steve_parrott

I hope I can state this so it makes some sense. Is there any way possible to set this camera so the focus points will illuminate and allow selection with a half press of the shutter button? In other words, I want the half press to not only focus, but to also immediately bring up the focus point grid. I would love to not have to take the extra time and effort finding and pressing the focus select button first. I have drove myself half nuts trying to find this information in the 500 page owners manual, and there is one area there that seems to suggest it can be done, but for the life of me I cannot get it to function as such ... if it even is possible. Thanks for any help / suggestions / info.

<p>This quote from Alan pretty well sums it up:</p> <p>"Just do what you enjoy as a hobbyist."<br> <br> If you look at things in a purely practical manner, I simply see no need for film. Digital is simply SO good now, and a much better "fit" into the world today, that I said good-bye to my MF film gear years ago, including my Nikon 9000 scanner with glass carriers. I have found something to be true, or at least as far as I have seen so far, and that is this: All previous PRO photographers who spent half their life shooting film in the past have grasped digital with joy and glee. It seems to be only newer photographers or hobbyists who want to use film for the novelty of it. I, personally, use film in a pinhole and other "lomo" camera bodies purely for fun and the "artistic" look I can get from them, but that is a totally different world of photography aesthetic. When talking "proper" photography where quality and integration into current uses is considered, digital has it all over film. <br> <br> For film now, I would say using "The Darkroom" gives you the best bang for the buck. You can get very large scans, and quality is good. Scanning at home can get very old, very quickly. Also, however, the cost of film, postage, processing, and scans can get old quickly. As one other poster alluded to, eventually you reach a point with film costs that high quality digital is not as costly as it initially seems. </p>

<p>You are leaving out a lot of important information. What camera and lens are you using? In general terms, for shallow DOF you need a moderate telephoto lens at a large - ish aperture. With MF, a 150mm lens typically gives good portrait results. You say you set your lens to f.8. I have to assume you mean f1.8. That is an extremely large aperture for MF. If that is what you are actually doing, it is no wonder you get parts of the face out of focus. Also, you say you are moving close to the subject, which tells me you are using a wide angle lens. No, that is never what you want to do. That will create a distorted face. Again, a lens in the 150mm range with an aperture of 2.8 or even 3.2 should give you a good portrait. Always focus on the eye that is closest to you. Getting the EYE in focus is the most critical part. A nose slightly soft is not as big a deal as is eyes out of focus. </p>

<p>Of course. I have had a roll of film processed when I only had ONE photo on it. The actual processing is the same no matter how many exposures were taken on the roll, so don't be expecting the processing price to be lower because the roll is not full. Even scanning costs will likely be the same. The only thing that would be less cost to you would be if you get prints made from the scans. </p>

<p>You have to lick, (or otherwise moisten), the tab at the end of the roll on Kodak Portra 160 type 120 format.</p>

<p>Chris, Sure, GIMP will do pretty much all that Photoshop will. It is "supposed" to be the same as far as user interface, but I have found that to not be true at all. I had GIMP downloaded and found it so confusing to use that I trashed it. That could be because I have used Photoshop for over 10 years. </p>

<p>As you are using film, Photoshop may be a four letter word to you, haha, but either of those photos can be helped hugely with some minor adjustments. I see your initial problem as simply you are shooting scenes with extreme exposure differences needed. Photoshop, when used correctly, is just a much easier and more effective solution than what a GOOD darkroom tech would try to do with dodging and burning in development. Here is your first photo, no doubt the same can be done with your second photo. </p> <p>http://postmyimage.com/img2/466_00duWz_562709784.jpg</p>

<p>I have to agree. The problem is not the film, or the negatives, or even the processing. Keep in mind, your prints are made from scans, and THERE is the problem. Perhaps someone new to the scan process did your films or there may be a problem with their scanner, but whatever the reason, poor scans are the reason for the flat look. Scanning is an art that is not walked into overnight, though it is not "rocket science" either. It may be that if you, and the lab, consider these as "proofs" only, they made little effort to get the scan process right, but it really should not be that way. This is the sad part of modern film photography, you now have to rely on someone to be in full control of the film to digital conversion, and this opens up such a huge can of worms that I simply no longer cope with it and use digital from the beginning, ... but that is another topic that has been beat to death. You may also want to consider getting a good film scanner and do your negative scanning yourself. Though I have since sold it, I could do far better scans with my former Nikon Coolscan 9000 that anything I could purchase from a lab. The Epson Perfection scanners are pretty much regarded as the best of the flatbed scanners but I would still seek out a high quality drum scan service for any large prints of 16x20 or larger.</p>

<p>Glad to hear your negatives are sharp. To my knowledge, the scanner lid is only a light source. The "guts" of the device are in the body of the scanner. For the life of me, I cannot recall the name of the company that makes custom, adjustable film mounts for the Epson scanners, but they are supposed to provide better results. Should not be too hard to find on Google. I'm thinking it is a name like "Scan Science", but not sure. </p>

<p>Excellent advice from Gareth, I can't add much, but I will go back to his first statement. Are you SURE your original negatives are sharp? You are now dealing with TWO factors that affect softness, the camera and the scan. As the camera is new to you, I feel you may not be getting a sharp image from the beginning. I have had two Mamiya 645 cameras, the 645E and a 645AFD, both including, among others, the 80 2.8 lens. You have to remember that you have less depth of field to work with when compared to your Nikon. Are you shooting with the lens wide open? Like most lenses, I found the 80 2.8 to perform better when stopped down at least one stop, which also gives you some more breathing room with depth of field. Second, you are now dealing with manual focus. How are your eyes! haha. Truly, when YOU are the factor determining if focus is correct or not, it opens up a new can of worms. Do you have the viewfinder diopter adjusted correctly for your eyesight? Remove the lens and adjust diopter as needed so that the focus grid is sharp when holding the camera against a bright white area. I think you have to be positive that you are getting a sharp image in the camera before attacking the scan process. </p>

<p>Maros, Please forgive me not literally answering your question, but I have to ask why you feel using medium format film is going to give you better quality than the best of digital in today's world. I am NOT "anti film". I think it is a wonderful medium and will have it's place for a long time to come, but, to me at least, it is for reasons other than "better quality" than digital. Even a full frame DSLR with good lenses can at least equal, and often outperform, film. Another thing that I cannot understand is if you are going to go right back into a digital processing method with scanning and software, .... I simply do not see the point of shooting film. Why not start with a high quality digital image in the first place? Have you given any consideration to medium format DIGITAL? This WILL give you a big step up in quality. The Pentax MF digital SLR cameras are relatively inexpensive, but if cost is not a concern, there are far more expensive choices, such as the Phase One (Mamiya based) cameras and of course Hasselblad. For the price you are going to spend on a Mamiya 7 and lenses and drum scanning, you could get into MF digital, with frankly, much better quality. Just something you might want to consider. The cost of high quality scanning, not to mention the time and inconvenience, can very quickly lose it's appeal. Again, if you are planning all this just to "step up my image quality a bit", I respectfully suggest you are not making the right choice. Raise your digital capture quality instead of spending large sums of money with a MF hybrid film / digital work process. Just my thoughts, but please do give it serious consideration before making a large investment in film that you may regret later. </p>

<p>I think that might be like asking what new car can you buy that has an 8 track tape player in it. There might be a new flash that still has a PC hook up, but I don't know of any. I was going to suggest just getting a new Vivitar 285HV, but even that seems to be out of production. The used market is probably going to be your only choice. You could contact KEH. No doubt they have plenty of flashes that would work, many in like new condition.</p> <p><a href="https://www.keh.com/?rmsrc=1&rmatt=tsid:1014300%7Ccid:377912882%7Cagid:27957149522%7Ctid:kwd-115144764%7Ccrid:98736579362%7Cnw:g%7Crnd:10385034135720380404%7Cdvc:c%7Cadp:1t2&gclid=CNOOlOaaz8sCFcUdgQodpNUJ6Q">Link</a></p> <p>Lastly, have you considered not using the PC cord and instead using a remote radio trigger? This would allow you to use any flash you wanted and is far easier than coping with that cord. Of course, that is assuming your camera has a hot shoe in which to mount the transmitter.</p>

<p>I was unaware Wally sent film to Dwaynes? I certainly would not send negative film through Walmart after learning they no longer return the negatives. I suppose they have no choice with slide film, but really, why bother with that middle man? Why not just send to Dwaynes yourself in the first place? Do you really want to trust your film to a place like Walmart? I sure don't.</p>

<p>Frankly, all you are asking for is an opinion poll. Already you have various answers. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a "best" lab. Any of the pro level labs are excellent. With the scarcity of use of film in today's world, a lab is not going to stay in business for long if they do poor work. I have used several labs all over the country and have never found one to be significantly better than another. </p>

<p>Yes, I recommend you get higher res scans because you never know when you are going to want some decent prints made. The standard low res scans are barely good for a 4x6. I STRONGLY suggest you get the good scans at time of film processing. Yes, it is definitely a MUCH larger hassle to have the negatives scanned at a later date, but also MUCH MUCH more expensive. Far more cost effective to get the scans done right from the start. I have always liked the large scans from North Coast Photo, but you can also use The Darkroom which has a "super" large scan available by download only, but still at a reasonable price when done at time of processing.</p>

<p>Another vote for overexposure. It is pretty much accepted that negative film has more highlight latitude than shadow. Underexpose and you may get blocked up shadows, slightly overexpose and chances are slim that you will blow out highlights. Again, that is with negative film. I also agree, best to not take a chance with slide film and underexpose rather than overexpose, as slide film has poor highlight latitude. </p>

<p>I have never used a color checker, but I have used white balance cards with digital capture. Some others will probably give you a much better answer, but I would assume you would use the color checker the same as you would with digital capture. In other words, you are going to have to take a shot with the checker in the scene, and then your "keeper" shot without the checker in the scene. You would have to do that each time the light changed. You would basically be "throwing away" a frame of film each time you took a shot with the checker in the scene. Then, to utilize it would again be similar to adjusting in digital software. The film negatives would be scanned and adjustments made to white balance etc in either the scanner software or Photoshop. You would then have to save these settings and apply them to any of the other shots taken under the same conditions.</p> <p>Personally, I do not think it worth the effort. When you start going to all that work, it just seems to be taking you further and further away from what FILM photography should be. As soon as you scan a negative, you are no longer truly shooting film, you now have a digital file, and when you throw in working with reference frames with something like a color checker, ... well, why not just shoot digital in the first place?</p> <p>For me, color correction with film is all down to using the correct filter on the lens, such as an 80B with daylight film for tungsten use or an FLD filter under fluorescent lights. Get it right in the camera and forgo all the color checker type stuff, (and the film you have to waste to use it). </p> <p>Again, take my answer with a grain of salt! Some of it is just opinion.</p>

<p>Maybe I am not understanding what you need, but is there some reason you cannot simply use a light table? </p> <p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Lightboxes-Light-Tables/ci/1558/N/4220238504</p>