Next batch of samples off the RB

[jeff_miller13]

<p>Continuing to fight my way through the learning curve on the RB here. Not sure what I think at this point. <br>

I've forgotten how much we take for granted with digital! Auto-focus and auto-exposure exist for a reason!! :)<br>

I also don't know how much of what I am seeing is because of processing "error" and how much is from the exposure itself. All the examples here are from a roll of Portra 160 I ran through it.<br>

Consider this example:<br>

<img src="http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa30/OmahaJeff/A34163_007_zpsa8acc979.jpg" alt="" width="813" height="1024" /></p>

<p>Its a bit over-exposed, but what surprises me more than that is the white balance being all off. This was lit with my studio strobes (ProMaster) which I have always though of as being pretty much daylight balanced. Here they look much cooler than that.<br>

I also find that focusing is hard. This was taken on a tripod, and I "thought" I had it carefully focused. I guess not. My eyes certainly aren't what they used to be. I'm going to need to figure out a better system. <br>

Here's another example. This is the raw scan I received from my processor. Taken outdoors, the white balance looks much better. And apparently I got lucky on the focus, since it seems spot on. I really love the performance of this lens (its the 180mm f/4.5).I'm a little curious about that smudge on the left. Its only on this one image, and its on the negative itself. Is that a processing error?<br>

<img src="http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa30/OmahaJeff/A34163_001_zps6700c621.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="807" /><br>

I took the same file and ran it through some processing and came up with this:<br>

<img src="http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa30/OmahaJeff/A34163_001_zps814f8eb8.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="591" /><br>

Its a serviceable result, even with a bit too much sharpening on my end.<br>

Anyway, I find myself at something of a crossroads here.<br>

Do I continue experimenting/learning on the RB? Doing so almost certainly means setting up to do my own processing and scanning. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I really don't have need of a back-lit scanner otherwise. The thing I'd forgotten about film is how frustrating it is not being in control of the workflow end to end. </p>

<p>Or do I put this back on eBay and get out of it? I received the seal kit from Japan the other day. I'll put that on either way.</p>

<p>I'm mainly trying to decide if there is any pay-off here. At the moment, I am struggling to produce a result that is the equal to what I can get off my Nikon D7000. I find myself asking if that's because I've spent five years climbing up the digital learning curve, or because of the inherent nature of the process.</p>

<p>There is something inherently satisfying with shooting the RB. It is very satisfying mechanically. The process of shooting is far more deliberate and thoughtful. Those aspects appeal to me. But in the end, its the image that matters. I'm not sure I am ever going to get there with the RB. I worry that even after an extended period of learning and mastery, the "ceiling" on the RB is lower than what I am going to get from digital.</p>

<p>Just some thoughts.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

The RB is my favorite MF camera hands

down. It took some practice like

anything else but you'll get there. It

took you a while to sort out digital. As

for the ceiling being lower, not really.

The RB will begin to stand out as your

prints get bigger. If you feel like an

interesting journey, get the 180 lens for

it and put together a modest B&W

darkroom. A good enlarging lens is

key. Start shooting some 400 speed

film and do your own processing. Give

it 6 months to a year of modest

shooting. It's a very different

experience from digital. It will cost a

modest amount but will be well worth

it. It won't replace your Nikon but will

give you a broader capability as a

photographer. Just one opinion.

 

Rick H.

[marc_batters]

<p>In your first image, I think the lighting was too close or too harsh. Your second image could have benefited from a small, off camera fill-flash or reflector. If you only have the one lens for your RB, without further image examples, it is difficult to say whether the shutter speeds on your 180mm lens are accurate. Bracketing will tell you a lot!</p>

<p>Rather then assuming you're having trouble with the RB's learning curve, maybe it's just a matter of re-acquainting yourself to the characteristics of film. Also, you may consider getting a light meter.</p>

<p>I can't comment as to the quality/competency of your lab scans. The smudge on the one negative is probably a lab error.</p>

<p>Marc</p>

 

[jeff_miller13]

<p>Thanks for the feedback, guys.<br /><br />Playing around with that first image, it actually cleaned up reasonably well. What I though was a focus problem was really just overly-narrow depth of field. The face on the left is sharp, the one on the right is not.<br /><br />I wonder how much of the color balance issue is from the lab's scan. I should go talk to them about that.<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa30/OmahaJeff/A34163_007_zps8903e702.jpg" alt="" width="572" height="720" /></p>

<p> </p>

[c_watson1]

<p>DOF is probably the first sucker punch MF delivers. If you want DOF, it's f8-f11; at f3.8 or f4.5, there really isn't any; use the short 45mm extension tube and it's gone wide open. For portraits with two subjects, try to keep their faces in the same plane; otherwise, it's a smaller aperture for more DOF. No clue what aperture the KD box was shot at but you can really see the DOF pooling on the blue surface around the box.<br>

Are you using a WLF or prism finder? I have both but use the WLF whenever possible for the flip-up magnifier that greatly helps in nailing focus. Though it does darken up the screen at smaller apertures, the DOF preview lever on the lens does help place the focus plane.<br>

Were you using a flash meter in the portrait shot?</p>

<p>Check with your lab about development and scanning. If they can't do better for you, there's always mail order processing. Unless you're willing/able to go full survivalist, film use can be dicey now depending on what sort of lab economy survives in your area. My great almost-neighborhood mom&pop pro lab axed all film processing a few years ago and then canned film scanning last year, cutting me off from proofs and prints from 120. I can still get superb processing but am stuck scrambling to get negs and slides scanned for prints. Still love my Mamiya RB67, 645, and Bronica SQ-B kits but it's become tougher to enjoy them the way I did just a couple of years ago.</p>

<p>Still, I'd not throw in the towel on the RB. Once you get the DOF and focus issues settled and produce some good scans from the negs, you'll want to keep shooting. Try subjects you might not regularly cover. Try some b&w.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>The pay off is the way medium format blows most anything away in sharpness, tonality, and IQ. As C.W. said, there's a difference in DOF when you go to medium format, but both my Rolleicord and scale focus Ikonta 520 folder are able to nail a portrait wide open if I do my share of the bargain. Looking at your negs will tell you what's up. I think you just need to spend more time shooting and such. Rome wasn't built in a day! For me, having total control over the image is what it's about, and it's easy and cheap to do your own B&W film developing and scanning. You're just going to have to make sure everything is working right, just like any camera. Are the speeds OK on the shutter? Light meter accurate? Focus is nailed? Basic stuff, and the rewards are FAR bigger and more rewarding than digital.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>There is something inherently satisfying with shooting the RB. It is very satisfying mechanically. The process of shooting is far more deliberate and thoughtful. Those aspects appeal to me. But in the end, its the image that matters. I'm not sure I am ever going to get there with the RB. I worry that even after an extended period of learning and mastery, the "ceiling" on the RB is lower than what I am going to get from digital.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My thoughts about using the RB67 match yours. It slows me down- I'm more deliberate in composing and thinking of the shot. The results are better artistically and compositionally.</p>

<p>One thing I noticed about your portrait shot. The woman on the left is in focus. The one on the right is not. As someone else mentioned, they aren't on the same focal plane. You can and should compensate for this even when shooting a single person. Check your DOF on the lens. It shouldn't be so narrow. Your portraits will be better if the DOF extends from the tip of the nose to the back of the head. Stop down and check the DOF ring on the lens. You also have a DOF preview. I assume you are using a tripod. An absolute must IMO for critical sharpness.</p>

<p>You might also consider getting your own scanner. A flat bed unit for small prints and the web is pretty cheap.</p>

[neil_grant]

<p>You need to be in charge of the entire chain of reproduction to be sure of what's really going on. If you're RB lens hasn't been serviced it's likely the short times are off (slow) - not that important in a studio with flash though. Can I see a your key light in the woman's glasses? Try moving it higher.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>Before you give up, try black and white film on your RB. I shoot only black and white with my medium format cameras. All my color and paid work is done in on digital but my personal work I shoot on black and white film, develop and scan myself. This process gives me very satysfying hybrid analog to digital workflow with full control over final results. For me B&W film has it's own estetic different from digital, and it forces me to "think" in black and white before taking an exposure.</p>

[jeff_miller13]

<p>Thomas, what are you using for a scanner? </p>

<p>Its looking like the next step in this process is to get started scanning, but when I look around the web, opinions on scanners seem almost religious/political! If I'm going to go there, I want to get a scanner that will do justice to the negatives.</p>

<p>Epson V750 seems well regarded by some, completely dismissed by others. Then there are some who insist that wet-scanning is the only way to go. Others dismiss that as well.</p>

<p>What's a noob to do? :)</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>Jeff,<br>

I have older Epson 4990 scanner - predecessor of current V750. I scan using regular stock negative holder and I know that I'm loosing some sharpness from my negs, but the results are good enough for me, even for large prints (30x40inch). </p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Aftermarket, adjustable-height neg holders can help squeeze sharper results from the sub-V700-750 Epsons. My hunch is that someone somewhere is working on something to make DSLR scanning of 35mm and 120 film possible. I'd also guess it just might cripple the flatbed scanner market for film material. Just Google "DSLR scanning" and see what's being tried. Your D7000 could actually keep your Mamiya in the family.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Jeff, I don`t want to be a jinx, but I`ll give you my sincere opinion. Although I shoot b&w film every week, I think is a lost battle against digital. Maybe ten years ago... now it is an evidence.</p>

<p>The only way to get the most of film is either 1). to have a very good scanner or 2). to wet print.</p>

<p>I have a V750Pro, and I prefer, and find easier, to make a b&w print in my own darkroom than to scan the film. I also use a D700 and find it way better than any scanned film (using my flat bed scanner).</p>

<p>It`s like using an old typewriter; if you like the results, the twisted paper, "drilled" letters, the differences on ink density, etc. the media will be unbeatable. All is a great. But if you just want it to have a sheet that need to be scanned every time to make a paper, it could be a real pain. Better to use a computer, with hundreds of fonts, including all kind of vintage ones.</p>

<p>About the "mechanical satysfaction"; same typewriter sample. Would you use an "old" typewriter instead of a computer, just because it is "mechanically satisfying"? How many times?</p>

<p>I belong to the group who say that the V750 is not enough. Wet scanning is a real pain. Maybe it`s because as I mentioned, I find waaaaaay easier to spend one hour to make two or three "fast" prints.</p>

<p>Personally, enjoying photography is a full digital or a full traditional process. I dislike mixed techniques.</p>

<p>I love shooting film, so I don`t know what to say. The V750 is a good scanner (maybe the best in its class), I think it`s a good buy, but for digital work any digital camera is better. Many times I think that those who start shooting film should also learn traditional b&w printing to really enjoy the media...</p>

[jeff_miller13]

<p>:: Sigh ::<br /><br />:) :) :)</p>

<p>I'd actually given that some thought...printing on traditional wet paper. From what I can tell, you can get very good enlargers off of eBay for less than you'd spend on a good scanner, so maybe that's where this is going.</p>

<p>Then again, I can get amazing B&W results using my D7000/Photoshop/Nik Silver Efex (I have a STUNNING 24"x30" print of an old train bridge on my wall produced with that workflow, printed on my HP Designjet), so that leads me back to full circle: Is there a point to any of this? I'm enjoying the learning process, but I have this nagging doubt in my mind that the payoff just isn't there...or that if it is there, then just around the time I really get all this mastered (five years from now...), I won't be able to buy film anymore!</p>

[jeff_miller13]

<p>ps: To give you an idea of how my inner Luddite is calling me, I've been contemplating building a view camera and trying my hand at some wet-plate, colloidal stuff...<br /><br />I mean, if you're going to go old-school, may as well go all the way, right? :)<br /> </p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Every time I come back from Toronto Image Works with more 120 negs and slides, wondering what I'm going to do with them all, I watch this:</p>

<p>http://vimeo.com/53077087</p>

[thomas_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>...so that leads me back to full circle: Is there a point to any of this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the first question to ask. What is your goal in Mamiya RB adventure? I went back to film because I found solely digital work unsatisfying and it was about other things than "better sharpness" or "how big can I print". If you are happy with your current workflow and it's results than let it go. </p>

[jeff_miller13]

<blockquote>

<p>What is your goal in Mamiya RB adventure?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>THANK YOU for getting me back to that! I needed the reminder!</p>

<p>The answer is I wanted an RB67 back in the early 80's (when I could barely afford my Pentax). The Mamiya was out of the question. When I discovered a few months ago that they could be had for next to nothing on eBay, and had to get one.</p>

<p>Somehow, that morphed into thinking I had to do something useful with it. That was my mistake. I don't think this is about being useful. Its just about experimenting with the process for its own sake. Maybe something comes out of it. Maybe not. At this point, I certainly don't see it displacing my digital outfit/workflow. But that's ok. That's not what its for.</p>

<p>Maybe I get it now. Thanks again.</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>I have been trying to match the image quality of my D3 with film for years now, I have been doing it to see if i could really, but not to replace it just see if i could, well I think (im not sure) I have finally done it with my Hasselblad and 120 macro planar wit kodak ektar 100, home developed and scanned with epson v750.</p>

<div></div>

[ray_cutting]

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

[jeff_miller13]

<p>Those are very nice! Thanks for sharing!</p>