable, we thought, especially using the Hahnemuhle William Turner on 2400 with custom profile, or his 3800 with RIP. It appears to me like the digital is 'smooth' or has 'plasticity', where the film has a 'richness' to the image - hard to describe.

Digital is still the answer for his job, but I think he will be dusting off his RB/RZ67s for personal work sometimes.

The 'steam train' effect.

Cheers, Colin

z04_pc5.gif
 
Actually, it's REALLY disappointing Colin.

While there is no escaping that you have to have digital capture to even play in the commercial sector, it bums me out that I have shelled out the equivalent of a new Bentley, or a considerably bigger retirement nest egg for all this stuff ... grrrr : -(

I cruised along for 25 years with a Hasselblad V and Mamiya 6X7, ocassionally coughing up a few thousand to add lenses ... and it handled most any job that came my way, or I used a view camera in studio.

Grrr : -(
 
This just supports my contention that the money is better spent on a good scanner if you don't have to shoot digital for commercial purposes.
 
Yep! It sucks for the commercial guy, and in many ways, it sucks for the up and coming young commercial folk coming out of college now who <probably> will not have a choice in the not too distant future. Digital or be damned.

However, I had similar thoughts in the early 70s about the move from DOS, and when I got my first Macintosh - yep the 512k with the little mono screen - I thought, well this is fine and dandy but where are all my other applications, and what about memory ROM and RAM. How about this loading of the OS everyday at startup off this new fangled 3.5 disk! Whirrr Whirr. Yet, using it for graphics was 'wunderbar'. And now, I sit at a 24" LCD Apple screen surrounded by a gazillion horsepower, and I'm wondering ... what's next. :)

I'm sure the garage gurus will find the answers we seek in sensor sizes, prices, and pixel interpretation profiling via scanner and printer. You, and many like you, are the financiers for the future of professional imaging. You'll notice that I didn't write 'phos graphis'.

It has happened with all of technology. Consider the guys who bought bag phones, and cell phones as big as a shoe!!

The rest of us thank you, Marc! (I'm sorry for your wallet.)

As a purist, I am so glad to have experienced the old half plate cameras, the Printing Out Paper, the smelly darkrooms, the M3 or F and Tri-X in the muddy battlefields of Asia in the 60s, my first TLRs, and then the 500 etc.

To get back to your point - I wonder if scanner (large) sensor technology will get ahead of (small) camera sensor technology in results and price. That would be interesting. Maybe Ilford et al will have a long life.

BTW, your results are outstanding, so you are hardly being dashed against the rocks!!

"Those who will succeed always desire the extra ten percent" - Colin Clarke 2007

(Sorry about the Bentley.)

Cheers,

Colin

z04_5769.gif
 
In EVERY case, the film shots stood out as more life like and produced a greater sense of depth>

Mark:

Thank you, "the film shots stood out as more life like and produced a greater sense of depth." Your statement has been my feeling since the onset. I am glad you have stated it too. In my case there is just something different, it is not easy to describe, but I think it hits the nail on the head!

Yesterday, In Huntington Beach, Ca., a couple of women seeing my camera approached me and ask what I was going to do when film died! I quipped probably go with it. Then I mentioned Kodak's earnings for
digital, film, and Hollywood's impact on the film market.

Then she told me that she was from Rochester, N.Y. and that Kodak was down to 5,000 employees. She expressed her love for film, it's importance to many users, ease of use, inexpensive development, and hopes for it's continuance. Then she told me she worked for Kodak. Although she is a Kodak employee with an obvious motive to keep her job despite being near retirement, I believe she really loves film and is motivated by it more than mere employment.

I talk to a number of photographers, others in the industry, some agree with you, but most are still chiming the attributes of digital, full steam ahead. Certainly business driven. But, I don't think they are as objective as you, nor do I believe that they continually analyze the quality of their work as you do.

I just ordered 50 more rolls of film as a result.>

I did my part purchasing 65 rolls for my upcoming trip to Indy, Dayton, Dearborn, Cape Kennedy for a launch, a little pick me up in the Keys with (Hemingway)
happy.gif
and back for the landing.

Regards:

Gilbert
 
All this said, here I am loading up for a wedding, and it's all digital. I'd shoot film, but its for an Art Director and he wants the RAW files because he's a genius at Photoshop and is going to make his own album using Adobe In-Design.

As to film dying off ... well, if more people catch on maybe there will be a leveling off. Big places may walk off into the sunset, but if there's demand, there will be suppliers.

If I may suggest: investigate Freestyle Photographic Supplies. They are very dedicated to both film and Medium Format/Large Format photography (there are some digital items, but not like other retailers). Lots of interesting film choices, including some imported "silver rich" ones. BTW, I have no affiliation with them at all.

www.freestylephoto.biz

Request their catalog which is more comprehensive than their web site.

Gilbert, DEARBORN as in MICHIGAN? If so, e-mail me if you will have some time free. I'll buy you a beer. I live not far away in Franklin, MI about a 25 minute cruise from Dearborn.
If you have 1/2 day or so free, I could pick you up and we could go to Greenfield Village in Dearborn and burn some film.

But I won't be picking you up in a Bentely : -)
 
Marc:

Thank you, I bought 40 rolls from them a few months ago. They have a warehouse in Santa Fe Springs, about 15mi north of me.

Yes, after the race I'm taking my wife to Dayton, then to The Ford Museum and Greenfield then she will return home, leaving me 6 days to get to the launch, so I will make time to buy you a beer too!

Who needs a Bentley when you have a Hasselblad!

Regards:

Gilbert
 
Thanks for the comparative information Marc - very interesting.

I have often felt that even at the high end of digital capture there is a sort of "look" that comes with even the best detail rich digital images. I think this look is much less noticeable on computer screens than it is on paper.

When I first got Hasselblad's new magazine, Victor, the huge images shot digitally of the Bugatti were wonderful but had that look that stood out as being from digital capture. On the other hand film (even scanned) seems to have more life.... I think you commented "life-like". Possibly it is a mix of depth, crispness and even luminosity to some degree.

But of course it is all a matter of "different horses for different courses"! But, for me as an amateur, there is just no justification or burning need for such a capex to get into MF digital capture. So, I will just keep shelling out for film and use the link you kindly posted!
happy.gif
 
I have found this digital look to be appealing if used right. guys like nadav kander or lithium picnic. slick, clean, smooth. great for beauty and fashion because it hides pores and is easier to retouch because of the lack of grain. I shoot film but wish I could afford a digi back. Even though it may be a fad look.
 
Hello guys! - What a coincidence.
So glad I bumped with this thread. By the way, superb posts, congratulations.
I posted the following at Yahoo groups mf Nikon scanner forum. no traffic there, no answers yet. Then, while looking for new posts here I found you guys.
Please allow me to post it here. Thanks all.
Best
Eduardo
-------

" DIGITAL IMPASSE
It's being a very long time since I posted in this forum, if I ever did.
These days I find myself wondering things about the analog-digital debate. Hold
on, this post is not about that. I am in the middle of few things. I am waiting for
medium format backs to come down in price to the level where I can afford one. Now, that the new Hy6 6X6 camera is about to be released, there are more options to think about. I own a Hasselblad V system which I love and miss. Sometimes (not often) I get tired of
the digital look. I own a EOS 5D which I absolutely adore. But sometimes, the quality it's
not appropriate and the digital artifacts bother me when I'm pixel peeping.

I am on the verge to start a body of work for a joint exhibit about artisan
natural fabrics. I'm inclined to do all the prints in B&W.I like to print big with an Epson 7600 printer. I was thinking on doing the shots with 4X5 but this conveys a lot of difficulties and huge expenses. I own an Epson 4870 scanner. I've printed before scanned 6X6 Provias to 24X24 that look great for most people, including some pro photographers. For this show I desire even more quality in my pictures. That's why I thought about shooting 4X5. Then it hit me. How about shooting film in MF 6X6 and scanning with the best LED MF scanner available?

Will this combination match or surpass 4X5 scanning with the Epson 4870? Also, I would use a 6X9 MF holder for the in-studio shots. The Hasselblad for location.
What do you truly think of the Nikon 9000 ED? "
 
Eduardo, how many images in your project? You could shoot 4X5 and have the selects drum scanned, or scanned on a high end Imacon/Hasselblad dedicated film scanner.
 
> I have the 8000ED, and it does an extremely good job. Be sure to > get the glass carrier with the anti-newton glass however.
 
I got a 9000 ED fairly recently and am still getting used to it. It is very good indeed for me, but then I couldn't afford one of the dedicated scanners. I suspect that speed may be an issue for professional users.
 
Hmmm... A rather iffy distinction, that between "high end Imacon/Hasselblad dedicated film scanner"s and other machines.

A Nikon 8000/9000 might perhaps not be quite as good, in some respect, as the Imacon ones. But they are high end still.

And what does "dedicated" mean?
 
Dedicated film scanner ... common term used to distinguish between a flat bed which is primarily designed for scanning large reflective materials verses a scanner designed for film scanning.

There are no "Ifs" about it Q.G., and not "in some respect" either.

This evaluation is based on actual visual use, not verbal speculation.

The notion suggested to the poster was that if his scanning needs were not that heavy, purchasing drum scans or scans from a high end Imacon ... meaning specifically to distinguish between the range of Imacon/Hasselblad scanners which include smaller, slower scanners with lower resolution and D-max verses faster ones that offer higher resolution, and better D-max ... such as 848 and 949 used by some scanning facilities that can be rented or scans can be purchased (Photo Village in NY being one of those).

All scan improvements are incremental ... The MF Minolta Multi-Scan Pro that I used to use is widely thought to be one of the best "reasonably priced" table top MF dedicated film scanners ever made because it's light source can be modified to provide more "enlarger" looking scans... and that scanner wasn't a quantum leap better than my Epson V750 Photo flat bed when scanning large and MF films, nor was the Imacon a quantum leap ( close to quantum, but not quite : -) from the Minolta. Like anything digital, you pay a lot to make incremental improvements.

The real measure for those seeking to scan for big display prints is to consider wether the scanner can do 35mm ... which a flatbed can't do well and a MF dedicated film scanner easily can. The concept migrates to MF film that is destined for larger prints ... which is a truer measure since images posted on the internet are all degraded to the lowest common denominator.

Of course, money being an issue, the Nikon or a used MF Minolta are a fine way to go. But that isn't what the poster was asking IMO when stating the end result desired ... for which I would get drum scanned IF I didn't own a Imacon 949.
 
After some reseasch, this is what I understand so far:

Nikon 9000 ED: Good but not great. Mildly expensive

Minolta MultiScan: Better than Nikon. most likely worth every penny. Discontinued.

Imacons: Worth every penny. Too expensive to even consider.

Epson V700 & V750: Very close to Nikon quality for a mere fraction.

Drum scanning: Expensive scans 600 miles away from my home.


I think, it might be one of the Epsons. Ahh! another crossroad.
Which one? According to Vincent Oliver of Photo-I, in practical terms, ther is no difference even considering wet mounting on the V750.
Someone here stand for the V750 and why. I'd like to know. Thanks all.

Hey Marc: I will be printing no more than 20 big prints. That is only paying for 20 drum scans. I'm considering it too. thanks

Eduardo
 
So, Marc, the Nikon 9000 is a dedicated scanner also, and the mention of dedicated scanners carries no meaning in the distinction.

So we're left with "high end Imacon/Hasselblad" vs ... uhm... another high end scanner.

I know, Marc (amongst others because you told us so), that the Imacon is better. It had better be, given the extra money.
wink.gif

Not contesting that.
But all the same, Eduardo, the Nikon scanners are more than good enough to merit the "high end" qualification.

So (second run) we're left with a Imacon/Hasselblad scanner vs another scanner.


(By the way, and totally off-topic: given that a "quantum leap" is the smallest (!) transition possible, i bet that if anything, the Minolta was indeed a quantum leap beter than the Epson.)
wink.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top