michael_sample Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 After a long period of sitting on the fence, researching and hoping that a good, cheap Medium format system might be available, I finally took the plunge. Up until now I've shot about 80% digital; Canon 350D with lower-end IS lenses, and 35mm with a combination of a Nikon FM, Zenit E and a Fujica ST705w. Not exactly the Ferraris of the photographic world, but Im happy with the results. I could have saved and purchased wide angle glass for my Canon - my aim being to try for Ansel Adams-esque landscape photography. Unfortunately, my APS sensor isn't up to the snuff of Adams' large format, and even with DC glass, wasn't ever going to be. I wanted Medium Format as a justification to do my own developing (at least, in B&W) and also as a basis on which to begin landscape photography. So here's what I have, after much handwringing and hoping that my fiancee doesn't find my VISA bill: - A Mamiya RB67 Pro (Im not sure which of the subversions it is - something tells me its the oldest.) - 90mm Sekor Lens (Im pretty sure its 'Non-C') - 120 Film back (not entirely sure which kind) And thats it. I've done a little bit of shooting already - with more to come. I guess what Im asking here is - can anyone give me any pointers on what to do next; what should I angle for in terms of lenses (in the future). How can I best take advantage of what I have now? What are some things to bear in mind when shooting with this kind of camera (aside from the fact that I need to go to the gym alot more if I want to carry it for any length of time) that isn't immediately apparent to someone coming from 35mm? Likewise, 120/220 film - how should it be handled and what are its benefits/detriments? And lastly - I bought the RB67 because of its size (specifically the 6x7) and flexibility - at least in terms of backs. Im told it can take a Polaroid back, as well as a 70mm - its the 70mm that interests me; does it provide a bigger negative? what are the perils or benefits of working with it? Basically any advice or pointers people could offer would be much appreciated. Wish me luck shooting with this beast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_dorcich1 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 The 70mm would be a smaller negative, it is a back that takes 70mm film, which is very hard to find. You can get a polariod back for it, but polariod is ending film production. I would stick with the 90mm for now, from your use of the camera you will quickly find out what lens you want next, either wider or longer. As far as 120/220 film, do you plan on shooting color or b&w? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_sample Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 Probably B&W for the most part. Im getting back into film because of the hands-on nature of it (as opposed to the intangible, 'virtual' nature of digital, which frankly Im sick of) - so I'd be developing everything myself. What would you suggest? I realize that color would likely be better for landscapes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_elder1 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Your 90mm lens is the normal lens for your RB67. a fine lens to start with. Get a 180mm C lens for portraits. It kills me how inexpensive a 180mmC is today compared to when I bought one in the 1990's. Then I would pick up a 65mm C lens if you intend to do any wide angle work. You could get the 140mm Macro lens as a substitute for the 180 if you would like to do close -up work. A great system. Use a tripod whenever you can! No problem at all making great 16x 20 prints from those 6x7 negs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ_britt3 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I realize that color would likely be better for landscapes... Someone should have told Ansel Adams.....before he wasted all of that time on b&w.I think what you are doing is great.....will really open up your world. Shoot more film.......print more photos....next you will need a darkroom. Good luck on you new adventure. 16X 20s that nothing, I have made 40X60s from hassey negs, you should easy go bigger with a 6X7 with a tripod and good exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rothelle Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Color is great not only for landscape but for anythings as B&w is good for if you know what your doing. I never thought it was a waste of time for the Master of Ansel Adams to do B&W as his work is the best and have so many other as yourself to wish you were as good as he:-) B&W rules and me myself love nothing more than a real fiber B&W print. You have a great system and I love that camera when I had it. Now I using a Pentax 67 and RZ67. On the RZ I shoot mostly with the 127mm and the 180mm while my 250mm just sit with the 50mm and 65mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert lee Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 "... can anyone give me any pointers on what to do next ... How can I best take advantage of what I have now?" As far as additional equipment goes, I'd go for just one additional thing: an inexpensive (less than $150) film capable flatbed scanner. The 6x7 is large enough that you can expect very good scans. Oh, and of course, do try B&W (and especially doing your own film development.) Read up on the zone system. Learn how to control the negative from choosing exposure and development. All the digital darkroom techniques carry forward post-scan. I find the hybrid of 6x7 B&W and inkjet printing an outstanding combination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjamin_kim Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I would recommend a scanner too, but unless you're looking at a used one, I'm not sure if you can get one that is capable of scanning 6x7 under $150. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert lee Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 An Epson 4490 is about $130 new, and less refurbished. Canon equivalents work just as well. Scan at 4800dpi, but down sample in post to 2000dpi. This squeezes about all there is out of these inexpensive scanners. 6x7 has enough film area for about 20MP this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_sample Posted February 10, 2008 Author Share Posted February 10, 2008 So (and this is probably an obvious question - I scan the negatives directly; not the prints? What is the breakdown of the process, beyond the resolution/stop down in which I scan; I can only assume it needs to be inverted and cleaned up in, say Photoshop some. What are the steps from shooting through to an end result - digital image? Thanks guys for all your advice, so far I have taken it to heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert lee Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Yes, scan the negatives directly. Just load the film onto the carrier, and set the scanning software for negative. You'll get a nice TIF file in about 5 minutes. Down sample and otherwise edit in Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now