Im Blown Away By the Image Quality of the Mamiya RB67 !

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>How about comparing a digital slide to a film slide and make this a fair fight? Oh I forgot, you can't do that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, you can.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Pual since I also do B&W completely in the darkroom why are you so against using film and scanning. As I tried to explain above if you want colour MF (especially slide). Scan and print is the most prctical way - using an inteneg is terrible compared to a scanner. Why does the fact that I am using the best process available make NFers look bad? Are you suggesting that we should tell Fuji to stop making Velvia?</p>

[lobalobo]

<p>On the comparison of digital prints to film-scanned prints as opposed to wet prints, I understand the point to be that as a practical matter wet prints are not an option for most. That is, while wet prints may (or may not) be superior, for many posters prints will be digital and so the only comparison that matters is an all-digital process to a film-scan then digital process. I have no opinion on the relative merits, but mention this only because people seem to be talking past one another on this thread.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>i've never gotten as good a result with my nikon d3 than i have with my hasselblad or mamiya film cameras. i'm not sure how people are scanning their film, but I do my own, and also get lab scans. they look fantastic, i've got that beautiful organic look of film, i've got the negs archived, i've got highlights as opposed to blobs of white pixels, i've got more time on my hands. i still need my digicam from time to time though. but i don't feel the need to justify my purchase of the d3 by making outragous claims to its performance. sure it cost over ten times the amount of my rb67, but i knew what i was getting before i bought it. it's funny however that we are comparing digital scans to digicam pics and also a full ag-x process. that is the very beauty of the film cameras........you've got the choice. i just tried to put my 16gb Sandisk CF car into my Durst enlarger to compare, and i can definately see limitations with the D3 when it comes to analogue prints.</p>

[paul ron]

<p>Glad to see we are all enjoying photography regardless of how we do it. Yes the quality issue will always be something to keep us buzzing n it will keep us talking here. But regardless of how we print or shoot, the only thing to keep in mind is to make yourself happy first. When it;'s not fun anymore, quit!</p>

<p>I'd like to see some of the OPs pics soon. I remeber the first time I shot my RB. My pics came out like crap but I had a great time doing it. I was using 35mm before that so when I heard the mirror slap, I thought I was done... no no no, wait for that shsutter to go off after you hear the mirror go up n your p[ics will improve 100%. </p>

<p>Enjoy that camera no matter how you make your prints. Just keep buring lots of film so the companies keep making the stuff for us to argue about.</p>

<p>SMILE EVERYONE, Say cheese?</p>

<p> </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>If you know how to scan, the B&W prints will look great. If you don't know how to scan, then you'll think the darkroom is better.</p>

[paul ron]

<p>I think you got it. </p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>On the topic of the RB67 - I had the fortune of good timing and recently picked up 7 brand new KL lenses and a couple brand new RB67 bodies for fraction of their price of years ago.<br>

<br /> The 127KL lens is as sharp as my Nikon 35mm prime lenses, and has beautiful bokeh - and I am not even big on bokeh.<br>

<br /> If your hands are big enough to grasp an American football one handed, your hands are big enough to easily grasp this camera with one hand.<br>

<br />It is a precise, solid, and ergonomic photographic instrument.</p>

[ericophotography]

<p>Some of these "arguments" to persuade us of the strong suits of this or that technique or piece of equipment are outstanding. But in many cases the photos that are posted to help with the arguments do not do the case any justice. In fact they detract from the point that is trying to be made and are just plain bad photos.</p>

[paul ron]

<p>What can you expect from scans n digital pics. :)</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Dave Luttman - Dave as you can see I get good results scanning colour slide or negative but I find my B&W scans are very poor. While I suspect that the Darkroom may alwasy win for B&W I am interested in being able to scan B&W well. I currently use a Nikon 9000 ED with a glass holder but I find I either have too much or too little contrast - even when I scan on the same settings. I scan B&W on the B&W settiung using the Nikon software and have tried almost every setting but get poor images. I know it is not the negative as I can print them fine in the darkroom - any advice?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Philip, the Coolscan 9000 scans B&W film perfectly every single time without the need of any corrections. Make sure you have all features on the Nikonscan software turned off with the exception of auto focus and auto exposure.</p>

<p>Also make sure you are not loading a previous setting with exposure values in them.</p>

<p>Basically, do nothing and they will be perfect unless the negatives have a problem.</p>

[ingemar_lampa1]

<p>So this thread turned in to another Digital vs. film, GM vs. Ford, Pizza vs. Spaghetti round, did it?</p>

<p>To answer the OP: With my Hasselblad 6x6, I find that the lens I use the most is the 50mm Distagon. I would imagine that it would be the same for the 6x7 format.</p>

<p>And no, in line with what also Q.G. said, there is no need to dump the Mamiya in favor of a 'Blad - so that comes from at least two Hasselblad fans. One of my good friends in Singapore uses the Mamiya and quite frankly, his pictures are every bit as good quality-wise as my ones.</p>

<p>Just use what you have and enjoy the smell every new roll of 120 you put in to it!</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

I always seem to start threads that become immensely popular. The owners should make me an admin :)

[keith_tapscott]

<p>Jon, the images you posted appear to be under-exposed. Try about a stop extra and then carefully bracket another half to one stop extra, other wise, they're interesting images. A bit more depth of field would also make a difference.<br>

Some fill-in light would be useful to help with excessive contrast and to provide more detail in the shadows.</p>

[ryan_k]

<p>I just picked up my first roll of 120 velvia. Let me tell you, just looking at it is enough to never want to shoot digital again. </p>

<p>Don't trust those scans, I'm not impressed in this case. I'm sure the negatives are far superior. Take a digital print and a darkroom print to really compare. Scanning and printing, unless done very expensively and correctly, is still only as good as the scanner. </p>

<p>It's like that TV bit they did on film vs digital where they blew up the two Brits in a Mr. and Mrs. Smith-esque building banner. They showed digital winning, but they didn't give any specs as to how they really went about it. Did they use highest dpi scan? They used the most advanced full frame DSLR and software to edit the digital. </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>If scans work for some of the best photographers around...that's good enough for me.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Rayn - if you want to print from Velvia I am afraid you will have to scan - or have it scanned. Cibachrome no longer exists and internegs are very low quality compared to scanning.</p>

[ed_sawyer]

<p>"Cibachrome no longer exists"</p>

<p>Um, that's rubbish. It still exists.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Ed,</p>

<p>Cibachrome no longer exists. Period!</p>

[ingemar_lampa1]

<p>"Cibachrome no longer exists" - true! It is called Ilfochrome and is STILL available, no problems. It is in fact one of the most advanced ways to get prints even from digital.<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilfochrome">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilfochrome</a><br>

and<br>

<a href="http://www.ilford.com/en/products/ilfochrome/index.asp">http://www.ilford.com/en/products/ilfochrome/index.asp</a></p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Exactly. I said it doesn't exist...and it doesn't. Ilfochrome is close...but different.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Yes.<br>

There is a difference.<br>

The name has changed, and only the "chrome" bit in it is the same...</p>

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't trust those scans, I'm not impressed in this case. I'm sure the negatives are far superior. Take a digital print and a darkroom print to really compare. Scanning and printing, unless done very expensively and correctly, is still only as good as the scanner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. Which is why all of those tedious film versus digital debates are really scanner versus digital debates. The qualaity being discussed is dependant upon the lowest quality item or process in the chain - in the scanned film's case it's the scanner.</p>

[alanyahnke]

<p>I have been using an Epson V750 for a while now with the Epson software. As far as I've been able to see they are very close to the V700. It seems to work fine for scanning.</p>

<p>Here is a set of my RB67 Pro S shots using a few different types of film. Some of them are not marked as to film type, but many are.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21981741@N02/sets/72157612278773389/</p>

<p>Scans from Portra VC<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21981741@N02/tags/kodakportra160vc/</p>

<p>I like the 65mm lens for a general use lens. I also have a 90mm and a 180mm that I use occasionally. 220 backs are nice because you don't have to reload as often. I had light leaks with a couple of my 120 backs, which is easily remedied with new seals. I had mine done. I like Kodak Portra 160NC the best for a general purpose color accurate film, but pick up some 800 for lower light, it is handy. I put my film in at Walmart unless it is something important or that I want back right away. Under $2 a roll. Sometimes the negatives aren't washed enough or something and you need to do extra touch up. For important things I have a good lab about 30 miles from here. I'm guessing with your being in NYC that you have one closer. </p>