fp1

Hmmmm....

The question seemed inoccuous at first. It seems, however, that that old f vs. d

debate has reared its hideous head once again. After mulling over the issue for some

months, I have come to the following decisions regarding my use of tools:

1) I got rid of my D100 and Nikkor ED glass

2) I got myself a metal laden Blad of Hassel, which I now typically wield in conjunction

with an Carl Zeiss Aryan Super Lens.

3) I also got myself a "lowly" mamiya C3 and a couple of lenses.

4)I did this because I have developed a rather serious love affair with black and white

imagery. I like the dynamic range as well as the texture of a traditionally printed

black and white photograph. I don't care as much for the digital equivalent. Not even

from the 1DS Wunderpixellator.

5) Thanks to some comments from Scott on another thread, I decided to compare film

scanners before buying. (Thanks, Scott!) I've decided that an Epson flatbed may be

lurking about in my near future.

6) I plan to buy another digital camera. I have a preference for film when it comes to

black and white. I personally feel, however, that high- end digital images made with

exceptionally good glass ( such as my much missed Nikkor 180 2.8 ED) is far above

and beyond what is achieveable with 35mm film, with respect to the handling of color

accuracy. I like the Nikkor glass, but I think Fuji and yes, Sigma have better offerings

in terms of color rendition and facility than does Nikon.

7) A wise man once told me, " as an artist, you choose the tools you like and work

with them."

I have Photoshop, A G4 and a Wacom tablet. I STILL prefer the look and texture of a

crow quill pen and Dr. Martin's Tech Black ink to its cybernetically produced

counterpart.

8) Use what you will.

9) Stop with the poisonous barbs and innuendoes; it ain't that deep. I have had VERY

POSITIVE experiences with Photo.net. We are beginning to sound like those folks on

the DPREVIEW board. THAT is a VERY BAD thing.

End.

F.

Thanks for the replies. Tried the Minolta Multipro...compared scanned images to !

those done with Epson 3200...3200 was as least as good, and in my opinion, actually

slightly BETTER! Now I am waiting for the 4870; I should not have let the 3200 go-- I

can't find one now!

F.

Hi. I was wondering if anyone out there has ever used this particular item. I am

specifically interested in the image quality as compared with MF film as well as high-

end professional digital image quality.

Thanks.

F.

Where might one of these used drum scanners be purchased? How much do they

cost?

I am considering a Nikon 9000 now......dazed and confused...

(heavy sigh)

F.

Hi. Thanks for the replies. My goal is to produce high end prints. Very high.

F.

Hi. I recently spend a lot of time searching for a telephoto lens for my Hasselblad. I

was looking for a 120 or a 150. I stopped by the shop where I buy film, saw and

handled a C3 with a 135mm (black) lens, and bought it. I paid less than $160 for it,

on a trial basis, no less. I decided to keep it. I have no idea what kind of reputation

these cameras have, and frankly, I do not care. The 135 on the C3 is one of the

sharpest lenses I have ever owned. Yes, I have to lug two cameras around as opposed

to one camera and two lenses. If I had to do it all over again, I'd do the same thing.

The $800 or more I saved by not purchasing the lens I was initially after will happily

find itself applied to some other toy.

Just thought I'd share.

F.

Hi. I am 85% convinced that the Imacon is the way to go for purposes of scanning MF

(primarily b&w) film. I know that there are several alternatives out there for scanning.

Is there anyone who has experience with the Imacons as well as other scanners (e.g.

Nikon, Minolta). I am not sure that any flatbed is in the same league, so I am not as

interested in opinions of these.

The Hasselblad is hideously expensive; so is the Imacon. Now that I have a

Hasselblad, I doubt that much else will suffice ( with very few exceptions) in its stead.

Will I find the same is true with the Imacon? Will I find that all others pale in

comparison? If so, I will have no regrets about spending the money for it. I have

found that all the hullabaloo about Zeiss optics is well warranted. I want to know if

the same holds true with respect to the Imacon. Or is it all hype??

F.

Thanks, Kelly. You folks are soooo helpful. It is greatly

appreciated.

F.

Thanks for all the responses thusfar. Scott, based on your comments, as well as

some of the photos in your portfolio ( I am assuming you are using the 3200 to

scan the film images...), I am considering trying the 3200 again....if I can find one.

F.

Thanks for the advice. What are your friends using to scan their work?????

F.

Hi again. I really do not wish to get involved in the tiresome "film vs. digital" debate.

Suffice it to say, I PERSONALLY feel that scanned B&W negatives have a much wider

range, greater shadow detail and, well, finer resolution. Oh, and that imperceptible

thing called "depth". (not dof...) Highlight resolution I find to be far more satisfactory.

The photo you posted is nice. I prefer the look of scanned film. Oh, and yes, I know

they BOTH yield digital images.

F.

Hi. I have been trying to decide (for more than a month now) between making an

investment in a film scanner or conventional darkroom equipment. My cybernetic

experience would probably make the learning curve involved with using a scanner far

less steep than that concerned with grappling with an enlarger and the necessary

expertise that entails. Unfortunately, I have developed a taste for black and white

(primarily tmax 100, 6x6 and 4x5) film, and I have read extensively about less than

stellar results involving scanning the same.

I am willing to spend $3,000- no more. Are there any fine art photographers using

scanning in the process? I dumped my D100 for the dynamic range I get from

scanned medium format film. I find the results I have obtained using the Epson 3200

( and several other Epsons) not CONSISTENTLY in keeping with the high quality

standards I wish to achieve.

This question has been asked, skirted, flirted with, diverted, and all but definitively

answered, to my knowledge. Help. Please. I am becoming inundated with negatives

which need to be printed from...some way....some day.....

F.

Hi. I entitled this thread thusly because I want to avoid the inevitable deteriation of

the discussion into an anectdotal account of why certain scanners are "pretty good",

"crappy" and/or "ok for the web". I want a scanner for professional use; I am not

interested in mediocre results.

If there is anyone out there selling exhibit quality prints produced with scanned black

and white negatives, please respond.

Please do not divert the discussion of how to avoid newton rings when using a 2450,

3200 or the like. I am willing to spend a maximum of $3,000 dollars. I am looking at

the Minolta Multipro and the Microtek 120 as well as the 1800. IF YOU HAVE USED

THESE, or another scanner that fits the description, please advise.

I truly do not mean to appear terse; I am simply a bit frustrated. NONE of the

salespeople at the "pro shops" in my area of SE Michigan seem to have a CLUE. I

would rather hear what someone KNOWS from experience, as opposed to what

someone thinks may theoretically, probably, in all likelyhood and kinda maybe work

pretty good.

Thanks.

F.

Hi. Although responses are appreciated, I'd like for this thread to stay on topic

please. Problem is, every thread out there about MF black and white scanning decays

into a discussion of the pros and cons of the 3200 ( or some other specific model),

much like this one has.

I am looking for responses from someone who uses a scanner PROFESSIONALLY. I am

interested in very high quality results. No offense intended here; I am not interested

in a discussion of Newton rings and the like. I want to know what WORKS, not the

problems with what is mediocre.

F.

I got fantastic results from the Epson three times or so. So-so results MOST of the

time. I am looking for outstanding results; pretty good just won't quite cut it. I have

considered using an enlarger. I KNOW Photoshop and am well aquainted with my

Mac; I have no traditional printing experience whatsoever. Is it really as difficult to

master as they say?

The problem is this: I had been selling prints captured with a D100 and printed on an

Epson 2200. The superior quality of scanned black and white mf negs have spoiled

me to a degree. Knowing that I can produce images of superior detail and tonal

range, I am not interested in selling anything below my newly adopted standards.

The Epson 3200 is good; I want better--consistently better results. I don't want my

name attached to anything less than the best I am currently capable of producing.

F.

Hi. I am in the market for a film scanner for my Blad negs. I primarily shoot B&W

(tmax 100). I am interested in something that handles black and white VERY

WELL...bettter than the Epson 3200 I used to have. Any suggestions? I don't want to

spend more than $2500 U.S.

Thanks,

F.

Thanks for the response, Kelly.

Which artists? I have been trying to research those who leave/left printing to others,

with little success. I know Cartier-Bresson's work, after a time, were printed by

others.

F.

First of all, let say thanks to all the respondents thusfar. You are incredibly helpful

and collegial with your responses.

Now then...to the meat of the matter. I have a relatively sophistacated printer (Epson

2200), a Mac, as you know, and Photoshop. I have compromised the learning curve

with respect to these, and am quite comfortable using them. A scanner would put me

on the road to production.

As to the issue of using a pro lab...well...I thought about that. Remember, I am

primarily and artist, not a photographer, per se (what exactly DOES "per se" mean,

anyway?). I might have a little problem with exhibiting work that SOMEBODY ELSE

printed. I know that Andy Warhol is reputed to have had several others involved in

the manufacture of his work. An architect doen't acutally BUILD the edifices he

designs. But for some unidentifiable reason, I am wont to relinquish ANY creative

control over the work I produce. Am I being anal?

F.

Thanks, Tim.

Uh....

how hazardous is hazardous? And in what way? I am primarily

interested in black and white, and develop my own film.

F.

Greetings, Prince.

A year ago, I never would have believed I would be saying this,

but, here goes:

If you are even remotely as anal retentive as am I with regard to

image quality, I would suggest that you forget the dslr. Get the

medium format film camera. I am now a very happy wielder of

the Blad of Hassel. The dslr was fast, relatively easy to use and

carry, and provided for immediate feedback. The Blad is

heavier, clunkier, requires actual thought and a great deal more

physical effort to use.

I am however, am more interested in image quality as opposed

to whether or not I " got the shot." I had a D100 and several very

good, fast prime lenses. Negatives from a Pentax 4x5, scanned

on a low end flatbed scanner, simply obliterated raw files from

the dslr. I am now the owner of a Blad, an 80mm T* along with

an Omega View 4x5 with a 90mm Angulon. The only regret I

have with respect to equipment is that I didn't initially spend all

that money I paid for the Nikon gear on MF equipment.

Mind you that I am speaking from the perspective of an artist. I

am obsessed with image quality as well as composition and

subject matter. Many (most, I dare say) photographers are not

fine artists. Your proverbial mileage, to coin a phrase, may vary.

I don't mind taking 45 minutes to compose and make an image.

But then again, I am not opposed to waiting a year or more for an

oil painting to dry completely.

In my view, digital capture is to film capture (with a high end dslr)

as acrylic paint is to oil paint. Each is a legitimate artistic

medium. But I find that often, when viewing one of my more

succesful paintings done with acrylic paint, I find myself wishing I

had taken the time to complete the same using Winsor and

Newton oil paint. I am wishing I was shooting with the blad two

years ago. Go figure.

F.

I have recently acquired a Hasselblad 503cxi, PME 51 prism, and

80mm T* lens. After developing a roll of Tmax 100, I have come

to realize that the hype regarding hasselblad picture quality

is...well...not just hype. I have been pleased with the results, to

put it mildly. I have been so pleased, in fact, that any second

guesses about the prudence of trading/selling my 645 and

D100 have been put soundly to sleep. Now then, for the

consumation of this image making undertaking....

I have not used a dedicated film scanner. I have had mixed

results using Epson flatbeds; some 645 scans from a 3200

prompted me to explore 6x6 and the Blad. Now that I have the

capture device issue settled, I have yet another dilemma.

Namely, I am unsure wheter to purchase a medium format

scanner, or an enlarger (for the Blad negs as well as negs from

my 4x5). I am considering a Microtek 120. This is due to the fact

that the item specs indicate an ability to use Digital Ice with black

and white negs. I have read of questionable results with the

Minolta Multipro, with respect to scanning negative (especially

black and white) film. I am somewhat computer savvy; I am on

my fourth Mac (dual 867) and have Photoshop 7. I have never

used an enlarger, but, being self taught, am not afraid of tackling

the learning curve involved in using one.

By the way, I am interested in producing exhibition quality, fine

arts prints only.

Responses from anyone with relevant experience with regard to

this issue would be greatly appreciated.

F.

Thank you for all of the cordial responses. They are all

appreciated. Photo.net seems to attract a respectable lot.

You all seem to be confirming my thoughts before posting the

question. Film is much more difficult to master, yet far more

enjoyable than working with a dslr, in my opinion.

As for the scanner issue...I am completely puzzled as to why so

many seem to love the 2450...I was unable to get even a

reasonbly good black and white scan--even with 4x5 Delta 100!

I would like to know which scanner, i.e. Minolta Multipro, Microtek

180, Nikon 8000, handles BLACK AND WHITE NEGATIVE FILM

best. The local shops here generally do not carry them. The few

that do have no personnel familiar with their performance.

Before shelling out $2,500, I would like to have an idea of the

performance of the machine in question. Right now I am leaning

toward buying the Microteck 180, as the specs indicate an ability

to use digital ice with black and white film. Thoughts?

Suggestions?

Thank you for indulging me further.

F.

Hi. I know that many of us (myself included) are sick and tired of

the "film vs. digital" thing. I am having trouble deciding on a

course of action with respect to future purchases however. I ask

this question here because I find the responses tend to be

generally of a civil nature, unlike those on that other (digital)

website. In short, my situation is as follows:

I began taking photos digitally. I am an artist; I purchased a

camera for the purposes of photographing reference material for

painting. The photo thing got out of hand; people seemed to be

more impressed with (and willing to part with money for) my

photographic work. A relatively high end digital slr and several

very expensive lenses later, I was actually learning stuff like

aperture, shutter speed, dof and the like. I made the mistake,

however, of scanning (on a 3200) some 645 b&w negs. The

results were far more impressive with respect to detail and

dynamic range. So much so that I lost interest in shooting with

my dslr. I also lost interest in selling digital b&w as they simply

were not in the same league as scanned tmax film.

Long story short, traded my stuff away for a blad, a 4x5 and some

cash. I am considering the purchase of a film scanner (multipro

or microtek) and yet another film camera (panorama). Am I

about to make a financial error here? I plan on spending about

5k. I have made some contact prints of 4x5...and well....am

tempted to purchase dark room instead.

I do not want to be stuck with outdated equipment whose value

is continually dropping. I think the results I get with film just are

not attainable with cmos or ccd. Thoughts would be

appreciated.

F

I first used an epson 3200, beleive it or not. Got great results. Tried a 3170...for

some reason, not as good. I am considering buying a dedicated film

scanner...perhaps Microtek or Minolta.

Hi all. I recently purchased a Pentax 645 with a 75mm lens as

well as a 150mm. I have lost all interest in 35 mm. I hardly

touch my D100 nowadays, and am looking forward to

purchasing a 4x5 soon. Scanned black and white 645 negs

blow digital files (including raw) away. I think you will be very

happy with your purchase. Good luck.

Frank