oh no, i should have gotten the rb67

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by johnny_mustard, Oct 2, 2009.

  1. so I got the 500c from ebay yesterday specifically to make polaroid type photos (didn't want to use an actual polaroid land cam with those plastic lenses). I should have done more research. I get these little blue-ish images surround by a huge black border. Correct me if i'm wrong but the only way for me to utilize the entire frame is to trade the hasse for the rb67 (and get a little cash back hopefully). Am i right? The blue effect i'm assuming is an easy fix - i'm probably not peeling it fast enough or peeling it too soon. Any advice on the size of the image?
     
  2. The Mamiya 67 cameras also aren't full frame on Polaroid pack film. They give you about a 7x7 cm image. I'm guessing the Blad gives you 6x6 cm?
     
  3. Full frame on a standard polariod is about 8cm x 10cm. If you want a quality image though Polaroid is not the way to go. the polaroid back is really just to preview the shot that you will take and check lighting etc... The image is never very sharp and the colours are never that accurate in my experience. The polaroid back is just the MF film version of the LCD screen on a DSLR back.
     
  4. Full-frame polaroid is 73x95 mm for "medium format" polaroid film packs. The best camera IMHO for shooting full-frame polaroids is the Mamiya Universal rangefinder, which also shoots 6x9/6x7/6x6/645 rollfilm, and has some outstanding wideangle and standard lenses. Polaroid no longer makes the film packs, but Fuji still does (FP-100C, FP-100B, FP-3000B), and the Fuji gives better colours (FP-100C) and better resolution (all 3 of them).
    If you want a quality image though Polaroid is not the way to go.​
    I have tested FP-100B scans, and found that you need a minimum of 1200 dpi to capture all the print's resolution. That's the same as a 35mm film scan at 3600 dpi - and less grainy. So FP-100B image quality can actually be good enough for a sharp 10"x8" enlargement at > 400dpi output. (I wouldn't push the other two past 8"x6"). Of course, the rollfilm image you can shoot with the same camera will be sharper still and can sustain enlargements around twice as big (20"x16").
     
  5. Ray not sure how you scan but with MF film (I usually shoot Fuji 6x8) you can scan and get well beyond 20"x16" with a good scanner (I use Nikon 9000 at 4000 dpi). this gives a scan approx 12,000 by 8,800. Printed at 300 DPI this is about 40" by 30" and you can push it to about 250 DPI at high quality. I have not shot the Mamiya Universal but on both the Mamiya M645 and the RZ67 the Polaroid images (I also use Fuji as this is all you can get now) the image is not very sharp. I understand this lack of sharpness is due to the diffusion transfer of the image to the paper through the gel - not a camera or scanning issue.
     
  6. I thought you already determined that 35mm film was the way to go: http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00UdyJ
     
  7. Don't forget the Graflex XL. Just like the Mamiya Universal, it gives you the full 3"x4" image with a Polaroid film holder. And the camera is a lot smaller than the Mamiya.
     
  8. Philip, you can indeed get larger scan resolutions and prints from rollfilm. If everything is optimal - tripod, slow film, aperture and lens movements set for large dof - I can see how you would be in 4000 dpi territory. But I was being conservative - for my style of shooting (mostly handheld, ISO 200-800, larger apertures), 2400 dpi scans are appropriate. For some shots I could do with some more scan resolution...the problem is that the price quadruples to achieve this. Maybe someday...
     
  9. Ray the only economical way to get good scans (at least in Western Canada) is to buy a Nikon scanner (or similar) as a even a good 8 bit MF scan will cost at least $30. Vistek will charge $100 to $200 for a high resolution Imacon and $50 -$100 for a Nikon 9000 scan! It doesn't take many scans to buy a Nikon 9000 and glass holder.
     
  10. I use a 4x5 field camera to get "full-frame" polaroids. Polaroid used to make smaller pack film (type 80) which gave you a
    "full-frame" 7x7 on an rb/rz or a holgaroid, but of course you can't get the film anymore and fuji doesn't make an
    equivalent. which is too bad as I have several of those backs and only a few packs of Polaroid type 85 left...
     
  11. Jonas...I know Fuji used to make 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 film packs for use in the 100 series cameras and backs!!! Did they stop making this??? I'm gonna hate not having instant film for my 'blad if they stopped!
     
  12. No they still make Polaroid type 100 (3.25 x 4.25) and type 50 (5x4) I do not think other sizes are available but 10x8 may be.
     
  13. wow it sounds like there're a lot or pros on this board. Or at least people who know what they are talking about. I've decided to take it easy with all the gear obsession and start taking pics again. I haven't even scratched the surface of what 35mm can do so maybe a few months from now i'll turn to my hasse. But since i have the hasse I'm gonna go out and shoot my first roll of 120 in an hour just for fun. It's a porta400nc. Maybe i'll dump all my canon toys after this roll, you never know.
    The polaroid look i was after was taken with the Mamiya:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/nelsonfoto/2519027997/
    i think mf or 35 + photoshop can achieve similar results.
     
  14. >Jonas...I know Fuji used to make 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 film packs for use in the 100 series cameras and backs!!! Did they stop making this??? I'm gonna hate not having instant film for my 'blad if they stopped!
    I was just referring to the Polaroid Type 80, which was a smaller square roughly 7cmx7cm size. The regular size (Polaroid 6xx) is alive and well in Fuji versions (actually, much better in Fuji versions I think).
    Johnny, you should be just fine with the Hassy for the sample you pointed to. Other than your image being 6x6 vs the Mamiya 7x7, the other person had the same unused sections on his 3.25x4.25 sheet too. If you're scanning the image anyway it doesn't really matter (aside from a little less potential quality due to the slightly smaller image).
     

Share This Page

1111