Help With Mamiya 645 Pro and Epson V800 Scanner

<p>I have recently moved into MF film from Digital and have bought a Mamiya 645 Pro which came with an 80mm f/2.8 N lens.</p>

<p>As I will be going down the hybrid route, I also purchased the Epson V800 scanner and Silverfast AI Studio software.<br>

So far, I am not impressed with the sharpness I am getting from the images after I have scanned them. Compared to my Nikon D3s they are extremely soft.</p>

<p>Now, I am aware that I may have to teach my brain to see film images in a different way, the sharpness may not be as defined as it is digital but having said that I was hoping for something a little better.</p>

<p>I was wondering if anyone has a RAW scan, one that has had no heavy lifting done in post production from a 645 Pro with an 80mm lens which I could see.</p>

<p>A couple of suggestions:<br>

Assuming your image is itself sharp!<br /> The position of the transparency/negative is critical. The 120 holders are notorious in their inability to keep the film flat and the need to get the level of the carrier spot on. Try the settings available on the carriers and get as near as you can but be prepared to add shims of cooking foil to get sharpness spot on. There are alternative holders available and some users use glass pressure plates. I found also that following processing I needed to keep the film under slight pressure (in a big book) for a couple of days. <br /> You can assess the sharpness available by deliberately scratching the emulsion on a waste frame and using this as a target.<br /> Do have reasonable expectations of your film/ scanner combination. If you scan at 3500 and view at 100 percent you are looking at a big print close up! Remember also that the look of film is not the look of digital.<br /> Finally- don't give up! Scanning is an art and has to be learned to get the best results. Your combination is capable of delivering high quality 24 inch prints from Velvia, Provia, Ektar or Portra - and we havent got on to high res black and white yet!</p>

<p>If you click on my name you can check out my portfolio many of which are scans. Find one you like and click on it to get a larger view.</p>

 

<p>Excellent advice from Gareth, I can't add much, but I will go back to his first statement. Are you SURE your original negatives are sharp? You are now dealing with TWO factors that affect softness, the camera and the scan. As the camera is new to you, I feel you may not be getting a sharp image from the beginning. I have had two Mamiya 645 cameras, the 645E and a 645AFD, both including, among others, the 80 2.8 lens. You have to remember that you have less depth of field to work with when compared to your Nikon. Are you shooting with the lens wide open? Like most lenses, I found the 80 2.8 to perform better when stopped down at least one stop, which also gives you some more breathing room with depth of field. Second, you are now dealing with manual focus. How are your eyes! haha. Truly, when YOU are the factor determining if focus is correct or not, it opens up a new can of worms. Do you have the viewfinder diopter adjusted correctly for your eyesight? Remove the lens and adjust diopter as needed so that the focus grid is sharp when holding the camera against a bright white area. I think you have to be positive that you are getting a sharp image in the camera before attacking the scan process. </p>

<p>Thanks for the reply, I would have replied sooner but for some reason I am not getting any email notifications... hmmmm.</p>

<p>I have since looked at the negatives through a loupe under a light box i quickly made and I was impressed just how sharp they actually look.</p>

<p>I think the issue has to be the way I have scanner setup. The holders on the V800 are not very good, intact the film to me is slightly wider than the holder itself.</p>

<p>According to Epson, the adjustment o the holder needs to be on position 3 but I guess this is only a starting point. Are you just placing the cooking foil under the holder or are you folding it to make it thicker.</p>

<p>Am I also correct in thinking that the optics for the scanner are underneath the actual scanner bed and not in the lid ?</p>

 

<p>Glad to hear your negatives are sharp. To my knowledge, the scanner lid is only a light source. The "guts" of the device are in the body of the scanner. For the life of me, I cannot recall the name of the company that makes custom, adjustable film mounts for the Epson scanners, but they are supposed to provide better results. Should not be too hard to find on Google. I'm thinking it is a name like "Scan Science", but not sure. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Am I also correct in thinking that the optics for the scanner are underneath the actual scanner bed and not in the lid ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Only the light source changes when you select transparency or document in the software.<br /> Paper can be used as a shim. Different weights of paper have different thicknesses. Cooking foil has different thicknesses also depending on brand and standard or heavyweight. #20 bond paper (.005 inch thick) to card stock (.010 inch thick) works well and is easy to keep flat. Construction paper is .013 to .015 inch thick. Shim stock comes in steel, brass, and aluminum in various thicknesses that permanent shims can be made from.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I cannot recall the name of the company that makes custom, adjustable film mounts for the Epson scanners, but they are supposed to provide better results. Should not be too hard to find on Google. I'm thinking it is a name like "Scan Science", but not sure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.betterscanning.com/ is this what you are thinking of?</p>

<p>I shoot 6x7 MF and always have to sharpen the heck out of it (Epson V600). Don't be afraid to crank up the sharpening slider.</p>

<p>Hello everyone. I use a V800 for my 4x5 negatives and have found that the provided negative carrier is OK with it's slider adjustments. No experience with the V800 for MF, but my V600 requires the Better Scanning negative carriers for both 6x6 / 6x7 / 6x9 and 35mm. You will work yourself to death screwing around with the flimsy Epson carriers. Yes the BS (no pun here) carriers are not cheap, but seldom do my scans require any "sharpness" added. Here is a 35mm from my CMC Vito II, UFX400 film, Obsidian Aqua developer and V600 scan. Spotting and contrast controls post production only. Aloha, Bill</p><div></div>

<p>Do some research into medium format DSLR scanning. Epson hasn't appreciably updated its scanners for years aside from light sources. IMHO the high-end Epsons are now poor value.</p>

<p>Ian,</p>

<p>A couple of thought a couple of my thoughts while repeating some of the points made in Gareth's excellent post. 1. Are you using at least a 4x loupe to check for critical sharpness? 2. Are you using the camera with the mirror locked up, cable release and a suitably stable tripod taking care to focus carefully (and realizing you have almost 2 stops less dof with the 645 format than with the d3s full frame sensor) ? 3. What type of film are you using? Slide films have considerably more contrast than the Neg films we currently have available in 2016 (I prefer negative for its less harsh look and better DR though). If you are coming from a DSLR understand this. Neg films are very high resolution but they definitely take some operator skill to the best out of them. Silverfast is reputedly excellent scanning software though I have no firsthand experience.</p>

<p>You can achieve very sharp high quality results with a Mamiya 645Pro if your technique is good. These were high quality professional "beasts" (like my Bronica ETRSi) that required careful attention to detail in the shot technique department. Certainly quite a bit more than using my 35mm Nikon N90s of the 12mp DSLR I used to own did. Hand holding ANY Medium Format SLR entails risk at most shutter speeds below 1/250th if you are as picky about image quality as I am (Note: I do not do portraiture anymore so I exclusively use my Medium Format SLR's on a tripod with slow film.. in portraiture a little softness is nice.. most pro's shooting portraiture with a rig like the 645pro use it for its tonality and are ok with a little loss of sharpness handheld..if you want handheld medium format then consider a Mamiya 6/7 or Bronica RF645/Fuji 645Zi as these have no mirror)</p>

<p>Finally, The EPSON V800 is not ideal. Its true resolution is not high enough for negative film as you need something like a TRUE 4000dpi to avoid both heavy aliasing with some neg emulsions and enough resolution for larger prints. The v800 should be ok for an 8x10 print but anything larger from a 645 negative may not possible from a consumer flatbed if you are picky about image quality in my experience. However, this really only comes into play if you want to make large prints. For web posting or web any epson should be fine with a little tweaking.</p>

<p>Good luck. Feel free to email if you have any additional questions about workflow. If you wish to send me a scan made with your V800 I can try and help and see whats going on here (and reciprocate with one of my scans made with a 645 SLR taken under optimal conditions).</p>

<p>Thanks john for the reply.<br>

Most of my work up to now has been done on a tripod using FP4+ film rated at 125. I am developing them in HC-110 1:31 with normal agitaion for 9 minutes.<br>

I am interested to hear more about what you said about ...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>you have almost 2 stops less dof with the 645 format than with the d3s full frame sensor</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did read somewhere about this but the explanation was a little vague. if you could elaborate I would be appreciated as this is something i am finding looking through the negatives.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>you have almost 2 stops less dof with the 645 format than with the d3s full frame sensor<br>

I did read somewhere about this but the explanation was a little vague. if you could elaborate I would be appreciated as this is something i am finding looking through the negatives.</p>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, I'll try to explain it:</p>

<p>(1) When comparing two formats, the lens focal length to achieve a given composition scales linearly with the width (or more accurately, diagonal) of the film frame. So 645 (70mm diagonal) requires a lens which is 70/43 ~ 1.7x longer focal length than 35mm film/sensor (43mm diagonal).</p>

<p>(2) If 2 lenses have the same f-stop but one is 1.7x the focal length of the other, it also has 1.7x the clear aperture (linear diameter) of the other.</p>

<p>(3) However if you could open up the smaller format lens to a 1.7x wider diameter, the two lenses would have the same linear aperture. Each 1.4x change in linear diameter yields a light intensity difference of 1.4 x 1.4 = 2x, which we define as 1 stop [recall how the f-stop scale increments are always 1.4x the previous aperture: f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, ...]. So opening up to a 1.7x wider aperture is a light intensity difference of about 1.5 stops.</p>

<p>(4) Like light intensity, DOF also scales as the square of the linear aperture [except in inverse] so it can also be 'measured' comparitively in stops. Thus the 1.7x <em>increase</em> in aperture diameter (645 lens at the same f-stop as the 35mm lens) produces a <em>reduction</em> in DOF of about 1.5 stops. John expressed this as "almost 2 stops less dof". For the bigger medium formats (6x6, 6x7, ...) it equals and then exceeds 2 stops.</p>

 

<p>I gave up on film after discovering that I needed to go to 4x5 in order to improve on the image quality I was getting from a Canon 5D and Nikon D700 at a mere 12 megapixels. 645 medium format could just about equal the digital capture, but the workflow was so slow and expensive that it just wasn't worth it in my view. Now a D800 and D7200 have taken those digital images to another level again.</p>

<p>It's not just about resolution though, but about the general cleanliness and colour clarity of direct digital capture. 2nd generation digitised film just can't really compete IMHO. For me it would be a complete "wet" film workflow or nothing.</p>

<p>The 5x4 cameras might get used again one day, but I'm not getting any younger or stronger to lug that 25 lbs of camera, filmholders and tripod around.</p>

<p>Oh! And by the way, I've had two Mamiya 645 supers and a ProTL pack up on me. The old 645m and 1000s are still going strong though - or they were last time I looked.</p>

<p>Thanks Ray for the explanation, this is most useful and I will keep reading it over until it sinks in</p>

There are other apects to consider than just the

resolution when comparing digital and film. I use

both as digital does not answer all my aesthetic

needs.

 

You will need to find the sweetspot for your scanner.

Experiment with the three positions on the epson

holders. I bought the BetterScanning holders; the

extra inserts that are placed between each frame

help to keep film flat but they are still fiddly to use

and your best bet is to flatten the film before

scanning by placing the film strips in a book,

between pages (in polly pockets).

 

Yes, you need to sharpen and sometimes sharpen

again to get good results with flatbed scanners. This

is normal as long as the focus is even across the

frame.

Post-scanning sharpening may or may not be useful, but it is not a solution for the loss of sharpness either at the time exposure was made, for low-resolution film or for scanning process that did not obtain all the resolution present on film. Before you do anything, take a piece of blank film and create on it some linework using a pen with old black technical drafting ink. Scan it; this will quickly tell you on which side of the fence the problem lies. And unlike some opinions expressed here, I was quite happy with 30x40 cm prints made from 120 film scanned on a flatbed (CanoScan 9950F) scanner.

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.

Edited November 15, 2018 by pablo_escobar

And the point of reviving this 2 year and 8 month old thread was?

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'm glad this thread was revived. I found the information about scanning MF negatives very educational. I plan to start doing that and I am in the research mode of what scanner to get, issues that people have had, etc.

Matt, FWIW, I got into scanning film a year or so ago with a used Epson 700. These are obsolete devices only in that they don't run with windows 8 or better. I run an old WIndows environment so that I can use the older scanner. There might be some good info in this thread but in my opinion its not that rich in terms of answering the OP's question.

As long as we're talking medium format scanning, here's what I've found:

 

I have several thousand medium format slides and negatives in several formats, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7. I started early in 2017 by purchasing an Epson V850. I, too, wasn't really happy with the results until I bought an insert from Better Scanning. Their holders use anti-Newton glass, and are a fixed height from the glass.

 

I also use three different scanner software packages; VueScan x64, Silverfast 64bit, and Epson's proprietary scan. There isn't a single application that's perfect for all films. There are just too many algorithms among the companies to get the results I like from one package. The algorithms used for Fujichrome in Silverfast aren't the same as those in VueScan, so you have to try each one to see what works best for you. I also save everything as a TIFF. When I move the image to Affinity, Corel, or Photoshop, I can use the appropriate package, again depending on the image, and how it can be best edited.

 

I've discovered over time, that the software packages cause the same arguments as did developers in the film days - Is D-76 better than TMax, better than Rodinal?

I am in the "middle of researching what film camera I want to buy. I used to shoot 35mm film. I now shoot dSLR but I yearn for the look of film and have always wanted to try MF, so I am reading the thoughts in this thread eagerly as I will need to think about my new film workflow.

 

Excellent input (mostly). Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

I've been using an Epson V800 to scan my 120 negatives and am very satisfied with it. I'm using the standard Epson 120 film holder (IIRC it has ANR glass) at its default setting and have no problems whatsoever with sharpness. Of course, sharpness will depend on a lot of factors that occur prior to scanning. The Epson film holders can be adjusted (height relative to scanner glass), but as I mentioned mine is at the factory default setting and no issues whatsoever. I'm scanning with Silverfast 8 Ai...haven't tried the Epson software. There's another thread regarding digitizing 120 negatives...I posted a test image there that I took with my 6x17 camera on 120 film and scanned via the V800.