mirkal

<p>I believe you are comparing two completely different kind of photography. Neil mentioned in his posting that if you would like to get "film look" from digital SRL then I agree - answer is NEVER. If you look just for resolution power than answer is: "it is just matter of time". Today's 24Mp SRL files will probably one day equal 81Mp file from scanned 6x6, it would happen in probably less then 5 years. From my point of view when this will happen it will be still irrelevant to me and I will shoot film until last roll of 120 available because I love film look. So, it is your choice what do you prefer, what work you are mostly doing, personal preferences, budget (despite top digital SRL's price today equal MF gear pricing anyway). If you shoot reportage or weddings well, I guess 6x6 is not the gear you need or want to use, it is bulky, heavy and time required for films development is some kind of work just impossible to deal with. I believe the answer to your question is rather recommendation - make clear what your needs and preferences are.</p>

Robert have no idea what he is talking about: "Digital imaging is superior to any film process I have ever used, from 35mm

thru MF, (all varients to 6x17), to large format, digital triumphs in every conceivable circumstance." You can't be serious

about it or you never used MF and large format in your life. John's question was answered many times on this forum, he

could just search in archive and there were many "overheated" discussions between digital fanatics and film fanatics. Why

you just can't admit both has it merits. I would like to see what a top masters of photography like Jack Dykinga (who is

shooting large format BTW) think about your statement. I agree with Steve - you just give your opinion, nothing else.

Judging the original question content, base for all this discussion, my recommendation would be: go for digital John, it

would satisfy your needs.

<p>This is a good question indeed and difficult to respond. Everyone here already exposed some reason; most of them could be acceptable, some are just not correct. I disagree with many contributors stating medium format makes them think twice before taking picture because of complicated setup, film price and some other reasons I don’t remember anymore. That is not correct because a good digital photography requires exactly the same approach so the point is not there. It is cheaper then digital – I have to disagree with that as well, if you will have to ship films down to my location from B&H and pay import tax on top of the price be sure digital is just a small portion of the cost I have to pay! And even if you live in US and you have to mail films to other city and wait for and pay for getting them back, it is not cheap either. So the price is not an issue here with exception of B&W you can process without problems in your house. So what is a real motivation making us to carry that bulky, heavy gear with complicated setup, expensive consumables (films, gelatin papers, chemicals etc.), heavy and bulky prime lenses if you can take light plastic digital camera with some crazy zoom covering all from 10mm to 500mm (35 mm equivalent)?? And on top of that when you setup all your gear at your shooting location and by chance somebody will see you there be sure he/she will has some doubts about your mental health. Unfortunately, many even 50+ old guys forgot today quickly what medium format and film is or was about, they all are digital today. Many of them don’t even know film still exist! So we are carrying the heavy gear like slaves, spending long time to setup it, people are pointing finger on us and consider us in the best case “strange” but we keep doing it. Why – well I guess because we like it, we like that feeling when you touch and hold that piece of beautiful fine mechanics, that bright large image in your viewer projected by probably the best lenses ever made and probably we including like that uncertainty how my shots would be until we develop them or get them processed from lab. I personally can’t describe that moment and feeling when I'm developing gelatin silver print I got from my large 6x6 negative and image starts appearing in front of my eyes, there is printer which can equal that feeling, sorry. However, I also use a digital for my work and family pictures, I believe digital is here and it has won its place and deserve its merits because of flexibility, fast and easy operation and quality enough good to print 4”x6” for family album. For any other job or something really serious I prefer medium format or if I need more flexibility or the location is not exactly safe I take my 35mm Voigtländer rangefinder but nothing compare to how that feels holding my Hassy and pointing through that gorgeous lenses. So my answer is – because I like it and I enjoy it very much. Hope that answered your question.</p>

<p>Dear friends,<br>

I will desperately need help from somebody who had to face the same problem I have right now. I just got new HP130r Designjet plotter (model C7791H), production date December 2009. First I try to install it with Mac X OS 6 (Snow Leopard) but original driver did not worked properly and output was poorly saturated with white strings. Apple software update downloaded last driver version (4.2) but including that one had the string problems. I installed it on Windows XP laptop and plotter is working just fine, the problem is I doing editing on Mac (Aperture 3 and/or PS CS3 Extended, v 10.0.1) so I will really appreciate if I could print out from Mac. I called HP support and it was breakpoint call indeed. I wouldn't believe how poor support HP is providing for Mac users, HP technician basically suggested me to get back to 10.5 or even 10.4 Mac OS versions! Good luck of mine is I still keep also my old G4 with 10.3.9 Mac OS so I installed printer on it as well. Good point was I could at least run printer utility which, BTW, is not available for 10.5 OS and later anymore and I was able to calibrate colors, paper feeder, and everything was looking good to me. I rpinted image again (just 1.5 MB) from PS and it was as bad as before when printed from Mac running 10.6 OS and before printer calibration - I mean poor saturation, white stringers/banding while printed from Windows XP was just perfect. Does anybody experienced similar problem and found its solution? I gave up with HP support which is completely useless and laughing on Mac users despite plotter specs are claiming DJ 130 is compatible with all Mac systems, unbelievable but true!</p>

 

<p>Roman,<br>

You are right your life will never be the same... Once you try Hassy you will never get back!</p>

Roman,

I use 501 CM, I have no experience with 500CM but I guess it should be a same story. Just using common criteria I would

go for 1987 model and 1987 CM has much better focusing screen as that made on 1968, that is for sure. Considering you

mentioned you are tight on budget - if that 1968 camera looks still good to you and will more likely do its job for next 20

years just imagine 1987 model, it will survive you. These cameras are so well made that they are actually state of art and

you will be not dissapointed. Don't forget also an important fact - 1968 camera desperately needs overhauling, it mean main

springs have to be replaced, cleaning and lubrication etc. It will cost you at least another 200$! So from that point of view

your 1987 500CM is still OK if the camera wasn't heavily used by professional. Even that I would recomend you clean&lub

as soon as possible. Definitively go for 1987 model, it is worth of 200$ extra. Good luck!

Joel,

I can understand what you are passing through with Vuescan. I bought it in 2004, use it twice and there it is somewhere

deep on my hard drive, I just gave up with that pixel/offset issue with 120 slides. I used Nikonscan without problems untill I

bought Intel-based Mac. Following uncounted nights spent on how to make it work on Intel Mac once again I gave up,

istalled Nikonscan on my good old G4 which I'm using just for scanning while fast Intel Mac for editing. I don't think this is of

any help to you, it is just where software and hardware makers are pushing all of us in these days. Less value for more

bucks, as already stated here by Alexander who mentioned he is getting sick and tired of it. I would add it is also sad and

humilating how little appreciation to consumer software manufacturers actually has today. Just example of Vista fiasco

obligating you to buy Windows 7 instead is a shining example. Only what matter is your money.

<p>Despite you got into panic with no reason one suggestion: take care about the temperature differences between each solution! Also washing water should be only within 2C +-difference otherwise you can get mozaic texture on your gelatine film layer! This was the first crossing my mind when I was reading your original post. Other possible reason could be hair dryer application! Anyway, good to hear your film is OK.</p>

<p>Tony,<br />All Ilfords are just fine with ID-11. I shoot medium format and both Delta professional 400 and 100 developing in ID-11 and never had problem with grain even with 36" prints scanned on Nikon 8000 ED. In some cases I guess you would like to have grain because of artistic reasons. If you are really worry about grain try develop at lower temperatures (like 18C) adding time as recommended by manufacturer. You can get ID-11 in Canada (e.g. Henry's).</p>

<p>Thank you for your answers, I appreciate your opinions and help.Unfortunately I can't get HPZ series plotters here for less then US$4000 and it is above my budget, you know, bad economy is hitting all of us. Epsons are great indeed but quite expensive! I will go for HP130.</p>

<p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I'm considering getting wide-format photographic printer. After surveying web I would guess HP Designjet 130 and Epson 4880/7880 printers are the hot candidates. I'll be very happy with 24" but budget is also an issue so I do consider Epson 4880 as a possibility. Can somebody help with opinion and share his experience? I saw people exited with 4880 but I shoot on 120 film and my square 6x6 is demanding larger printer output. I guess 17 x 17” is probably too small, 24 x 24” should work better. HP 130 printer is the budget-friendly choice but I saw some paper feeding issues discussed on Photonet. What is your experience with that printer in particular?? Is the Epson 7880 output of significantly higher quality than that of HP 130 or do you think I can get similar results? Thank you for answers and sharing your know-how!</p>

 

</p>

 

<p>Interesting how fast people forgot they posed in front of cameras like your Mamyia just few years ago. Memory problem? As somebody mentioned here already - image is everything, I walk over with Hassy gear and I don't care what people think nor comment. Be patient with them, they just don't know what they are talking about.</p>

<p>Walter,<br>

Thank you for sharing your experience with us. I love Maco as well and still keep about 50 120 rolls deeply frozen. A friend of mine just tested Rollei and when I saw his results I decided to go for Rollei rather than Efke, Rollei grain is much finer and resolution is miles ahead of Efke however, wooden effect of Efke is difficult to equal. I don't think Efke is the same as Maco, Efke as far as I know has no antihalation layer while Maco had it. Only problem with Rollei is you have to use 89 filter (92 B&W)or similar what makes your exposure times long enough to carry a good tripod with you. I will test Rollei next week and will send you some shots for you judgment. Thank you for answering.</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

There are many posts at Photonet regarding EFKE and ROLLEI IR films however; I couldn’t find an answer to following issue. EFKE AURA IR820 is supposedly the same film as MACO IR820 what was a great film I used it many times and got some results I was very satisfied with (<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=520477"><em>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=520477</em></a><em>). </em>I use B&W 092 filter which is equivalent of #089 filter with spectral sensibility to wave lengths 695nm and up. Manufacturer product sheet stated MACO IR820 or now EFKE AURA IR820 has sensitivity of ASA100 film up to ASA200 based on light conditions. I use to meter scenes as for ASA100 an used factor 5x to 7x in order to get IR effect on it what gave me less then ASA10 sensibility. However, most photographers on this forum use ASA25 to start with it and including B&H Specification page on EFKE AURA IR820 is stating the same: "<em>Note!</em> <em>Testing of this brand new emulsion has shown that best results are obtained by exposing the film at ISO 25 and using an infrared filter such as a Hoya R72, Tiffen #87 or B+W 092. (Standard Red 25A filters)"</em><br>

Now the new ROLLEI IR400 is supposed to be ASA400 film but most users are recommending to meter it as ASA25 for IR applications. My question is what is finally difference between both films, what is their real sensitivity when using #089 (092) Ir filter and I hope somebody did some test shooting on both films and will share his experience with us. Thank you in advance for your answers, experiences an opinions.</p>

 

<p>

<p>First, I agree with everybody there was enough said about this issue in past. Once it get to digital versus film discussion is just endless! I shoot 120 film for passion and digital for work and both has advantages I appreciate. Regarding scanning, grain, high speed film you are all just correct in your statements. My experience scanning 6x6 at Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED is it is time consuming but you can get excellent results with low-speed color slides. B&W negatives scanning is more difficult in my experience but my Iford Deltas 100 and 400 are performing fine, 90 x 90 cm prints from Delta 100 show very little grain but not pixels at all. I agree with recommendations somebody did - scan fast at low res, choose the shot and scan at highest resolution. Scanning 35mm film bellow say 3000 dpi does not make sense, you'll be dissapointed. I'm scanning 6 x6 at 4,000 dpi and I'm happy with results, I don't think this could be beated for now by digital DSRL yet. Despite of it I will buy digital back to my Hasselblad in future anyway, it is just so slow to scan 6x6 at such a high resolution, it coudl take you 20 minutes and more according features you activated and resulting file is 200MB for color slide and 80MB B&W so consider TB storage space for your files! If you'll be using Nikon try multipass feature and fine scan feature, it is slow but it is worth of it.</p>

</p>

Sorry for typo mistake in your name.

Kah Lit Yoong,

Yes I did read responses and also your answers an I already made my opinion about all that. People who want to make

damage will setup new accounts, be sure about that. In order to avoid such behavior I would suggest ratings 3 and lower will

have to place critique as an obligatory requirement, if not rating will not be accepted. What you recon? That could cut

off this kind of "criminal" members. Good luck in your rating troubles, hope it will get sorted out with justice as I do

appreciate your work.

Kah Kit Yoong,

It looks to me reading all responses that other Photonet members in very gentle way try to explain you this is a democratic forum and anyone can rate photos according his own criteria. You can only complain or ask for explanation if rating is unusually low (say 1/1, 2/2 or so), please check Photonet rules. You have very high ratings and with all justice, your work is very creative but it doesn’t mean rating 5 is a bad one! Somebody mentioned building 7/7´s bank and I’m convinced he was pointing to you. Photonet is not about competition, it is about learning, making friends and having fun so relax and forget low ratings, there would be always somebody who will give you lower rating as you would like to get. BTW, for blurred water I wouldn’t give higher then O5 rating anyway and it is not intentional manipulation just to make it clear, there are tons of blurred water shots on web and in photographic books but I gave you some 7´s for aesthetic as you deserve such high rating. In my opinion overall ratings on Photonet are just too high anyway, 6/6 and higher are quite common and I don’t think if somebody will get only 7/7 or similar this could motivate him to think about his work. Oppositely, I do believe and welcome low ratings as these makes me stop and think what I did wrong, don’t you.

I really appreciate you took your valuable time and guide me through this new to me RF field. I bought my VC R4M as kind of toy I can take anywhere considering 10kg+ of my Hassy gear if I want to take it with me and it is not always possible. My idea was a decent, film (of course) small camera with spectacular optics, Leica is bit over my budget right now, VC was much more accessible and it looks and feels great. After all you mentioned about focusing 90mm at RF cameras I decided to buy rather Color Skopar 21mm/F4, actually version made specially for VC R4M/A and will try to get new view to our surrounding world through 21mm, never had such a short focal lens in my hands! I guess it has to be lot of fun with it and definitively new perspectives and new composition possibilities with such a wide angle. Thank you very much for your recommendations evidently based on wide experience you have with RF cameras avoiding me to buy something I will have troubles with.

I bought my VC as a combo with Ultron 35mm/F 1.7, no problems up today despite I was reading about some construction problems. My first film I got through R4M+Ultron is more than I was expecting, and pictures taken with Color-Skopar 21/4 I saw on net are fabulous! I don?t know what you think about Color Skopar, it looks to me like R4M/A version is slightly different (and more expensive!) as the previous lens version. Any experience with that particular lens please?

Thank you guys for your recomnedations, I found them extremely helpful.

Hello,

I just got a bright new toy Bessa R4M and learning to deal with small 35mm

format being medium-format oriented photographer. It is a great camera and

feels fabulously handy in comparison with my Hassy, but I am wondering how can

I focus and compose with this camera considering my "largest" focal distance

frame is made for 50mm only. I was considering 90mm APO Lanthar lens as I got

through very good reviews on this particular lens and I like sharp and contrast

lenses but I am bit worry how can manage problem with missing frame lines.

Thank you for reading and even more if you come out with some help.

Yes, you are right. The scanner is 8000 and not 9000 as stated in the title.I did upgrade of Nikon software - no change at all. Thank you for answering.

I have my Nikon Coolscan LS8000 ED plugged on Mac G4 over 1.5 years

and since early first days I realized my scans were too dark. Even slides

perfectly exposed, rich in details in shadows and dark areas are still too dark

and I have to make almost always some kind of adjusting (curves and

lightness, brightness) and even after that the result is still far away from

original slide. So final adjustment I have to do with slide on light table and PS

on screen trying to fix all scanned image parameters into original slide

parameters. What I doing wrong?? I tried also Vuescan (including bought a

professional version) but it seems to me that software is just using similar

algorithms as PS for Autolevels and Autocolor and this is I don't want at all.

Another funny particularity of Vuescan is a 6x6 slides batch scanning which

never worked for me as it seems to be impossible to tech that software that

there are 3 slides on the same strip. At least I never got through that detail. So,

if somebody knows how to manage dark looking scans please help.

Dear friends,

Thank you to all of you for attempt to help. I will try everything what was suggested. Answering a question why in my opinion is the Vuescan better than Nikonscan? I tried several pairs scanned both in VueScan and Nikonscan programs and I have to admit that these scanned in VueScan were close to almost 100% of the original colors of my slides, I find VueScan color rendition just as an originals. Nikonscan at least on my scanner and screen is showing slight shift to magenta and I have to fix that on almost every slide I?m scanning. I using Mac G4 2x450MHz, 1 GB Ram. I tried everything, color sync utility, scanner calibration, including I got through manual setting of the monitor profile - nothing help. When I use VueScan it is just coming out as it is on the slide.

My last hope is that somebody got through that and will help. Scanning on

Coolscan LS 8000 ED I was not satisfied with Nikon scan software so

following some investigation I purchased professional version of VueScan,

version 8.0. However, I was never able to scan more than the first frame, from

some reasons I could not setup the software to understand that there are 3

frames even introducing frame offset, spacing between frames. Even trying to

cheat the software introducing 58 x 180 mm frame size it always scan 1.5

frames and no more. I downloaded the last version 8.1.9 in hope that bug will

be fixed but NO! I 'm fighting the same troubles again. If the output quality of

VueScan scans will be similar to that from Nikon Scan I will let it be, but what

drives me mad is that Vuescan output is far better than Nikon software and I

would like to make it do what one will expect from - recognize at least how

much frames are on the strip. Somebody can help? Maybe there is something

very simple I overlooked or I just don't know. Thank you in advance.