Medium Format and V750 for professional use?

<p>I`m an architectural photographer, shooting mainly 4x5 inch film. For scanning I use an epson v750, I`m very pleased with the results. However, I would like to use my Bronica 6x6 for interior sometimes when I have to work faster. Does anyone use medium format film with a v750 for professional use? Is the quality good enough for most clients?</p>

<p>It must depend a lot on what clients you have and what they expect for results. I know that Chris Willson uses medium format and a V750 to do magazine-related stuff: http://travel67.wordpress.com/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It also depends on what medium the scans end up in.<br>

40x50 prints are no problem with good scans made wit a V750<br>

This scan was made with a V750 from a 6x6 tranny.</p>

<p>It also depends on what medium the scans end up in.<br>

40x50 prints are no problem with good scans made wit a V750<br>

This scan was made with a V750 from a 6x6 tranny.</p>

<p>It also depends on what medium the scans end up in.<br>

40x50 prints are no problem with good scans made wit a V750<br>

This scan was made with a V750 from a 6x6 tranny.</p><div></div>

<p>Clearly this is a matter of opinion. Having made and bought film scans from MF in large volume, and as the owner of a V700 with the usual "Betterscan" holder and AN glass, my opinion is that if I were supplying prints to clients then I would want to do it from a film scan. The bigger the print, the firmer that view would be. The less I could control viewing distance, the firmer that view would be. The contrastier the original image, the firmer that view would be. Instinctively, I don't like taking risks with how clients view what they get. If 70% of clients are quite happy with the prints, and 10% hate them to the point that they don't work with you again, does that make it a good decision?</p>

<p>I used to have a V700 but replaced it with the Nikon 9000. I don't shoot for a living these days but I was never personally happy with the Epson scanner. I have seen quite good results from this system but I was always unhappy with my own. I suspect that with enough time and effort in setting up the scan you can get good results from the 700 / 750. The Nikon scanner achieves great results with very little effort so I was glad to switch. Like the Epson you need a glass film holder with the Nikon so you end up spending almost $2500. The Nikon is not quite as good as a drum scanner but is affordable, you control the whole process and delivers top quality results. I suggest that you might want to test the Epson in a store. In my own case I found I spent a lot of time and effort to get reasonable but not outstanding results.</p>

<p>I am not a professional photographer. I need to please only myself. But, in my opinion, for large prints, presented professionally, from MF film, no consumer flatbed is probably good enough. For amateur use, they are probably ok. I agree with Philip, the Nikon 9000 is the least expensive way to get professional quality scans for large prints. I too use a glass carrier with my Nikon 9000 and it does make a huge difference. A drum scanner, Imacon, or professional flatbed would be nice but all are considerably more expensive and have their own learning curves. Ultimately, you should try out a scan on the Epson to see if it meets your needs.<br>

Good luck.<br>

Eric</p>

<p>Also, no offense to Mr Gardener, but showing us a small resized image as a test is somewhat ridiculous. A point and shoot image often looks quite good on the internet, on a computer screen. One needs to look carefully at a print to judge differences in scanners.<br>

Eric</p>

<p>Markus, crop a section from a 4x5 scan that would be the same size as a 6x6 neg, approx 1/4 frame. That will give you an idea of what you can expect.</p>

 

<p>When is a big hill a mountain?<br>

It depends on what's right behind it. Maybe nothing--maybe a bigger mountain.<br>

I have a similar scanner, the V500. The question of whether it's good enough depends on what it's being compared to, and most of the time the viewer does not have the luxury of comparing it to something better. Scans from these scanners do not look unsharp by themselves. In comparing my scans to those made by a 9000, of course there is a difference. But it depends on the subject, the size, and whether it's being compared to something else.</p>

<p>thank you guys,<br>

I know that this is a matter of opinion. I was just interested if there are folks using the v750 with 6x6/6x7 film professionally.</p>

I scan B&W film with the V750 for 16x16" fine art landscape prints, and I am fully satisfied with it. The V750 effectively is a 2500dpi scanner, whereas the Nikon manages 4000dpi. It took some time to tweak the workflow with the V750 to get optimum results, but I believe I'm there now.

 

I keep looking at the numerous comparisons against the Nikon 9000 from time to time, but until now, the additional expense for the Coolscan wasn't worth it for me. Sure, all the comparison pictures show a bit of improved detail with the Nikon, but the difference (in particular for B&W, and when looking at real-world pictures instead of test charts) just isn't jaw-dropping and mind-boggling enough for me.

 

As an architectural photographer, you surely have higher requirements for acutance and resolution though, in which case the Nikon might indeed be preferable.

<p>Hi Markus. I am an architectural photographer, using mostly B&W 4x5 and 6x7 film in my work for conservation architects. I use the Epson V700 with the Betterscanning adjustable height holder and ANR glass. This holder and glass are essential for getting good results from the V700 with 120 film. My clients rarely need anything larger than A4 sized prints, but even when they do need 11x14, they are thrilled with the prints that I create for them. However, by the time these images reach 16x20, they start to show the signs of not being what I'd like them to be, but I really have to look close to see that, and my clients do not see the little things that I'm looking at.</p>

<p>I've had the same sharp Ilford FP4+ negative scanned by me and by my local lab using their Imacon, and both the operator and I can find a few small differences between the two scans, but after a reasonable sharpening pass on each, we agree that the V700 produces a very close match to the Imacon scan. If you take cost into account, the V700 is an easy choice for work that ends up printed A4 to A3 size. For submissions to normal sized magazines? No problem.</p>

<p>All that said, it still pays to develop an excellent 3-stage approach to sharpening, no matter how you do your scanning.</p>

<p>Markus,<br>

Not to put too fine a point on this, but if you already own and use the V750 for 4x5 and you feel confident enough to evaluate those results, why wouldn't you just scan your 6x6 film (pretty sure the V750 comes with the appropriate holders) and draw your own conclusions, using the evaluative skillsets that made you comfortable with your 4x5 results?</p>