larry_s1

<p>I started all this because I hadn’t been active in photography for a while and recently I was asked to do a portrait shoot. In planning I realized a lot has changed – better digital cameras, labs not processing film, pros switching to digital and some films not been made (in 120/220). <br>

I was thinking is there a reason for MF film these days? Is there an advantage with MF film? In the film only days MF meant better quality vs 35mm. The quality question is no longer a slam dunk. With MF the quality advantage maybe is still there for big blowups (landscapes) and maybe for B&W, but at least close enough where the advantages of digital play. After all, I didn’t get a lot of “better quality certainly” comments in the posts. Three to five years ago that would have been different. <br>

And to all those dumb posts wasting bytes complaining about the question saying useless stuff like “use what you want” or “whatever works for you.” I say gas, diesel, electric or hybrid all get you there but it is a fair question to ask about the pro and cons of each. I had a practical question. If you don’t have a direct response to a question don’t post. <br>

The discussion has been useful for me and I concluded that if I need the cash I probably won’t miss the system that much. That is, I can probably do most everything in digital just as well. </p>

<p>I was thinking that if digital can give me what I need, and it is more convenient, why shoot film?<br>

The issue is not if I like the feel of film cameras or smell of darkroom chemicals it is wheter MF film give me something I can’t get with digital.<br>

I think this discussion is less like typewriters vs. computers (clear winner even if some still type) but more akin to vinyl to CD’s.<br>

So the real question is what does MF do for me that digital can’t? It seems quality is there. Maybe not. What else is there?</p>

 

<p>Why stick with medium format film cameras?<br>

I have a Mamiya 645 ProTL with 4 lenses, backs, etc. As much as I have been reluctant to ditch my system but I think its time. I would sell those and get a D7000.<br>

Why? I was going to do a shoot in B&W but Kodak doesn’t make the B&W C41 film anymore. Two of my local labs do not even process film any more. And I get excellent portrait results (24x36) from my D70. There isnt much I can do in MF I cant in digital, I think.<br>

With the advances in digital why stick with film?<br>

The only advantage I can think of is very large blowups (3ftx4ft stuff).</p>

<p>Mamiya ProTL.<br>

Many of your piecs will work: film inserts and lenses.<br>

This model offers interchangable film backs, including Poloroid and interchangable finders. Most come with a motor winder is is also nice (even for landscapes).<br>

This certainly would be the cheapest option and this model is a lot newer than the older Mamiya you are using. </p>

 

<p>I would consider using a safe sync to protect your camera. Some flashes, especially older ones can have a high trigger voltage than can hurt your camera.</p>

<p>You are leaping generations. Maybe consider an autofocus film camera. They are cheap and one step from what you are using. Sometimes people don't like digital. Also, apart from a camera you will also need compter stuff. Your flash wont work fully with the digital cameras if at all. And no crop factor.<br>

As for noise, I went from shooting ballet on pushed film (800 to 1600 or 3200) to digital. I found the 70 better than film. Pretty good when correctly or slightly over exposed. Dark areas suffer. You do need noise reduction software. With that said newer technology (newer camers) offer lower noise. Rember dynamic range is lower. You will get burned out highlights.<br>

The D70 is a bit old. While I am happy with it, there have been technology advances. My choice, a compromise between cost and fuction, would probably be a D90.<br>

I realize cost is an issue, but you do save tons on film and developing. I wouldn't buy something like this on ebay.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Every year I would go to the Photo Show at Javitz and ask Mamiya for 1/2 stops (for bracketing mostly). And they would look at me like I was crazy and ask why!<br>

With slide film a full stop was too much. I heard people doing 1/3 stops.</p>

 

I dont understand why you would push for night shots. I only push when my subjects are moving in very low light.

Ballet performances for example. For night landscapes I shoot the slowest film I can find - 100 speed or tungsten

slides for color (64 ISO).

Does anyone have info for the useful life on injet inks (Epson pigment). That is how long are they good for in the box

and in a printer? Do they fade or color shift? If so, how much?

I was at the photo show today and the Mamiya guy said megavison made a back that would fit the Pro. The B&H link is http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/204218-REG/Mega_Vision__S3_Pro_Digital_Back.html. The ZD back will not work on the Pro. At over $13,000 for the Megavision back it is cheaper to buy the ZD kit for $10,000 - camera, lens, finder and 22 MP back.

Think about shooting MF and doing high quality scans. I have done up to close to 36" from 645 (Fuji RDP slide film). But 48" (1.5m) might be a bit much.

The hood is made badly. It easily becomes loose and will twist while on the camera or fall off. I have lost two that have fell off and and I have experienced the problem you have.

 

Don't lets these guys over analyze the problem. SInce it slips on, if it is not tight it will twist. Simple.

David,

 

No, that is not what I am asking. I understand that.

 

From before: If the print preview IS NOT COLOR MANAGED why in one case IT MACTHES the file as it appears is PS and in the other case IT DOES NOT MATCH.

 

In other words people are responding that the print preview does not match the print becuase it is not color managed. No kidding. I am not asking about the PRINT!

 

I am trying to figure out what happens to the print preview. People have said multiple times that the print preview does not match what I see when I am working on the file in PS becuase it is not color managed. Well then if it isn't color managed why does the appearance of the print preview change with the settings I choose in the print driver. Wether correct or incorrect, shouldn't it stay the same?

 

 

ANDY - your book is not in Borders.

Patrick

Two ways

 

Old - Use Epson driver, and papers. Just select Epson paper items (ie. Premium Glossy of Enhanced Matte, size, best photo, etc.) No item at color mangement options.

 

New - Use Epson driver use advance options to use the icc profile provided. I select ICM profiles under Color Management and under ICC/ICM Profile I click off. This is per my understanding from the manufacturer of the paper and from Epson)

 

Old - PS screen, print preview and outputed print all match to a resonable level.

 

New - PS screen is OK. Print preview is lighter. Outputed print matches PRINT PREVIEW to a reasonable level.

 

If the print preview IS NOT COLOR MANAGED why in one case IT MACTHES the file as it appears is PS and in the other case IT DOES NOT MATCH.

 

Andy, I started to play with soft proof but so far that hasn't helped.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

 

1. I open a document is PS7.

2. I work on the file.

3. I print with preview using color management options.

4. The print preview dialogue shows the intended print.

5. It is lighter than the file as viewed while working in PS7.

6. I print the document.

7. The document MATCHES the print preview version.

8. The print preview version does not match what I saw in PS7 (see 5).

9. If print preview is not color managed why isnt it the same as it appears in PS7.

10. When I DO NOT USE COLOR MANAGEMENT the print preview and the file in PS7 match.

11. This came up since I tried to use a non Epson paper and downloaded a profile which per the instructions required me to use the color management options.

 

I appreciate all help. Granted I am new to the issue of color management. However please read the ENTIRE post before shooting off an answer on part of the problem.

Why would the print preview window not match the file in PS7?

My problem was that the the print matched the print preview. However, the print preview came up lighter than the file as shown on the screen.

I thought it was not color managed in PS7?

Andy,

 

Thanks

 

If print preview isn't color managed, shouldn't it match on screen the file I am working on? Why would print preview show me a lighter version of the file?

Print Preview dialog box in PS.

Let me be clearer.

 

Why would the print preview show a something different from the file in PS. I understand that an actual print will differ from the appearanfe on a monitor for many reasons, but shouldn't the print preview match the file?

I have an Epson R1800. When I use print with preview the print preview shows a

print lighter than the file I am working with in PS7. The resulting print is

pretty close to the preview but not the file as I see it in PS.

 

This problem started when I purchased a non Epson brand of paper and downloaded

a profile. Previously I had printed using the basic driver functions picking

the type of paper and such from the mmenus. The results were close enough.

 

Now I have a mess.

Scan color chromes.

 

You can convert from color to B&W but not the other way. When you start with color and convert to B&W you have lots of options. The most obvious being printing in color.

 

As for chromes I have been told they scan better and that matches my experience. I am sure you will get other views.

 

Also, with chromes no contact sheets are required. As for limited dynamic range, I wont argue either way except to say your image is only as good as the scan and you can scan multiple times or scan bracketed exposures.

Conrad's answer was pretty complete but I would add that when testing, shoot images at at mid fstops, which are sharpest. Try F8 and 11

 

With out using a steady tripod and lens can give unsharp results.

Some thoughts:

 

Think about using the 80mm you should have. It is fine for everything but head shots and much more useful for 2 and more people than a 150mm. A wider lens than 80mm can also be useful.

 

Kodak makes a 400 speed C41 black and white file. Its easier and cheaper to process than conventional B&W. Many of the labs catering to the wedding crowd will process this but not stuff like tri-x. However, I have my lab print it on black and white paper to get neutral tones.

 

I like using a flash bracket to keep the flash over the lens for both vertical and horizontal shots. This keeps the shadows behind the subject and not off to one side. They are less obtrusive that way.