Medium Format/Scanning Images

[alan_crook]

<p>Hello everyone,</p>

<p>I am VERY new to the whole Medium Format thing. I have often wanted to explore the options that this format offered, but probably like most, I was always intimidated by the unfamiliar aspects the camera. A little back ground, and then I will ask my question.<br>

I am a college photo student working on a BFA who also functions out of a small personal studio where I have been doing fairly well building a portfolio for the fashion/commercial industry. I currently have a Nikon D100 & D2x (my main camera). Obviously, like most, I cannot afford a MF with a digital back at this time. So I have two concerns:<br>

1) At the present, I would like to begin doing some work with a capable MF camera, but would like to find one that could, should I ever be fortunate enough to save the money, operate in a digital capacity. Could you offer some suggestions? (I am not opposed to considering used gear, since that is what my other cameras are.)<br>

2) Until such an upgrade to a digital back could take place, what options would I have as a photographer who works heavily in Photoshop, now using a MF camera? Is scanning the prints a good, solid option? If so, is there a scanner that anyone could recommend? Or, is there a way that the negatives themselves could be scanned directly into Photoshop? Do photo labs offer these options for film processing on MF? Any general idea what this typically costs?</p>

<p>I apologize for the overwhelming amount of questions. I searched the site, but since I am a little unfamiliar with the forum overall, I came up with very little regarding my question specifically. If there a thread that is already out there, please point me in the right direction. I am very serious about learning, and thank everyone in advance for their assistance.</p>

<p>Alan</p>

 

[janne_moren]

1) I would not worry too much about digital capability. Just get something for film that fits you and your budget now. Even if MF digital prices drop dramatically the cost of a body alone will probably dwarf what you spend on used MF equipment now. And used film equipment tends to hold its value fairly well, so you'll recoup a fair amount of your money if/when you resell it again.

 

Also, digital systems have sensor sizes that differ from their film counterparts, and lenses are better designed for the kind of sensor they are used with. So if you get the funds to buy a digital MF camera, chances are you'll want to buy lenses specifically for that camera anyway.

 

For film use you're really better off with larger formats - 6x6 or 6x7 or so, rather than 6x4.5. Larger formats are easier to scan with good quality even using inexpensive scanners. Digital MF, on the other hand, is all 6x4.5 or smaller. So lenses really act differently.

 

That said, Mamiya 645 and Hasselblad both have digital backs, though I don't know about specific compatibility issues between their film and digital gear. Pentax is supposed to release a digital 645 camera this spring, which will take the same lenses and stuff as the Pentax 645 film system. Larger format cameras, like the Pentax 67 that I use, don't have digital backs (and never will), but the lenses can generally be used on smaller formats with adapters.

 

Again, don't worry about a digital future. Pick an MF camera you're happy with now.

 

For scanning MF, especially larger MF, the Epson V500, V600 or V700 are good options. They're not all that expensive and they'll do both MF negatives and prints if you want. The V700 (which is what I have experience with) will do really nice 6x6 and 6x7 scans, and will do LF as well if you ever get into that. I use it for 35mm film too, but it's kind of marginal for that; if you ever want to do good-quality film 35mm you're probably better off with another scanning solution for that.

 

For the occasional shot you can have the film scanned of course, but it does add to the cost. The cheapest way is probably to have the lab do only development (for color) or develop yourself (for BW), scan at home using a decent flatbed scanner, and only have the lab do high-quality scans of those frames you decide you need to print big.

[alan_crook]

<p>Thanks. Your response was VERY helpful. Since posting this, I have been actively searching for more info. I am finding that I agree with you about forgoing MF in digital - at least for a very long while. I discovered cheaper alternatives, like the <strong>(Creo) Leaf Valeo</strong> digital back for the <strong>Mamiya 645 AFD</strong> , but I only found one for sale out there and it was vague on the details. <br>

I like your explanation about the scanning option. Just to make sure I understand correctly - Do you typically scan the negative straight the computer, or process the image and then scan the image? You made it sound as if you do actually scan the <em>Negative</em> itself. How would I go about about transferring this in a<em> Positive</em> used it is scanned into a digital format? Is there some simple way of doing this in Photoshop?<br>

Again, thanks very much! I am beginning to feel that much more confident about stepping out into the MF world as a result of this and the other research I have done.</p>

<p> </p>

[janne_moren]

I scan the negative. That's the normal way to do it. The scanning software can turn the image into a positive image for you. For black and white it's easy of course, while for negative color film the software first has to subtract the orange mask in the film, then invert the colors. It's doable in photoshop if you absolutely want to, but really, why go to the extra trouble?

 

Scanning is a skill in itself, and you'll probably find it pretty frustrating the first couple of times. I use Vuescan, which does a very good job with the scanning part, but like most scanning software it can be pretty unfriendly to use. Generally I just use the scanning software to get the image off the film and reversing it into a positive. I save that as a DNG, then use the same RAW converter I use for digital cameras (UFRaw in my case) to continue the processing just like it was a digital image.

[panos_voudouris]

<p>What Janne Moren said. I'll just add my experience.</p>

<p>If you want a MF camera first decide on the format. Since you will be scanning I'd say better go 6x6 or 6x7. Scanned 645 will probably not give you enough of a difference in look/quality compared to your D2X.</p>

<p>Now, as far as I know, the most viable cameras for future digital compatibility are the Hasselblad V cameras (503CW or other 50x model) for 6x6 and the Mamiya RZ67 for 6x7. They are different cameras for different things though, the Mamiya being very big and heavy.</p>

<p>However, I would recommend that you do look at other cameras that might not be digitally compatible, simply because something like a 6x6 Bronica SQAi or SQB is so cheap compared to a Hasselblad that when the time comes to buy a digital back it just won't matter (when forking out 5k for a digital back, another few hundred $$$ for a camera is nothing). I personally bought a mint condition Bronica SQB with 80/2.8PSB lens for 180 euros. It is a great camera, maybe not as nice as a Hasselblad but for 1/5 of the price you cannot complain and the lens is very very sharp, even wide open.</p>

<p>Once you get your camera, then the cheapest option is to get the film developed and scan it yourself, as affordable scans from labs are always horrible and good scans from lab will exceed the cost of a good film scanner after a dozen rolls. I would NOT recommend printing and scanning the prints. Scanned prints generally have low resolution and poor dynamic range, simply due to the way print scanning works.</p>

<p>What I do is I have an Epson V700 to scan my film. Negative/positive/B&W doesn't matter, you put the film in the appropriate holder, click the relative film option, scan and you get a nice image properly shown on your computer. Getting it right will take a few days of frustration, especially if you scan colour negatives, as you do not have any "reference" for what you see and the scanner takes a guess at what the film mask is. Scanning slides is much easier.</p>

<p>Personally I will use the Epson software, fiddle a bit with the levels sliders to get a relatively good scan and then fix everything else in Photoshop. I tried SilverFast and the VueScan demos but in the end the Epson software is fine for me. The other two are more powerful and can give you better scans, but I print directly from the negatives, the scans are for web use or relatively low 4000x4000 pixel scans, so it doesn't make that much of a difference to me.</p>

<p>My aim is to get a relatively flat-contrast scan with quite a bit of dynamic range in it and then adjust in Photoshop. Generally expect to spend a few days figuring things out, don't give up, in the end you will find a workflow and all the settings and it will then be quick and easy.</p>

<p>The V700 can scan a 6x6 negative to huge sizes, at full resolution and 48-bit colour you will get something like a 500MB file out (14000x14000 pixels or so). One of your main considerations when choosing a scanner for plenty of scanning, is to see how many negatives it can scan at the same time. For example, the V700 can scan 6 6x6 negatives or 4 6x7 at one time. A V500 I think can do 3 6x6 negatives. So this can slow you down a lot, if you have to scan plenty. Of course if you can afford a dedicated MF scanner then by all means do buy one, but these will be quite a bit more expensive than a V700 or equivalent flatbed.<br>

Once you scan the image then it is not different to any of your digital images, import to Photoshop/Lightroom/whatever you use and work as you would normally do.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Just to be clear, you need to get a scan into your computer before you can process the image. So its photograph/process to negs or neg & contact/scan the negs/edit/application, yes? And at each point you choose. You don't necessarily need to scan all your negs; you don't need to seriously edit everything you scan; you don't need to scan everything to a quality that would support your most demanding application. Doing everything to every exposure is time-consuming and/or expensive.<br>

The essential problem behind what you're doing is that MF cameras are these days very cheaply available but that scanners aren't. You need to match the form of scanning to your proposed application(s). If you are scanning merely to see the photograph on screen or to make relatively unimportant small prints then a flatbed will be fine. If OTOH you're scanning for a printed portfolio that others are going to judge for awards, jobs and so on then you are probably going to want to make theselarger prints from real film scanners not a flatbed.. Of course a route of scanning most everything quickly and cheaply on a flatbed, identifying which few shots have most potential and having them scanned on a Coolscan9000, an Imacon, or even a drum scanner makes sense too. I would not use a V700 or any other flatbed scanner to make large prints, and yes, I do have one. The figures quoted above for scan resolutions from a V700 are over-optimistic. </p>

<p>And then there's the "do I buy a scanner or buy scans as I need them?" debate. I'm inclined to suggest also that "process and scan" packages from labs are not often of good quality, and its quite hard to find a cheap scanning service that is good and quick. So if you need a lot of medium quality scans across a year then its not hard to justify buying a flatbed. On the other hand owning a film scanner is altogether a different proposition and if you only really need tens of scans a year at better than flatbed quality then its probably best to buy them in as you need them. Prices vary a lot though, take care.</p>

[panos_voudouris]

<p>I agree, the number I quoted (14000x14000) for a 6x6 scan is just the theoretical of what you would get out of the scanner at full resolution. I did not mean that it is actually a usable 14000x14000 image for a 50'' print.</p>

<p>The actual usable resolution is probably half that or less, although I have not actually tried using a file that big to say for sure and as with all things, opinions vary on the max print size from a V700 depending on scanning software, subject matter, film, etc.</p>

<p>The important point I wanted to make is that a V700 is generally a much more economical and better quality solution than the "process and scan" options you get from labs. After a dozen "process and scan" rolls you will have paid the cost of a V700 and have just a bunch of bad, low-res scans to show for it.</p>

<p>So as said, you do them cheaply on a flatbed and if you really must have a super high quality scan, just let someone in a lab with the proper skills and equipment do it.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Panos</p>

<p>I agree</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_crook]

<p>Awesome. Panos, David, thank you both. The information you guys offered had helped a lot! I was initially asking about the future capability of the MF I bought to perform eventual digital use simply because I was thinking ahead, and how I may one day want to go the full digital route. When I bought my D2x, I bought slightly above my skill level knowing that it was an expensive camera that I would not be able to afford again for some time. I have sense "grown" into the camera's abilities and realize my decision was a smart one. However, Digital for a MF is a FAR, FAR reaching goal, of ever. And at the moment I know that my use of MF would be limited (in comparison to the use I would give the D2x) and therefore the option to shoot film is what I would pursue. That being said, I will now make the final decision on the actual camera, and take a starting look at scanner options. I shoot well enough that I am not addicted to the need to implement Photoshop into all of my work. So scanning everything would not be necessary. Just those exceptional images that I would like to take to the next level creatively. I mean, after all, I am shooting film for a reason. No need to feel like everything must be scanned.<br>

Well, this forum, and this post, has been extremely helpful. I like knowing that there is a place to come and talk with other photo enthusiasts. Thanks, again!</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Just another plug for the V700. I get fine looking 6x7 scans out of it.</p>

[harry_pluta5]

<p>I have the V500 and it is great for doing a single 6x6 or 6x7 at a time if they are intended for 8x10 or smaller prints. I have used a Polaroid Multi 45 in the past and am now setting it up again for use with my "new" Hasselblad 500cm. I used SilverFast in the past but this time I am going to move to VueScan as it works well on 64 bit Windows platform. Also please keep in mind, when you get to the massive size scans that are possible, you had better have a fast computer with a lot of memory that can handle processing them.</p>

<p>One of the shocks I had going back into medium format was the price of film. Keep in mind that you will pay $3.00 to $6.00 per roll. At 6x6 that is 12 shots or 25 to 50 cents a shot plus developing. After shooting digital it is an adjustment and does make a digital back a bit more attractive. The up side is it is like large format, the cost per shot will force you to really think before you trip the shutter.</p>

<p>I did have a Mamiya RZ at one time and it is a wonderful camera on a tripod, not so much so hand held. I picked an older Hasselblad, a 1985 model, as it has many, many years of life left in it and the lenses and almost all of the accessories are interchangeable within the V series of cameras. For under $700 I was able to find a body, three lenses, and a film back. I still need to add a meter of some sort, either in the finder or a handheld, and a second film back so I can switch between B&W and color in mid roll. But I should end up with a pretty nice outfit for right around $1,000.</p>

<p> Whatever you decide to do, enjoy! - Harry</p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_lackner1]

<p>I think you'll find film based photography with a medium format camera to be fun and worthwhile. It seems expensive but in reality you probably won't be shooting 5 or 10 rolls a day or anything like that; I would typically do hundreds of photos on digital for a given subject, but now with film tend to take a more careful, methodical approach, which I enjoy more. Plus scanned negatives look pretty amazing, even using the bargain $200 Epson V500. You can opt for drum scanning later for more resolution. In fact I find that I have an amazing amount of flexibility with scanned negatives in Lightroom compared to digital files from a 5D. <br>

The Mamiya RB/RZ line can use a few different optional digital backs, and they're very inexpensive, so you may want to begin your quest there.</p>

[david_mcniven]

<p>Mamiya RB67 equipment is relatively cheap now and the quality won't disappoint.<br>

For static subjects in the studio it is possible with adapters to attach an RB (or other MF lens) to a 4x5 monorail with your D2x, again using an adapter, attached to the rear standard.<br>

Multiple shots stitched in PS can be a faster way of working than scanning film, offer high quality and you have the advantage of camera movements.<br>

No use at all for fashion of course!</p>

[robert lee]

<p>Since you already have fine small format digital gear, you'll want the kind of MF equipment that can give different kind of images and a different look. The additional budget constraint actually simplifies the equipment choices.</p>

<p>Take a look at the Mamiya RB-67 Pro-S. A complete kit can be had for around $300. Buy a refurbished Epson V500 (direct from Epson) for about $50. Use that for proofing and small prints, e.g., 20MP out to 8x10. Use your school's Nikon, Imacon, and drum scanners for the selected frames deserving of more attention.</p>

<p>While you're down this road, spend another $50 for B&W film developing equipment. </p>

<p>All in all, this experience will vastly expand your photographic horizons. Have fun.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Alan - as Panos suggests get a larger film size (6x6, 6x7, 6x8 or 6x9). I used to use Mamiya RZ but switched to Fuji GX680 for the front movement (and better optics). I also shoot Mamiya 645 (pro and ProTL). When scanned correctly the 645 image is about the same resolution as a file from my Canon 5DII - the Fuji is still clearly better than a very high res 35mm DSLR. For scanning if you plan to do a lot you may get frustrated with a flatbed. I had a 35mm Nikon scanner and added an Epson v700 for Medium format. I found the V700 fairly frustrating to get good results and eventually sold it and bought the much more expensive Nikon 9000. The Nikon ends up at about $2,500 as you need the glass mount to scan MF film well - the plastic thing that comes with the $2100 scanner is useless!. So probably a Mamiya RB or RZ (unless you want to spend the money on Hassy glass or Rollei glass or are prepared to lug the wight of the Fuji GX 680) but you need a tripod for most shots. A Hassy or Bronica 6x6 is better if you want to shoot handheld. For a scanner if you have time and patience then the Epson 700 /750 is a good solution. If you can afford it, pland to scan a lot of images or get frustrated easily the Nikon is a great scanner - but expensive. If you check the posts you will find a lot of mixed reviews and results from the Epson (with patience you can get good results) and almost no criticism of the Nikon - you get what you pay for!.<br>

By the way I generally do not scan B&W except for archive as the results of a scanned and printed B&W image never seem to match what I get using a wet process. If I did a lot of editing after the shot then I might scan more B&W.</p>

[jeffrey_eggenberger]

<p>I have a Mamiya RB67 paid $200, Epson 4490 scanner paid $100 (similar to V500), and I develop my own film both Black & White, and Color film. Easy to do really, I do mine in the kitchen sink, and inexpensive. The 6cm x 7cm negatives are huge and scan easily to 25M at 2400ppi. The Epson software corrects for most the color cast and everything, then I touch up in either Gimp or Photoshop.<br>

You don't need a digital back!!</p>

[david_henderson]

<blockquote>

<p>scanning everything would not be necessary. Just those exceptional images that I would like to take to the next level creatively. I mean, after all, I am shooting film for a reason. No need to feel like everything must be scanned.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><br />Just noticed this. OTOH scanning isn't just a tool for when you want to carry out substantial editing. Its a way to see your photograph without investing in loupes, Lightboxes, projectors etc or without printing every neg. Its a way to see which of your negs might be worth printing. Its a way to be able to transmit what you do and share with others, whether its an internet site like this one, or your lecturers, colleagues etc. Its also a way of accessing digital printing techniques that certainly for colour and increasingly for b&w are the most accessible and available way to get high quality prints from film. With the exception of the last, all this can be achieved with an relatively affordable flatbed scanner.</p>

<p>If though you really do want to scan <em><strong>only </strong></em>your very best work and produce the finest file you can in preparation for a quality print, then I might argue that you don't need a flatbed scanner, you need access to a drum or Imacon or a Coolscan 9000- preferably the college's or at least someone else's. </p>

<p>For me, I find myself doing all sorts of stuff with photographs that requires only a flatbed scan, whether books on Blurb, CDs for galleries and stock agencies, or just sharing stuff on Flickr or wherever, so I wouldn't be without a decent flatbed even if I wouldn't use it to make prints for a wall. </p>

[david_henderson]

<blockquote>

<p>scanning everything would not be necessary. Just those exceptional images that I would like to take to the next level creatively. I mean, after all, I am shooting film for a reason. No need to feel like everything must be scanned.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><br />Just noticed this. OTOH scanning isn't just a tool for when you want to carry out substantial editing. Its a way to see your photograph without investing in loupes, Lightboxes, projectors etc or without printing every neg. Its a way to see which of your negs might be worth printing. Its a way to be able to transmit what you do and share with others, whether its an internet site like this one, or your lecturers, colleagues etc. Its also a way of accessing digital printing techniques that certainly for colour and increasingly for b&w are the most accessible and available way to get high quality prints from film. With the exception of the last, all this can be achieved with an relatively affordable flatbed scanner.</p>

<p>If though you really do want to scan <em><strong>only </strong></em>your very best work and produce the finest file you can in preparation for a quality print, then I might argue that you don't need a flatbed scanner, you need access to a drum or Imacon or a Coolscan 9000- preferably the college's or at least someone else's. </p>

<p>For me, I find myself doing all sorts of stuff with photographs that requires only a flatbed scan, whether books on Blurb, CDs for galleries and stock agencies, or just sharing stuff on Flickr or wherever, so I wouldn't be without a decent flatbed even if I wouldn't use it to make prints for a wall. </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here are a few scans from a V500. It is pretty useful for scanning my old negs and slides. These are medium format scans from 6x7 and 645</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>To give you some idea how good an MF scan can be here is the same shot from a Canon 5DII shot in RAW at ISO 100 on a tripod at 1/100 and F11 using the 70-200 F2.8 zoom at 70mm. The next shot is the scan from the Fuji GX680 with the 150mm F4.5 (equivalent to 70mm on a 35mm camera). The shot is Velvia 100 scanned with a Nikon 9000 at 4000 dpi. Exposure settings will be about F11 and 1/100.<br>

Remember both of these crops represents only 1.1% of the original image so the DSLR will look quite poor. Based on my screen size the image displayed would print about 5 feet by 3 feet from the DSLR and GX 680 about 7 feet by 5 feet! (the full GX680 scan is 11,969 by 8,819 pixels!.<br>

You can see how much detail the scan has preserved - the crop is taken from near the top center of the image.</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>GX680 crop (remember the above crop is about as good as you can get with a DSLR - the 5DII has one of the best sensors out there and while a zoom the Canon 70-200 F2.8L is no slouch - especially by F11).</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>GX680 crop</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I will upload the scan later as i keep getting a server failure (the image is about 1.2 MB)</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Try to upload again</p>

[henrique_silva1]

<p>I was checking the previous V500 scans uploaded by Stuart Moxham, and I was completelly amazed. I am new to MF, I got a Hasselblad 503Cx, and I scanned my first positives/slides with a friend's V700, but I must have done something wrong (result of being a MF noob) because the V700 results I got were nothing like these. Do you have any advice on scanning with the V700? <br /> Also if you could point me in the direction of a good tutorial on how to develop film at home, I would be very thankful, 5€ just for developing a 120 roll is a setback for me.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your time in advance</p>