Creating a cost effective MF workflow

[allergy_allergy]

<p>Hi. I've been shooting digital and 135 sporadically. Now considering getting a Pentax 67ii, mostly interested in portrait, documentary and fashion work. Would like to create a cost effective workflow and wondering what are your setups. Get color negs/slides developed and scanned in a pro lab (any recommendations in the uk?) or investing in a scanner and developing yourself? What are the costs? Is Epson v750 or similar good enough for A3/ish prints or drum scans are the only quality option?</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>More in this thread <a href="/medium-format-photography-forum/00d0p5">here</a></p>

<p>I am shooting 6x9 slides and negatives, have them developed at a pro lab, scan them with a Nikon LS 9000 for prints up to 180 x 120 cm or 5 ft 9" x 3 ft 9". For anything large I have them drum scanned.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Tetenal E6 kits start at 40Euro for 12 rolls, C41 kits are just 21,42 Euro + power + water, time & nerves.</p>

 

[ken_kuzenski]

<p>Just MHO, but if I put some effort into the scan, I get a good 16x20" (40x50cm) prints from 6x6 negatives from a V500. I develop my own B&W--inexpensive and easy--and I haven't shot medium-format color print or slide in years, but I'm going to be trying that again soon. :-) Remember the old adage: "The best lens I own is a tripod." :-) </p>

<p>I do think you'll probably have a world of fun if you get a 6x7: after 35mm and ordinary digital, a big negative is a genuine thing of beauty. :-) Have fun! --ken</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I agree with Ken, but get your film processed by a pro lab that runs a volume of film.

[sterling_bjorndahl]

<p>I use a macro lens on my DSLR for "scanning" my 6x7 slides. I haven't tried printing larger than 16"x20" with that, but it had no problem with that size. If you want higher resolution you can get very close and shoot 1/4 of the slide at a time, combining the 4 shots using panorama stitching software.</p>

[diegobuono]

Scanning was a nightmare for me (epson flatbed) untill recently when I purchased a used Hasselblad flextight 646

scanner. Now scanning is simple, rapid and the quality is uncomparable. Do not spend time in scanning with flatbed (nor

spend money in professional service), buy a good real scanner, it will serve you for many years and you amortize the

price in a relatively few scans if you pay for professional scan (not considering the cost of your time if you scan by

yourself with a cheap scan). When I saw the quality difference I started to completely re-scan my film archive. I can not

think to the time I wasted scanning with flatbed scanner.

[c_watson1]

<p>Not sure how you monetize "cost effective," but having a reliable and reasonably-priced pro lab is key, at least as far as processing consistency goes. Scanning is usually where costs can sideswipe you, especially if you plan on printing at anything beyond 8x10. For web use, costs can be kept lower with DIY(flatbed or DSLR)scanning.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>If you're looking for "cost effective" then you're barking up the wrong tree. There's a reason why the rest of the world abandoned film. You're going to pay with either time or money. It would be like asking "how can I make lots of cheesecakes in my own kitchen cost effectively?" Well, you either have someone else do it or use all of your time and resources.<br>

I'm not sure what you mean by "cost effective" (is it anything like "how can I fly my own airplane cost-effectively?") but color is just going to cost no matter what. I only use MF for black and white, develop in a Patterson tank--I can get two rolls on one spool--and use D-76 1:1. I have both a Nikon 8000 and an Epson 500. At sizes up to 16x16, it is very difficult to tell them apart, and even at larger sizes you have to compare them side-by-side. The Nikon will produce more grain also, especially in shadows. </p>

[john_photos]

<p>I find a stark difference in clarity at 16x20 when comparing prints made from the Nikon 9000 vs the Epson V500. The Epson is a proof scanner that is good for no more than an 8x10 inch print in my view. My Nikon scans exhibit less grain and more shadow detail than those of the Epson. However, the resolution increase of the Nikon alone is enough to justify its use for larger prints if one can cope with the outrageous cost of these machines. A consumer flatbed cannot compare with the Nikon quality wise. Why would you should medium format only to compromise the final print with a sub par low quality scan? Creating a workflow using an Epson flatbed and outsourcing only your best work to be drum scanned for prints is certainly a viable option. A drum scan will even trump a Nikon/Imacon scan for clarity. <br>

In regards to the original question; I recommend finding a good lab vs trying to mess around with home development. Unless your volume is in the hundreds of rolls per year then the cost savings is miniscule if you can source a reasonably priced pro lab that is either local or does mail order. Additionally, purchase a used inexpensive Epson to color correct and proof your work (small prints; 4x6 inches etc) before sending out your best negs/transparencies to be drum scanned and output to a lightjet/chromira machine. </p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>No, drum scans are not the only option and no, you won't get the best quality large prints from an Epson consumer flatbed.</p>

<p>There is a middle ground. For me I have been happy to use a n Epson (V700 in my case) for my website and other screen -based applications, for Blurb books where I typically go to 10" sq , and for prints up to say 12" square. The more the print is going to rely on shadow detail, the more I'll cut that sizing down.</p>

<p>Looking at the other end, I won't really consider a drum scan these days unless I want to make a print of more than 24" sq from 6x6. That's because in this middle territory between very big and very small there are two broad options , the Nikon 9000 series ( or earlier 8000) which scans MF at 4000ppi , and the Imacon scanners that scan MF a bit less, but IMO still contrive to deliver rather more. Both of these scanners will facilitate making prints to well over 24" sq but that's about the point where I believe I can see a difference between them and a drum scan, making the latter often a better choice. Meantime most of the few colour prints I make these days are on a Coolscan or an Imacon. Which one I choose will depend more on relative pricing and the confidence/experience I have with the scanner operator than a view on principle that x is better than y all the time. They will both support excellent sharp prints up to about 30" across with decent shadow detail. If I had to make an absolute choice I'd take the Imacon scan but its not a life or death thing.</p>

<p> Given my restricted and declining volume of prints from MF now (all my work has been digital for 5 years now) I don't want to own, service, repair or find parts for either of these scanners and always outsource scans above the point where my V700 can do a great job. </p>

<p>There are other scanners -some older from the likes of Minolta, some younger from the likes of Plustek- that are also film scanners rather than flatbeds. Some of these might be tempting to own if you're planning to make a lot of fairly large scans. But be sure your computer equipment can handle it if its old, and check out the quality from people who have used a range of scanners before you jump for a Plustek or similar. My decision has been to avoid both and buy in scans after I know I'm going to need a medium or large sized print.</p>