david_henderson

<p>I thought the 5Diii had a microadjustment facility built in? Or does your device simply tell you accurately how much you need to adjust by and in what direction in order to use the built-in adjustment properly without a large degree of trial & error adjustment/measure/readjustment?</p>

<p>Measuring different things. All scans have a bit depth and a resolution. The former is just like having an 8 bit image or 16 bit image in photoshop. The 16 bit image is advantageous if you're going to carry out editing , even if you then reduce it to 8 bit.</p> <p>5000 pixels per inch is a resolution that you can't get on a medium format file from most film scanners - not even a Coolscan 9000 or an Imacon. Its mostly a level of resolution that, if you're<em> really</em> going to achieve it (and not just the inflated numbers that some makers of consumer flatbed scanners quote for their products), you're pretty much going to need a drum scan to get it. </p> <p>Some people buy drum scans of way more than 5000ppi. Not every file can benefit from it, and not always is it necessary- this questioners objectives can be comfortably met by a 5000 ppi drum scan from a 67 original- and it does make the scan expensive and a very big file to process and store. For example a 8000ppi/16 bit scan from a 67 original would run to over 2GB, and a lot of people have computers that would struggle to handle that efficiently.</p>

<p>I don't think these sorts of questions would be of much help to a masters thesis. </p>

<p>Well 2 minutes research of prices here in the UK provided a well-regarded source offering prices of £16 (c $20) for a 5000ppi scan from a 67 colour neg; £2 less for b&w. That's more than ample for the sizes the OP wants.<br> Another 2 minutes finds USA drum scan offers on 67 drum scans/16 bit at or below $50<br> Seems like Vancouver isn't the place to get drum scans done. Fortunately its pretty much a global market these days.</p>

<p>I don't see any problem in getting prints of 20x30 from a good Mamiya 7/50mm neg. Fact is on the long side you'll have 11000 pixels to play with so at 30" you're still over the 360ppi that some inkjet printers prefer, without interpolation. </p> <p>I think you <em><strong>could</strong></em> use the Nikon 9000 right up to the 20" x 30". But you will IMO have passed the point at which a drum scan (or even a virtual drum like an Imacon ) would begin to yield a better result. So pleased to see you're considering that option for the biggest prints/best negs.</p>

<blockquote> <p> or use them in any other way for profit</p> </blockquote> <p>And there, I believe, lies the rub. I agree with Jeff Spirer on the thread referenced by Mr Katz; but that's clearly print -related. The sentence quoted above throws the whole thing wider open. If Mr Dima wants to step inside the commercial usage arena, I believe he should have a release if the model is in any way recognisable -whether the face is rendered or not. Most stock agencies don't accept photographs of people's hands (to quote an example) unless the photographer has a release. </p> <p>Bear in mind that it is the publisher of a photograph, not necessarily the photographer, that is liable. So on the one hand if <strong>you </strong>carry out a commercial application ( eg use the image as a book cover, or in advertising your services) and the model recognises herself and decides to take action, then that action will be against you. However if you sell the right to use an image to someone else who uses it for commercial purposes, then it is they that would be potentially liable in an action. Of course it might not end there - firstly because many agencies and clients wouldn't accept the image without a release, or insist that you indemnify them against any matter arising from their use of the image- which can get complicated really fast when you're not in control of the exact form of use. </p>

<p>I think he means that the solution has to be MF rather than LF</p> <blockquote> <p>(LF is not an option; looking for best MF landscape solution)</p> </blockquote> <p>and that this bracketed statement qualifies and imposes limits on what he says his friend wants, which is "large landscape print capability"</p>

<p>Seems implicit in the OP and maybe in some of the answers, that the 43mm lens will get you bigger prints than the 50mm on the Mamiya 7. I can't see that it'll make much difference to print size capability. What you'll get is wider angle photographs. Can't see merit in buying 43mm if, as indicated in the OP, the objective is print size.</p>

<p>Arthur. Yes,the subscript to my rather terse question is</p> <ul> <li>The photographer might be able to get what he wants without buying anything, or</li> <li>The photographer may not be able to get what he wants no matter what he buys.</li> <li>The decisions taken by the photographer regarding how he supports his camera, what medium he starts with and whether he will spend the money on the best quality scans quite possibly bear on whether the photographer can satisfactorily reach his definition of "large" more than what medium format camera/lens he or she might choose. Unless he or she is prepared to optimise these other elements, they may as well stop worrying about buying further MF gear. </li> <li>Of course I missed the whole area of competence. If the photographer is less than very good at focussing the camera, making the right decisions on where the point of focus should be, handling depth of field issues, composing and exposing the frame nicely, & potentially making a digital print file then again he or she may fail to achieve much benefit from any extra money they spend. </li> </ul>

<p>How big is "large"? What aspect ratio? How is he going to make prints ( digital or analogue) and if the former how is he going to scan the negs? Does he use a tripod? </p> <p>I have had no problem having 36" x 30" prints made from drum scans of sharp Mamiya 7/50mm slides, that don't depend on long viewing distances for sharpness. </p>

<p>Well I own precisely one camera outfit - a Canon dslr with a few zooms- and that's in a shoulder bag with the filters and a few more bits & pieces- all I need - ready to go. Most of my landscape photography is done from a car- sometimes but not always my own ageing Volvo 4x4; or more likely a rental as I'm probably away from home. Tripod, back-up body and hoods are in the car for when I need them. Nothing exciting really, but then I want to be excited by what I'm seeing/photographing rather than by what I'm carrying. In cold snowy conditions I tend to swap the shoulder bag for a backpack.</p>

<p>Edward</p> <p>Whilst appreciating the fact of your reply, I think I disagree with all that you've written. I don't believe that a single clean filter , whether plastic ( actually CR39 optical resin, as is used in spectacles) or glass degrades an image to any meaningful degree. Neither do I believe they reduce contrast. The only issue I have with grads is that sometimes I have to send them back because they aren't neutral. That gets tested before they're used in anger.</p> <p>And looking at the thousands of photographs I've taken with ND grads applied, I don't think they look like a smog layer, and its very rare indeed that I can see a line where the graduated effect starts. Sure if you're using the wrong filter, or you haven't worked out how to position the filter properly-- but that's just like everything else in the bag- use it right to get the most out of it. I mean seriously, given the masses of high-end landscapers that both use square filters and particularly grads , you're not going to get a whole lot of support for an argument that essentially says they're rubbish.</p> <p>But of course this approaches the root of the issue- you're not actually a landscape photographer, are you? You seem to take a technical perspective on a lot of things, but you're not out there making landscapes that often if the images you share with others are anything to go by. Sure you take outdoor pictures but they seem to be orientated more towards testing equipment than taken for their own sakes. If you were out there taking landscapes in volume, you'd appreciate that its a whole lot faster to set up with a grad than adding at least a few minutes to the post processing of a lot of shots. On a good day for me I'll probably use ND grads on 50 shots. The incremental set up time is well under a minute, vs what- maybe an extra 5-8 minutes per shot if I add a HDR/focus stack process to each meaningful image. That's hours more behind a computer for every day I'm shooting landscape. And I don't accept that there's any advantage in doing things your way for well over 90% of the photographs I make-and specific circumstances in which merges are less appropriate. </p>

<p>I've never had any problem with the <strong><em>optical</em></strong> quality of brands like Hitech, Lee. Using these filters has never screwed up my pictures. Have they screwed up yours Edward? Or is this just a vaguely theoretical possibility?<br> How long does it take you per image to combine your various shots and process them into one that you're comfortable with? </p>

<p>I rarely use lens hoods at all, and even more rarely with a grad or other square type filter fitted. </p> <p>There's no room for hoods in my bag, so hoods are normally in my car or rental and stay there unless I anticipate that I'll have a serious need for them. Meantime over the years I've become adept at improvised shading for the lens- to prevent light striking the front element. I seem to get very little flare. </p> <p>The time I use hoods most is when its raining- I have one of those plastic rain covers but they're a pain to put on and take off. I did try to grip this issue about a decade about when I bought a set of folding bellows for my Bronica MF. What a pain that was- can't recall ever using it in anger. </p>

<p>There are few used cameras that are "investments" at all unless you get into the realm of classic cameras. Clearly its a capable camera that won't cost the earth, if that's what you mean. </p> <p>I used to use the 5D and still have one albeit it hasn't seen light of day for several years. It isn't a camera I remember with a huge amount of affection because there is no mechanical sensor cleaning and I seemed to spend quite a few frustrating hours trying to get the sensor clean manually. I formed a view that some examples of this camera were unreasonably prone to sensor dirt and clearly, others weren't. I also felt that there was a big tendency to noisy images that you don't get near so badly with its successors. </p> <p>Which leads onto the point that when buying a camera that might well be ten years old its sensible to buy from a source that will stand behind the camera - that is, offers a warranty or return period long enough for you to work out whether its functionally 100%. </p> <p>Knowing what I know now, and using Live View a lot, I'd try and stretch to the Mk2 if I could. Don't have any experience of the 6D to offer. </p>

<div></div>

<p>The body plus 80mm is a popular choice- this lens being a direct equivalent of the 50mm "standard" lens for 35mm cameras. I suspect most new purchases included an 80mm . Some will have chosen the slightly wider 65mm as their "standard" and this choice was the subject of at least several discussions on Photo.net back when this camera was mostly bought new. Whether you can sell an 80mm lens to someone with a 65mm is a bit debateable. </p> <p>A lot depends on who you think might buy used Mamiya 7 gear. Is it people new to the camera- who probably will want a "standard" lens , mostly but not all the 80mm. Or is it people buying a second/replacement/back-up body (who may not need a lens)? Or is it both? It is not a clear-cut choice. </p>

<p>For information, the photographs on the gallery getting the extra viewers are all in colour; taken on Velvia and Provia slide films. That will be in all cases clear to viewers before they enter the gallery.</p>

<p>This thread is taking a turn that I did not intend</p>

<p>Charles. No I can't do that . Maybe I could have done had I asked, I don't know, but all the count is there for is to tell me which galleries get traffic and which don't. Clearly, over time the latter get changed or replaced. </p> <p>I just can't imagine people visiting the same gallery and seeing the same 40 pictures, time after time, within a short time frame . Unless I have a stalker!</p>

<div></div>

<p>About 6 months ago I re-structured my website. Out of 30+ galleries/albums, I decided fairly whimsically to title one of them "By the sea-film photography". No other gallery has a title with any indication of whether the content is film-based. Reality is that I've been fully digital since 2009 and all told about 85% of the site's photographs are digital in origin. </p> <p>But I have visit counters on each gallery and these indicate that this gallery has between 3 and 4 times the number of visits than the second highest gallery, and about 4x the visits of the average gallery. Its getting 3.5 x the traffic of another, similarly named gallery called "By the sea -digital photography. It isn't in a particularly prominent place; the photographs on it are all at least several years old and have been on my sites forever, though not over this title. I don't believe the quality of this photography is notably better or worse than you'd find elsewhere on the site.</p> <p>I'm curious as to why this might be happening. Anyone seen any objective signs of a resurgence of interest in film stuff? My web guy has checked the way visits are being counted is the same here as on the other galleries. I guess I'm surprised that a fairly arbitrary way of dividing up an 80 shot portfolio into two 40 shot galleries is having such an effect.</p>

<p>I'd sell the bodies and lenses separately- which is what I did when I sold my Mamiya 7ii kit a few years ago. I also used eBay and I was pleased with what I got . </p> <p>As far as I recall, each body came with one spool- the other arrives with the film roll. Whatever you do don't prejudice the completeness of a body for the sake of the much less popular and less expensive panorama kit , which in my experience didn't work too well anyway.</p> <p>The only real dilemma comes about with the viewfinder for the 150mm lens. There are markings for this lens on the std. finder iirc and I think that finder may well have been an optional extra that many buyers chose not to get. So there's likely to be quite a few 150 lenses out there with no finder ( an opportunity) but many of those will have made a decision not to buy one ( a problem). </p>

<p>I have nothing against them per se. What I don't want to do is to have to take off a UV or whatever filter every time I want to use a grad or a polariser- which is a lot of the time - to reduce the chance of vignetting . What makes it worse is that I tend to operate outdoors with the rings for my grad system attached to my main lenses- which leaves me just with a filter holder to slide on. So no room in my usual work routines for protective filters. I do use lens caps when the gear is in transit.</p> <p>The other time I might use one is when photographing in rain or blown spray. Clearly there are a variety of ways to keep stuff off the lens depending on conditions and the lens (sometimes with a longer lens a hood is enough, with a short lens it virtually never is. If its blowy I do sometimes use a UV filter to compose and meter through and then take it off for a moment to expose the shot. Or I might take a couple of shots with the filter on and then take it off when its collected rain/spray spots, leaving me with a pristine lens good for another quick shot or two before I need to clean the lens/filter. </p>

<div></div>