steve_parrott

July 27, 2018

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.

December 16, 2016

This quote from Alan pretty well sums it up:

"Just do what you enjoy as a hobbyist."

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.

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.

November 24, 2016

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.

September 23, 2016

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.

September 5, 2016

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

May 3, 2016

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.

May 1, 2016

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.

http://postmyimage.com/img2/466_00duWz_562709784.jpg

April 16, 2016

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.

April 4, 2016

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.

April 4, 2016

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.

March 22, 2016

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.

March 20, 2016

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.

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.

January 21, 2016

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.

January 17, 2016

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.

October 11, 2015

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.

February 25, 2015

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.

February 8, 2015

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.

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?

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).

Again, take my answer with a grain of salt! Some of it is just opinion.

January 23, 2015

Maybe I am not understanding what you need, but is there some reason you cannot simply use a light table?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Lightboxes-Light-Tables/ci/1558/N/4220238504

January 15, 2015

I think, and emphasize the word THINK, there will be no problem at all using your cord set up. Any modern Canon flash is low on trigger voltage, plus the older Mamiya can likely easily handle larger voltages than current digital SLR bodies. Though I never had an RZ, I have had two Mamiya 645 bodies and I used Canon, (as well as Metz and Vivitar and Sunpak), flashes with no problems. As said, there is no automated function, but as long as there is a center pin to "fire" the flash, that is all you need. I actually suggest you might prefer to purchase a used automatic Metz or Sunpak flash from KEH, (you can get them dirt cheap). I have found auto flashes to work very well and typically nail exposure perfectly. A radio trigger is certainly the way to go if you are using the flash off camera, not necessarily due to any concerns with the camera, but simply for ease of use and drastically more options as to placement of the flash unit.

December 16, 2014

Well, in the final analysis, only you can decide if something is "worth" having or not. My opinion is not really on this camera. I am NOT saying it is not a good camera, I had one. But you already have MF gear, including 645 format, so I don't think the Mamiya would be a real improvement. Before I had the AFD, I had the Mamiya 645E, which was actually a much easier to use camera. The AFD, along with the auto focus lenses, moves to a much more electronic user interface. You have to push buttons and read a display to make changes with the camera. I think the "in between" Mamiya 645 Pro models strike a very good compromise between the dirt basic 645E and the electronic AFD, assuming you can use manual focus with the non AF bodies. Another thing to consider is the auto focus lenses for the AFD are slow and LOUD. A night and day difference between something like a Canon EF USM lens that snaps to focus in a silent instant. Photo quality is fine with the 645 AFD, but I just never cared for actually trying to work with the camera. Just too fussy and non intuitive. ... to me at least.

Here is a portrait taken with the 645 AFD and 150mm lens:

http://www.lightanon.com/-/lightanon/detail.asp?LID=&photoID=10396105&cat=92463

Here are a couple of shots taken with the 80mm lens:

http://www.lightanon.com/-/lightanon/detail.asp?LID=&photoID=9390022&cat=92463

http://www.lightanon.com/-/lightanon/detail.asp?LID=&photoID=9390011&cat=92463

December 14, 2014

Steven, this is not truly going to answer your questions, but is more of an opinion. You say your Mom is wanting to do this. I cannot help but feel she just does not realize the scope of the project. Does she have ANY life at all? As has already been stated, and as you are predicting, scanning is practically an art, and at the very least a skill that takes some real time and dedication to learn to do properly. Assuming your mom goes through all the hardware / software learning curve, there is the time factor. She may think it fun at first, but as time goes on, and on, and it becomes an albatross around her neck having to sit and do this for hours on end for months on end, ... well, it may end up an unfinished project, or YOU may end up having to take it over.

I had a Nikon Coolscan 9000 running with my old Apple laptop that still supported the Nikon software. I had no where near 4000 slides, but did have a relatively large amount of negatives that I THOUGHT I was going to scan. I just could not put my life on hold to do it, and the negatives remained unscanned.

Here is what I suggest you talk to your mom about. Think very seriously about using a service, such as Scan Cafe to do this for you. These places exist for a reason. I have had scans done through them, and the results were excellent.

Another thing to consider. Lets say you do spend all the time, effort, and money to do this yourself and assuming all the slides actually get scanned. Unless she is still shooting film, then the scan equipment sits around gathering dust.

This gets to my final point. In my opinion, the only reason to have a good scanner and work to achieve the skill do do good scanning is if you are STILL using film. If you "scan as you go" it is not a bad process to have in place. Shoot, either develop yourself or have the film developed, then do your own scanning at that time. But getting into scanning with the intent of archiving a massive collection of negatives / slides and nothing more just seems to not be worth it to me. Use a scan service, save yourself lots of headaches, and don't take away precious time in your and your mom's life doing this.

Just my opinion, based on experience. By the way, I sold my Nikon scanner, and really don't miss it at all.

December 7, 2014

I have used Clark, but like the other person said, it has been a long time ago, so long ago that scans on a CD did not even exist. All I can say is that they have been in business a long time, so that must mean they are doing *something* right. As is usually the case with a thing like this, you really just need to test it out for yourself. Take some "un-important" shots on a 12 exposure roll, send it to Clark, and see what happens and compare with Dwaynes. Have you checked out "The Darkroom"? Their standard service is quite a good service to price ratio in my opinion, and you can get some VERY large scans if you want to pay the extra cost. "North Coast Photographic Services" is also a good lab with some good scans at reasonable cost.

http://thedarkroom.com

http://www.northcoastphoto.com

November 24, 2014

Danny O' makes a very good point. You can get a LOT of film processed and quality scans made for the high price you will have to pay to get digital equipment to equal 6x7 film. Not to mention, with the high end digital gear, you need a computer that can handle the load and software needs. Then there is the archive issue. Those film negatives are SO nice neatly arranged in pages in albums, but with digital, you MUST have proper storage OTHER than a computer. You need external hard drives or CDs or flash drives or "cloud" storage, or ALL of the above. The cost of digital is never "free". Buying the equipment is actually just the tip of the iceberg.

November 24, 2014

Ummm.... "lomography"? Well, I suppose you could take a nice BMW and fill the interior and trunk with trash and use it as a garbage hauler, .... but why? You need a cheap "toy" camera to achieve a true "lomo" type of photo. Trying to dumb down an excelling camera such as the Mamiya is, to me, rather absurd, ... sorry.

While I have not had the Mamiya 645 Pro, I have had the 645E and 645 AFD bodies. I honestly found the 645E to be more to my liking, but my poor vision makes it nearly impossible to do manual focus. I think you will find the 645 Pro to be a terrific compromise between the E model and much more expensive and complex AFD bodies. You might even want to look into the 645E unless you just HAVE to have the removable back on the Pro model. For portraits, I suggest the 150 lens, for general shooting the 80mm, and something in the 50mm range for landscape. I always had excellent results with any of the Mamiya lenses, even the "cheap" ones.

As for lomography, I agree with the other answer. Get a Holga or Dianna 120 camera for the real thing rather than trying to fake it with a fine camera like the Mamiya. Truth be told, getting good, consistent results with a Holga is NOT EASY. It is actually very challenging and rewarding to learn to use such a camera effectively. It is totally different than a "normal" camera. You cannot adjust the camera for conditions, instead, with a Holga, you have to try to make conditions fit the tight limitations of the Holga.

Here are some shots I have done with my Holga 120 at the 6 x 6 frame size:

http://www.lightanon.com/-/lightanon/gallery.asp?cat=92459

November 22, 2014

Whew... this question could sure open a can of worms, and is basically getting back to the film vs digital debate which has raged for over a decade. I will just put out my two cents. You will probably get answers all over the map.

One thing you did not mention was what degree of scan quality you were / are doing with your 67 negatives? If just mediocre low cost scans, then even a low cost entry level DSLR would equal it, or even better it. If you are doing costly extremely high quality drum scans of your negatives, then you will probably be looking at the need for a "full frame" DSLR in the 25 plus megapixel range. The bodies are in the three to six thousand dollar range, ... then you will need quality lenses to match.

The next step is medium format digital, based more closely on the 645 format. These cameras are, in my opinion, far beyond even medium format film no matter how it is scanned. As of now, the Pentax 645 MF digital SLR cameras are the "lowest" cost, but you are still looking at over ten thousand dollars with lenses. If you have REALLY deep pockets, you can get up into the over $30,000 range with the Hasselblad and Phase One cameras, (the Phase One cameras being based on the Mamiya 645 AFD bodies).

You pays your money and you takes your choice. If it matters, I also used MF film and find I get results just as good if not better with just a relatively basic 18mp Canon DSLR with crop sensor, but I am not printing huge.

You can search online and find articles and "proof" to agree AND disagree with everything i have said. Lab tests and theory and numbers are fine and good, real world results are another matter, and I am only saying that in the real world of today's highly sophisticated DSLR, I do believe they have surpassed MF film. My opinion, everybody has their own.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by steve_parrott