pablo_escobar

I use a Plustek 7500i, which cost me 99Euro used, for my 35mm scans. For 35mm, it blows my Epson flatbed out of the water. It also compares favourably with the Minolta Scan Dual III I also own (which, unlike the Plustek, has autofocus potential). The Plustek has higher native resolution than the Minolta Scan Dual and has essentially made the latter redundant for my purposes. I don't own a DSLR and a micro Nikkor anymore, so I can't compare directly. But a quick survey of 'DSLR scanned' 35mm images on flickr and facebook shows that I can get way better results with the humble, tiny, cheap Plustek. My tentative explanation for this is that DSLR is, potentially, a superior technique IF done correctly. But it's so fiddly and error-prone that most people make a dog's dinner out it.

The shutter of my 3.5F is sticky at slow speeds, so I'm looking for a reliable repairman to CLA my camera in Europe. Any recommendations for the best Rolleiflex repairmen who are still active and doing excellent repair work? Thanks

Hi John! I have done the same recently - unearthed my old film cameras, and bought some more, too (medium format this time - I was only shooting 35mm back in the day). It's great fun, you'll enjoy the learning process, or getting back into old, pre-digital thinking habits. I'd recommend learning to do the processing yourself, at least for black and white. It's what I have done last year, and it's cheaper than using a lab, in the long run. You will be amazed at the degree of control you will be able to achieve, by testing different film stocks, different chemistries, and variations in the processing. For scanning, you have a bunch of options: try a dedicated Plustek scanner if you plan on doing 35mm, or an Epson V550 if you're going medium format route. Get in touch if you need more advice on that! The XP2 C41 chromogenic option is a great idea IME. I've shot a lot of XP2+ in 120 format recently. The important thing is that this film has its own, very distinctive look. It is *very* different, when scanned or printed, fro silver halide-based black and white material. For both XP2+ and traditional silver based film, I'm finding I'm able to achieve a look that I simply am unable to simulate with photoshop or computers. But that's just me, in spite of working with computers to earn a living, I am just terrible at using them to process my photos! Besides, one of the points of shooting film again, for me, is that I want to reduce my post-processing to a minimum. You'll find film will allow you to do that: you'll do much more thinking in the minutes, or seconds, before taking the shot, that later, in front of a computer. I basically now use photoshop only for crop, levels and resizing, which is great! One final point that might be relevant for you, too: shooting black and white film in the field, as opposed to colour film to then convert to B&W later on a computer, for me at least, is extremely important: I find that when I *know* I only have black and white film loaded in my camera, as opposed to colour film, I will go searching for a different type of shot, light and composition.

Thank you everyone for resurrecting this thread - I'm not the OP myself, but I am finding your experiences and advice extremely helpful. Lots to take in. Please keep the expert advice coming!

I think it's a backing paper issue.

Fotoimpex is hard to beat for me for BW. I bulk buy 10x Fomapan 120 rolls and it's cheaper than anywhere else I've found. For everything else, 7dayshop.

Thanks for sharing this link. It was a good read and I guess I finally understand what stand development is. I fail, however, to understand its advantages with respect to traditional Rodinal/R09 development. The blogger in the link above states: Which sounds good, but is not IMHO supported by the scans of the negatives they post on the page. In all of these shots the processing looks off to me, with burnt or close to burnt highlights and chalky featureless shadows. I am able to get much cleaner highlights and better shadow detail using traditional 10 mins R09 processing with Fomapan 100/200 in 120 format. The cost-saving benefits seem like a moot point also. I use Fomadon R09 at 1:50 dilution in 600ml solution. So I need about 11.8ml of R09 per 120 roll. A 250ml bottle of R09 costs 5.45 Euro from Macodirect. I've just finished my first bottle of the product, having developed 21 rolls, with a cost per roll of 25 Euro cents. What am I missing?

:D never a truer word spoken..

None! In this era of digital photography I consider myself still lucky to still have Foma 100, 200 and 400 in 120 format readily available. Wonderful stuff!

I find fomapan 200 gorgeous in Xtol. This applies to the stuff in 120 format, no experience with 135 FWIW.

I found the post above to contain excellent points of discussion that are very much current. Also, I have not found a rule against reviving an old thread whose contents might be still relevant. What I'm struggling with, however, is your reply, which adds nothing to the conversation as far as I can see. The point of your comment being?

I scan my 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x9 film using an Epson V550 flatbed scanner. I scan my 35mm negatives using a Minolta Scan Dual III dedicated film scanner. In terms of ultimate sharpness, I can extract far higher sharpness from the 35mm film + dedicated scanner than I can from the MF film and flatbed scanner. So, if it's ultimate sharpness you're after, do consider the fact that a flatbed scanner won't be able to capture everything that's in the negative. Sharpening in photoshop will only help to a limited extent. You will need a dedicated MF scanner to really see what's in your MF negatives in terms of sharpness. Having said that, personally, I much prefer my humble medium format flatbed scans and the workflow I've set up for it, than my 35mm super-sharp scans. I like my results so much that I have basically stopped shooting and scanning 35mm. By the way, I've also sold all of my professional digital Nikon equipment and shoot 100% analog again. Why? Many reasons, but that's for another discussion. One point that might be of interest in this conversation is that the tones and colours I get out my mf scans are simply miles beyond anything I could do with digital with *no* manipulation. I probably *would* be able to approximate the result of a beautiful 6x6 Tri-X scan using digital equipment, but that would be after a lot of post-processing. Why bother? I hate post-processing: once I'm in the digital domain, and using my workflow, all I have to do to my negative to be satisfied is the following: 1) invert 2) crop and 3) minimal unsharp mask. The beauty and simplicity of this is breathtaking and has led me to a renewed appreciation of the most (to me) interesting aspect of photography: composition, light, economy of ideas and critical judgement of my images. No offense to anyone but I honestly think that all these people who are comparing digital and MF analog hybrid workflows based on sharpness are missing the point. But that's just me.

Excuse me for going off on a slight tangent here, but: With the current (supposed) resurgence of film photography, do people believe there is a chance Nikon/Canon release a new film scanner? It's really a pity that an entire segment of a (admittedly minuscule) marker basically does not exist anymore. I'd be on a Nikon Coolscan 10000 in a heartbeat!

Sorry to revive an old thread - three years on, is this scanner a good option for medium format film? In Europe this is slightly cheaper than the Plustek hence why I'm considering it.

Thanks - that's exactly what I did. I taped a yashicamat 124g ground glass on the film frame; camera on tripod set on B; collimation to infinity with a 8x loupe by focusing on far away target (>150m). Looks good, and checks ok when measuring at 1m. Time for a test roll. Fingers crossed!