What's te purpose of medium format without a high end scanner

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Heres 645 scanned with a v500 and a similar image from a 10mp D80. The images are not identical and were shot at different times about 15 years apart. I would be happy with 645 and a cheap flatbed for prints that are not too big. I think people should make prints and compare that way. What may look like a grainy scan when view at 100% on screen will often still make a great print.<br /> The D80 was upscaled to match the 645 scan. Both will make nice 8x10 but the user experience between the two cameras is rather different.</p><div></div>

[jorge_prat]

<p>Thanks guys for your contributions. At the end as some one said, the weakest part in the chain is the scanner quality from flat bed scanners. I really hope something new comes to market at a reasonable price. Maybe the Reflecta is the answer. <br>

I usually work in personal projects for exhibit purposes, so print quality is an issue for me as well as the cost of scanning. I'm far from been famous and I don't usually sell my prints, but the experience of going into a solo exhibition is so rewarding, that as long as I keep cost controlled, I'll keep working with that goal. And I think this is a fair point. Many of us don't intend to keep our images in hard drives, for a casual review every now and then. We look for a good balance between display quality (the scanner chain) and cost. Dslr don't make us life easy...</p>

<p>Thanks anyway<br>

Jorge</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>To get the best results from 120 roll film I get it processed in a darkroom at a professional lab.</p>

[DickArnold]

I have a lot of 120 negatives and transparencies. My scans of transparencies on a V500 have come out well. I have two pictures of Portland head light in my PN gallery one is a scanned 120 transparency (I forgot what film I used and the film is filed away probably Fuji) of the lighthouse and the other taken with an XTi and a 17-40L. I like the earlier scan better in a 13x19 print that I have done myself. I think, when one gets to volume work scanning is a pain and color balance is not as accurate with negatives. I have not done much work in this area because I don't want to take the time to fuss with it. The transparencies have however scanned quite accurately and I feel guilty I have not done more.

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here is in example of the detail you could be getting with a decent scanner. <br>

In this case it is TMAX 400 (pushed to 1600), Mamiya RZII 50mm ULD, Nikon Coolscan 9000<br>

Link to 100%:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Only-TMAX/15377450_94phW#1150713412_SWw4n-O-LB</p>

<div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here you can compare the difference between scanned MF and a crop sensor DSLR:<br>

Link to 100%:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Resolution-and-Diffraction/6302153_PLzKe#407096809_FeZJ4-O-LB</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Some people find that the quality advantage of MF over a DSLR is not significant on a print until 16x20 or larger.</p>

<p>The threshold for me is about 11x14.</p>

<p>If you plan to display your prints in large formats for the years to come. I would consider keeping your work in MF and if possible move to 6x7. You can buy a great 6x7 for cheap nowadays and the effort/cost in film and scanning won't be impacted much.</p>

<p> </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>How many pictures you take to print/display a year? You may always outsource the scanning if you have low volume.</p>

[mattb1]

<p>I can not wait for the day that a true MF digital camera is affordable. The latest Pentax is a step in that direction, Until then I will stick to my 5D II, for me it does better than my 645 and really makes it hard to use the 6x9. I miss looking at transparencies on the light table, but I also love the results when printing large with the 5D II. I'm sure it will be better when I can get a real digital MF camera.</p>

<p>You may want to look at getting a Canon 5D, great quality. To be honest my 5D II is not much better.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>How large do you print Matt?</p>

[sfcole]

<p>Stuart,<br>

The D80 resolves twice as much as the 645. I count 2 headlights resolved by the D80, and only 1 resolved by the 645!<br>

Many have pointed to the Prime Film/Reflecta 120 scanner on the horizon, but since Prime Film 35mm scanners have failed to distinguish themselves with serious photographers, I'm not sure their 120 will be that great either.<br>

Scott</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>Get a medium format projector if you still want to be amazed at the MF quality. Projected 35mm slides can do this as well, MF just takes it to another level.</p>

<p>Also, one of the advantages of MF and larger systems is the aesthetic they bring to images because of the larger image (film/sensor) area and the resultant need to use longer focal lengths than 35mm film, full-frame or APS-C DSLRs and P&S digitals. You cannot get the same aesthetic unless going for digital MF systems that are today far too expensive for most applications bar a few higher-end commercial applications.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>getting the detail from the neg to the scan is one thing, but if you want/need to take advantage of the other benefits of film, then a digital substitute just won't suffice. I shoot both, for work, and there are times when I need the extra dynamic range, or that special look of film. i shoot, send my film to the lab, and it comes back a few days later developed, sleeved, and high res scanned.....easy. I'd love a Coolscan 9000 instead of my Canon 8800f, but if I'm shooting colour, then the lab always does the scan, and if it's B&W, then I make proper prints in my darkroom. My MF scanner is mainly for small web uploads or for proofing.</p>

<p>B&W is where MF really pulls ahead of the SF DSLR's, and there's certainly an appreciable difference from 135 film. I suspect there's even a fair difference from 6x45 to 6x7. For me, the only time I would shoot MF for colour, is if I know I'm going to print big, otherwise 135 format film gives me all the advantages I need over SF DSLR's, but with greater speed, versatility, and discreetness than I get with my 6x7. </p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>Good question.<br>

<br />But the long term future for those still using Medium format film cameras will be Black and White printing in the darkroom.</p>

[david_henderson]

<blockquote>

<p>But the long term future for those still using Medium format film cameras will be Black and White printing in the darkroom</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andre , I'm not sure I agree with that but would you tell why you think so?</p>

[jonathan_montague]

<p>ive just rediscovered the darkroom using MF and for me the quality and characteristics of film is whats appealing as well as just using the camera and the difference that makes to your thought process. the anticipation of seeing your negs after developing them (bw). i get colour shots processed at the lab, which is expensive. but for me for me it is absolutely worth it.</p>

 

[andre_noble5]

<p>David H:</p>

<p>I think the long term future for those of us shooting Medium format will be <strong>B&W film</strong> and darkroom printing because Nikon and Minolta MF scanners will be a thing of the past, and professional labs offering scanning of film will be rare and expensive. Beside color film is on the way out anyhow. Possibly as early as ten years from now (although as a film devotee and nikon 5000 and 9000 user, I hope not).</p>

<p>Besides - the gold standard for photography remains the silver based fiber print, sepia/selenium toned. This needs a darkroom.</p>

<p>By the way David, have you availed yourself of the dirt cheap brand new Mamiya RB67 gear KEH is liquidating for pennies on the dollar? BTW, they are listing this gear (lenses and film backs) as "LN" but it is actually factory new. I know you like Bronica 6x6 and the M7 II. </p>

<p>I have been very pleased with the results of my RB kit.</p>

<p> </p>

[frank_major]

<p>I'll weigh in from a newb perspective. I don't have *any* darkroom experience. I *do* have a lower-end flatbed scanner in the V500. I plan on using my RB67 Pro-S to become part of a more enjoyable photographic experience.</p>

<p>If, in my scans, i see something in really like i'll send that out for a hi-res scan (imacon, etc). Same is true for either color or b&w though i anticipate using more b&w as time goes on. I'm looking to have fun and being able to get good web-size scans for posting to family and friends.</p>

<p>To me, MF undoubtedly makes good sense for what i want to do photographically. However, LF is simply way beyond the level of convenience i'm willing to endure whereas MF is *just right*.</p>

<p>The *point* in using MF is simply the process of creating. I use a dslr, a digital p&s and 35mm as well as my RB67. Each has it's place in my need for taking images. Honestly, 35mm and the dslr are kinda stuck in the middle for usefulness and are being used less and less as i go from digital "convenience" needs to the slow, pondering time of photographic delight with my RB67.</p>

<p>Horses for (their) courses as they say.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>I agree with Andre. For one thing, it's not clear whether there will every be anything to replace the Nikon 8000/9000 scanners. For another, I think that color is often better with digital. And since people using MF tend to be purists dinosaurs (like myself), a move back to the darkroom would seem to be logical. What other choices are there? Flatbeds simply don't do the possibilities of MF justice. Drum scans are too expensive. And it's not simply the scanning--the constant introduction of new printers makes one want to just jump off what is still part of the digital treadmill. </p>

[ondebanks]

<p>I would echo Edward's comments. If you have a 2-3k budget, there's a 3rd choice, apart from the obvious two (expensive MF scanner / FF DSLR): a used MF digital back in the 16-22 MP area. If you "love MF" for its lenses and the features/handling of the cameras, then this is a middle ground which may well satisfy you. You get the convenience of digital with the user experience of a MF system. (However, if you're an ultra-wide-angle junkie, the sensor crop factor might be an issue for you.)</p>

<p>Now seeing as you recently bought an RF645, that may all be moot. To get the most from its reportedly excellent lenses, you will need access to a high end scanner.</p>

<p>I still scan 645 and 6x9 on an Epson 4990. But the effective resolution is <em>much </em>poorer than my digital-backed 645AFD with the same lens, especially if comparing both for ISO 400 colour, where the film's own MTF is not so hot either. So why do I also continue with MF film? Well there's the wide-angle issue I mentioned, there's the fact that it is better for long (multi-minute) exposures - no dark noise, and there's the way that slides are viewed and projected.</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>I will ge a step further than Scott to reveal that I actually like color prints from scans off a Nikon coolscan 5000 or 9000 more than color prints off a Nikon D300. The reason is the color pallette, dynamic range, and addition of grain.</p>

[will_frost]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=81272">Jorge Prat</a>, am I a little frustrated? Yes, a little.<br>

The arc of technology isn't going in our direction. New scanners will be built in small numbers for archives, service bureaus, and 'home users', with either high prices or low quality. Or both. All the R&D is being spent on new cameras, with a steep adoption curve, with new models pushing old models onto the used market daily. Scanners will get more rare and more expensive, cameras more plentiful and cheaper.<br /><br /> A hybrid workflow has advantages, but if you count the cost of a scanner (or buying scans) it might not be affordable. Digital might do 80% of what you or I need.<br /><br />I use Ektar and Tmy-2 in a TLR, because when I re-started with film three years ago, it was cheaper to work carefully with film, buy scans, and save up for a good scanner, than to buy a DSLR. I have a hard time justifying this to myself today. Used prices for discontinued Nikon scanners are high. New DSLRs like the Pentax K-5, ($1600) or the Sony A55, ($850) have good dynamic range, high pixel counts, quiet shutters, and image stabilization, for much less than a scanner and a year's worth of film. <br /><br />Note that I still shoot film occasionally. I like it. Also, there are a number of situations where film is a better choice, such as harsh environments where I don't want to risk an expensive camera, or times when I need the silence of a leaf shutter and quality better than a digicam. (The digital camera manufacturers are wising up, so these advantages may disappear soon!)<br /><br />If your goal for using MF film is very large prints - over 16x20 - then you are likely to be dependent on scanners. In fact, you might be better off shooting LF, since back-lit desktop scanners supposedly do well enough for most purposes. I'm no expert, so you should probably ask around in the Large Format Photography forum and see what they have to say. I've learned that you'll want to use a tripod if you want to print large anyway, so you might as well use LF, if you can cope with the lack of depth of field.<br /><br />MF film may be a really good choice for darkroom work for sizes under 16x20. In fact, it may be one of the last film formats that is used for conventional darkroom work, when the last roll of flexible acetate-backed film is cut and shipped. Of course hobbyists will still use wet-plate LF and ULF cameras until the end of time, last as they were first.<br /><br />Peace.<br>

Will</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>My work in color is based on digital photography, perhaps some day to embrace MF digital. I see MF at the moment though as a B&W medium and one closely connected to the darkroom. It is a great time to return to the darkroom, with high end equipment for the latter so available and inexpensive. For those who haven't tried it, I suggest that you don't hesitate - it is very satisfying and a route to high quality prints if you like the craft approach. My flatbed scanner (Epson 4990) hasn't seen much use and notwithstanding its limitation on resolution for scanning negatives and positives, I am also not very happy with digital printing. If I did more I would probably come terms with the quirks of the latter and the calibration of the printer. When I want to reproduce one of my darkroom prints for digital download to a website or e-mail transmission (both limited of course by the low resolution of receiving screen monitors), I simply digitally photograph the print in refection free surroundings.</p>

<p>I feel that the scanner, under these conditions, and lacking a Nikon 9000, is no boon for MF film shooting. Long live the MF film format and darkroom papers and chemicals! </p>

[cary_yelin2]

<p>I have used an Epson V500 Photo for scanning in my 6X6 color positives with very good results, albeit quite time consuming. In any event, the scanner did not cost me the proverbial arm and leg and also allows decent scanning of 35 mm. With some creative engineering, I ams ure it would be suitable for other formats.</p>

[al_bowers]

<p><em>What I'm saying here is that one of the main reasons using medium format is it's quality, but if you can't print it's inherent quality , don't you feel a little frustrated? What do you think?</em><br>

I have to agree with those who use transparencies. A well done slide has astonishing tonal range, depth<br /> and contrast. Prints are not the only high IQ end product of MF. I believe a slide is an acceptable end product with MF.<br>

I have done some work in <em></em>digital, which can rival slides in the above characteristics, and even in resolution at the very high end of MF. I note there are two types of photographers in MF right now, those who are from the old school MF and LF worlds, and those who are coming up from the APS DSLR and FF DSLR worlds. The expectations are quite different. Auto focus, auto exposure, easy handling with near transparent use are very high bars to meet with MFDB hardware right now. Those of us who are from the old school of MF and LF have different handling requirements. High IQ is what we're looking for, and making the sacrifices needed to get that is okay by most of us. Sclepping around several different filter sets and heavy bulky lenses with slow f/-stops and long shutter speeds, so we nee an equally heavy tripod to get the IQ we are striving for is something we're used to.<br>

For the new folks to MF, its different. As a tool, it too has limitations. You will find it frustrating at times. I often feel that way when I can't get the shot because of the MF limitations, and I don't shoot smaller formats any more. My mind set has become too ossified by 30 years of MF and LF work only.<br>

Transparencies, are a completely acceptable end product of MF, IMHO...<br>

Al Bowers</p>