andre_chor

So I've since returned the 120 camera I bought-- faulty meter on a Plaubel 67-- sticking with 35mm and going to scan with a Pakon F135. Will compare to D810-- I'm sure the D810 will look nicer but the Pakon is so darn blazing fast! Thanks all

Thanks for your input Edward. I think 120 is worth a try for black and white; I haven't used a roll of E-6 or C-41 for ages.

I'm pretty lazy and do the simplest developing i can think of: a few drops of Rodinal, stand develop. Sounds like I'm going to have to up my game if I want a good comparison! Thanks for the advice.

Hi all, After much consternation and dabbling in all kinds of digital solutions, I've finally settled on a Nikon D810 as my main camera, in part due to its resolution to double as a copier for my negatives. Right now, I just have 35mm but am thinking of moving up to 120-- probably 6x7 or 6x9-- as I really want archival black and white. Will be using 55/3.5 Micro lens with extension tube as needed. Not having started to copy yet, may I please ask, what is your experience with copying 35mm negs compared to 6x7/6x9 negs with a circa-2017 high-res camera like a D810? At what size print enlargement did you say, whoa, major difference!? Even though I'm sure there will be a lot more information on the monitor when comparing 35mm to 120, reality for me is that if i can see no incredible difference in, say, up to 2'x3' prints, I don't know if I'd spring for 120. Your thoughts, thanks!

Brian, No pressure-- but I bought my M8 a few months ago in no small part to your and Arvid's extensive discussion and work about being able to access the RAW files through service mode. I think it is working pretty well. How would you compare your M8+RAW experience to the MM's in terms of other factors besides high ISO, which obviously the MM has and the M8 hasn't? Thanks

Hi all, It's been several years since I printed at home. In 2005, I bought an HP Photosmart 8450 because of its excellent plug-and-play black and white output. Sure, the Epsons could wring more out of a print, but in terms of ease of use, you couldn't beat the HP-- though ink is more expensive as one can't buy in bulk. Fast forward to 2015. I'm looking I get into no-fuss B&W home printing again. I could spring for a super duper printer like a Canon Pro-1 but at considerably more expense; I see used HP 8750s which print at 11x14 going for peanuts. As I liked this printer before, how much better have plug-and-play B&W inkjets gotten since I was last on the bus? What am I missing? Thanks