fp1

Nikon 9000 is great, and you will probably find that you get scans that supercede the

quality of your digital camera, assuming of course, proper technique. At least, that's

what I discovered after scanning some 35mm color/bw negatives from my F4.

 

Scanning MF will be ridiculously superior, even on an Epson, or even a Microtek,

assuming you get one that works.

I'd be interested, but only if I were able to make an 11x14 camera....

Must disagree: Tri x is nothing like Neopan, and Neopan is less expensive.

Try Fuji Neopan 400. There is nothing quite like it.

Not much. But a film camera...any film camera WITH A GOOD LENS...will increase the bar (presuming a good scanner is used.) When I had a digital camera, I would scan film (645 or bigger) for anything I even dared refer to as "fine art". You could get a Pentax 645 body and lens, along with a Nikon 35mm scanner, for about $1000 or less, and VASTLY improve pure capture quality.

Am I the last hold out? After fooling around with large and ultra large format,

I've decided to go back to what has historically worked for me best: Hasselblad

V system and Nikon mf scanner.

 

With the advent of digital Fujiblads, I am beginning to wonder if I am indeed a

dinosaur. Seems like ALL the pros are forgoing scanned film. Am I the only

one who still prefers scanned MF film?

 

Not trying to start a debate (really, I am not), just want opinions.

Interesting. I've owned the 9000, and have had a similar experience. There is very little difference with respect to quality of the prints--up to 13x19 (which is all my printer will do)in my opinion. I don't know if people are in denial or what; the 4990 is a GREAT scanner. Maybe it's not supposed to be so good; but it is. I don't know why or how.

Hi.

 

Am I the only one using this stuff? Just wondering, because I find it to be FAR

superior to Dektol, and really hope it stays on the market. Matter of

fact...wouldn't bother me if Kodak gave up on black and white completely; I keep

finding products by other manufacturers I like much better ( films by Foma, Fuji

and Ilford, papers by Ilford and Foma, developers by Ilford, LPD, acufine).

Anybody have similar thoughts?

I used to fret over this very thing myself. A few days ago, I took the card out of my S5 and went to my local camera store. I recorded photos on the card taken with a d200 and a d2x.

My opinion:

 

The d200 images were...well...a lot like the reason I sold my D70s..."plasticky"...a little too digital looking for me, but definitely better than the d70s.

 

The D2x produced images that were more film like in appearance than those from the D200. Nice...although, strangely enough, not as nice as those from the S5 in a way. The S5 seems to produce files that have a bit of an impressionistic feel to them, if this makes any sense.

 

Both the D2x and D200 produced files that looked better at 400% magnification on my monitor, yet, the Fuji images were better in print. I don't know why or how, and frankly, I don't care.

 

I have decided that my back up to my S5 will be...another S5. If finances do not permit...I will settle for a used S3.

 

I don't know how Fuji manages to do it...but this little camera is the next best thing to shooting real 35mm film...in many ways, especially for color work...better.

A little longer than a 50, but the 58mm 1.2 is nice...especially at night.<div></div>

Hi, Tony. I used to shoot an RZ...sold in favor of Hasselblad, which provided much nicer tonality, even with the smaller negatives (it's in the glass). Sold my Blads and MF scanner, and now shoot primarily 5x7.

If you do everything right, even at 8x10, I notice a dramatic difference in terms of tonality and detail vs. medium format, even on a "consumer" 4990. There are sharp lenses in all formats; I frankly don't know how ANY lens can be sharper than the Contax Zeiss lenses I used to shoot on a G1, but film area trumps in terms of tonal range/detail, all other things remaining equal.

 

A very good combination to start with would be a Super Graphic with a 152mm Kodak Ektar. Ektars are ridiculously sharp lenses, especially for the money. The Super Graphic has slight tilt, shift and swing on the front standard, and the back rotates. $200-$300 should procure you a nice one. Don't discount the older (sturdier!) Speed Graphics. They are really cheap, and if you find one with a working focal plane shutter, you can use even older, cheaper glass in barrels, which often have specific characteristics not offered in modern lens lines.<div></div>

Your opinion, David, is clearly worth the following response:

David...people like you are quite annoying. You remind me of the "old boys club" of photography ( and art) which is typically populated by people of questionable if any talent, and who cling to old, white, male, American attitudes toward anything to do with art. I find you r demeanor annoying. I wish people like you would find other interests, as opposed to deriding the efforts of those who challenge your apparently old, dusty ideas of what art (and photography) "should" be about. My reference to hand holding the camera was not a boast; you seem to me to be the only one here boorish enough to assume that it was. If, as your profile suggests, you have so much expertise in the area of photography, why don't you try sharing the fruits of your labor? Or perhaps, you have nothing to show, other than your derisive commentary. If not, why not go on your merry way and leave me and the rest of us alone?

Thanks.

I can hardly believe I found a 5x7 camera I can shoot from the hip (quite

literally, I might add!).

Hmmm....methinks this camera...she is a good thing.

Sorry, Idon't know how to make images bigger and stay withing the 100k

constraint. (Someone asked in a previous post).

It (the camera) is a Graflex Series B. The pear is indeed a bosco.

I just got a bag magazine for the camera today...it has a tear in the leather...I am wondering if I taped both sides...well.

 

Oh...and I find it quite nice to shoot.

 

Will post pics later.

Hope this works...5x7 Graflex slr....

From the first day...hand held.

Anybody have both of these? I borrowed a 120 for a while and found it

sublime...I now have a chrome 150 and find it fiendishly sharp, but still want

a 120. Any thoughts...waste of cash?

Generally speaking, you are quite safe dealing with KEH. I have had to return quite a few items recently, due to functionality problems. They have always taken care of mistakes to my satisfaction; I believe they are honest. I would however, strongly suggest checking out David-Odess.com before making a Hasselblad purchase. He was recommened to me recently, and so far (week and a half) I have been very satisfied with the purchase. I am comforted in knowing that he overhauls what he sells, and actually makes a living servicing the best photographic system in the world.

I just don't think any lens, regardless of format, can get better than the 120mm f/4 Makro Planar. It is simply unreal. The 150 comes close, but is not optimized for close up work and is too long to be considered 'normal'.

WOW! I had one of those for a while. Fuji lenses are absolutely spectacular, and the 6x8 format, you will find, will likely approach 4x5 in terms of tonality (I know the 6x9 Fuji I had did). It was simply too damned unwieldy for me, as I like to prowl the streets at 4 in the a.m. looking for photo ops. Congrats...you are going to have a ball with that camera.

Oh..one more thing...

Spending more cash on cameras and lenses becomes a mute issue if you are going to scan it with inferior optics and lesser equipment...it sorta defeats the purpose. This is actually what swayed me. I spent so much cash gathering this Bavarian Super Glass...only to scan the negs on a flatbed??? It's like putting 30 dollar tires on a Porsche...

Another vote in favor of the Nikon 9000--if you can comfortably afford it. I had one, sold it when I got into LF, and started using an Epson. This was after the Artixscan which so many raved about crapped out on me in less that 45 days, leaving ugly streaks in my scans. The Epson does an extremely good job on 4x5 and up, lightyears ahead of the Artixscan in my opinion. But for MF and 35, the Nikon 9000 is simply in another league altogether. After months of trying to convince myself that the 4990 was good enough for MF, I finally broke down and bought(another) Nikon 9000, this time with the glass strip film holder. I like this holder better than the rotating holder I had previously, but I do kinda miss the masks that came with the rotating holder. I still have the Epson, because I also shot 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. Expensive, but worth every penny if you are obsessed with image quality, as am I I think most people would be happy with the Epson 4990 for MF. I am not most people; I am a black and white fine art photo dweeb, and must have the best I can reasonably afford, but ONLY if the difference in results is significant. Believe me (us), the Nikon is better for MF by far.

p.s.....Don't believe the hype about the Artixscan being better (because it costs more); I found the Epson to be far superior with a minimum of fiddling with the software.