gene crumpler

I also have a Epson 3170 and I am pleased with the results scanning 6x6 and 6x7 negatives and slides. I got mine for $189 at CompUSA. I've made 13x19 inch prints on my Canon s9000 that are excellent.

 

If you will be happy with prints up to 16x20, it is a great buy!I don't know if they have discontinued the 3170. The only difference between the 3170 and the 3200 is not being able to scan 4x5 negatives and slides. I've had my fling with 4x5 a number of years ago and if I can't get a sufficient quality 16x20 from a 6x7 negative, then the picture does not get taken!

 

http://genecrumpler.home.att.net

Charles;

 

Don't fool with metering. Use the sunny 16 rule. Bracketing is also a good idea, in the +2 stop exposure. Dense negatives are the norm for IR, so exposures under the enlarger of 1-2 minutes for 11x14 prints is expected.

 

One of the basics of fine B&W photography that I learned from John Sexton is that under exposure and/or under development are the two problems in a negative that can not be fixed. Dense negatives can nearly always be printed. Stated another way, "forget Zone 3"

My selftimer gave out about a year after a major overhaul at Hasselblad USA. Use a cable release instead.

ISO of 12, with a 25A does the trick. f16 @ 1/15

Place a 6x7 enlargement next to a 6x4.5(In my case 6x6 cropped to ~ 6x4.5)and you will see a difference in a 16x20 or larger print. For the kind of detail you will need in your 20x30 prints, I'd definitely go for the larger format. I've never done any work from an aircraft, so as to handling, I don't know. Loading a p67 is a bit of a hassel, but an extra body and 220 film will help.

I purchased a contax G1 with 3 lenses for travel. However, I no longer carry it for primay shooting and just keep it locked up in the hotel room strictly as a back-up with only the 35mm lens.

 

I'm now using a hasselblad/80mm and two backs for both B&W and color for my travel photography. The hassie is not that much heavier than the contax G system. The contax lenses are outstanding, but you need to use a slow slide film like Velva to get negatives that will scan and print larger than 8 1/2x11.

 

Both B&W and color from the Hassie can go up to 16x20 (13x16.5 digital)with good quality results. If I want the best quality, I will use my Pentax 67, but I tried carrying it on a trip and decided that the blad was the way to go for all day walking and overseas travel.

 

MF is the way to go if you want quality prints.

I have p67, hassie and mamiya. The p67 55mm lens (latest)is very , very sharp. But the MF that gets the most use is the hasselblad because it is much lighter than either the p67 or mamiya. I quite shooting 35mm altogether last year and the two backs for the hassie are the best solution for both B&W and color. Only took me fifty years to get there! If I had gotten a hasselblad 35 years ago, when I first lusted after one, I would have saved many $1,000's on Pentax, Contax, Nikon, Rollieflex, Mamiya, Leica, Yashica, etc, etc. I would not have been suduced into the 35mm looks like 4x5 thing for nearly 20 years and would not have some of my best shots on tiny 35mm film :>(

 

If money is short, go for the 6x6 Bronica. If not, go first class and get a blad.

I have the Pentax 67, hasselblad and Mamiya C systems. The 67 image is noticably better in 16x20 prints than 6x6(everything else being equal). My 55mm on the Pentax is the best lens I own and it would be the one I would keep if I could only have one camera and lense.

 

The hasselblad is my favorite camera due to it's interchangable backs and relatively light weight. It is the one I carry the most since I've retired and have started doing a lot of traveling. The pentax bodies and lenses are too big and heavy for extended periods of travel

 

I've not used the Mamiya 7, but my buddy really loves it.

 

The Mamiya C system is capable of excellent work, but for fit and finish, the hasselblad is the clear winner. The C33 body and lens that I have are bigger and heavier than my 500cm/80mm.

 

On the last few trips in 2004, I have stopped carrying a 35mm for color and instead use the extra back, which takes up less room than the Contax G1 system I use to carry. The contax was my fling with a rangefinder camera and I found I prefer a SLR. There is nothing like an SLR for careful work.

 

One guys experience.

120 film will give 12 exposures in a 6x6 camera. 220 gives 24 exposures on 6x6 format. 120 film has a paper back which fits behind the film. 220 gets more exposures on the same film spool by putting on a paper leader and a paper trailer, but does not have backing paper behind the film. 220 obvously reqires less film reloading.

No really fine B&W film, such as Tmax 100 or Ilford Delta 100 comes in 220 sizes. Nearly all color film, both print and slide, comes in both 120 and 220 sizes.

I personally would doubt that you will see that much difference between an 8x10 print shot with a Leica and the 6x6. The key is use of the proper film. Ilford Delta 100 developed in Ilfosal-x should produce excellent 8x10's from 35mm. I use to shoot Tech Pan in 35mm and was able to produce wonderfully sharp 11x14 prints with both my nikons and contax G1. The same applies to scanned negatives and digital processed color negative film. 8x10 is pretty much a "no sweat" for 35mm done right.

 

Personally, I'd rather shoot with a Leica than a Yahicamat. I can't really get myself to pay Leica prices. OTOH, the three Yashicmat's I've owned were junk.

 

FWIW

 

Gene Crumpler

 

http://genecrumpler.home.att.net

I have a Contax G1 with three zeiss lenses. I believe the lenses are made in Japan to Zeiss specs. The lenses are reputed to be the best 35mm lenses ever made, equal to or better than Leitz. My personal lens testing confirms their outstanding performace. www.photodo.com may have information on the Contax 645 lenses. My visit there comparing the G1 lenses to Leitz glass prompted me to purchase the G1 and lenses.

I purchased a Epson 3170 and have been using it for several months. I does a creditable job for $189. It can scan up to 6x9 format.

I just scanned a 6x7 Velva slide last week and produced a beautiful 13x16 print on my Canon s9000 printer. Looks a lot like the cibachromes I used to get made.

 

I think that Epson may have discontinued the 3170. If you can still

get it, do it!!!!

 

Gene Crumpler

 

http://genecrumpler.home.att.net

I tried carring my p67, lenses and heavy tripod. I switched to a hasselblad with 2 lenses and two backs(color and B&W). I use the p67 when I don't expect to carry the camera's and lenses very far. For two-three week trips with a lot of walking, the hassie is a great compromise and I can use a very light tripod to boot.

 

A 6x7 negative is better to print from, but my 62 year-old back can not take it. Also, a lot of commuter planes and European buses don't have much room and I can carry the hassie stuff in a small bag.

My Erie Homeowners policy covers camera equipment up to 1/2 the price of the house. $143,000 far exceeds the value of any equipment I own.

The policy doesn't provide for my and my wifes 3 Rolex's and all her diamonds.

 

I carry a list of serial numbers for all of the equipment I carry when traveling in my suitcase to provide info for police reports.

I use a Velbon MAXi343E with my hasselblad 80 and 2X teleconverter.

 

With MLU, I get sharp 16x20 prints.

This tripod received rave reviews in POP PHOTO about 1 1/2 years ago as the best travel tripod ever built. My use confirms this and I only paid about $70 on e-bay.

Look here;

 

http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1248.xml

Went by the local shop and the only thing they had in 220 was Kodak Portra 160. So that's what I'll be shooting with the next two weeks on our cruise through the Panama Canal.

 

I've shot a little Reala in 35mm and was pretty happy. It's about time for a large order from B&H, so I'll get some then.

I've been using Supra 100 in 35mm. I've got a minolta scan dual which will get 2400dpi resolution. However, I've not made digital prints much over 8x10.5 with good results. The 35mm scans from the minolta just don't produce decent 13x19 size prints. My

general impression has been that negatives scan better than slides.

 

 

I've thought about using Velva, but the general wisdom is to shoot negative film if you are shooting for prints. I have no interest in slides, few have MF projectors, including me. My only interest is print making, color and B&W. I've been printing B&W for about 50 years and just got into color 3 years ago with the use of computers.

 

 

Negative films have more latitude, as I generally shot B&W MF without metering. I shot film for many years before I ever got a light meter. What my ultimate objective is to reduce the bulk and weight of equipment that I carry for long trips. My goal is to carry one hasselblad, two lenses and two backs and a tripod. I've been carrying both the blad, lenses, backs and a contax G, two lenses and it is just getting to be more than I want to deal with. The ideal is to use 100 film for color and B&W; setup, shoot B&W, switch magazines and shot color.

 

 

As to the scanner, I'm going to try an inexpensive scanner like the epson 3170/3200 to see if I really want to produce exhibition size color prints. My first love is B&W! If I really get into large color prints, I might consider a $2-3k film scanner, or an upscale digital back or camera-(I have a number of top-of-the-line nikon lenses). But at that point, I could just get large C prints for the ocassional 16x20.

 

I gave up on 35mm B&W about 4 years ago, when I was still struggling with 35mm tech pan to get so-called 4x5 quality. It suddenly dawned on me that I already had about 6 MF cameras and it hit me, why 35mm, Duh???(That rusty old engineering degree did kick in)

 

My web site- http://home.att.net/~nikonguy

Well, I've finally given up completely on 35mm photography. I've

been using Kodak Supra 100 for scanning. Is there anything that is

comparable in either 120 or 220? I just got a 13 inch printer and

plan to get a Epson 3170 or 3200 for MF negatives.

Transporting Film and Photographic Equipment

 

You may carry one (1) bag of photographic equipment in addition

to one (1) carry-on and one (1) personal item through the

screening checkpoint. The additional bag must conform to your

air carrier's carry-on restrictions for size and weight. Please

confirm your air carrier's restrictions prior to arriving at the

airport.

In cooperation with the American Society of Media

Photographers, this policy was expanded primarily to accommodate

working photographers traveling with sensitive, valuable

equipment. Working photographers, and other members of the

traveling public, are encouraged to carry photographic equipment

and film as carry-on luggage.

http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1248.xml

The best advice is to have the backs unloaded for inspection. I've had to unpack the camera and backs a couple of times and let them look inside. As for film I only carry 100 film and let it go through as-is. The maxium exposure has been 5 x-rays with no problems.

 

Have you seen the recent FAA directive on carry-on camera equipment?

I bought a pentax 67 system for MF photography. However I found it too heavy and bulky to carry a lot. I bought a hasselblad that is just right for extended travel. I just carried it on a 15 day Greece and Greek Island tour in October. We walked and hiked(as much as a 62 yo can hike-lost 3lbs on the trip ). It works so well for travel, I'm planning to stop carrying a 35mm camera for serious color work and carry only the blad with two backs. My wife will carry the P&S for the 4x6 album shots.

 

The pentax 67 is a super camera and 16x20's made from the 6x7 negatives are noticable better than the 6x6's from the blad. I use it when I don't expect to have to carry the cameras too far.

I've not experienced any real problems with the so-called shutter shake, but I use a HEAVY tripod with the p6x7's. The

latest 55mm f4 is amazingly sharp, the lens I prefer to use.

 

Can't comment on the RB67, I was satisified with a mamiya C33, until I got the blad.

 

The answer is how much weight are you willing to carry? A 6x4.5 camera might be a good compromise. Interchangable backs are a real plus too. I use a small Velbon (i345)tripod with the Blad.

Don'think Canon every made a 6x6 camera that was marketed. As for a used BLad, I'd recommend a newer 500CM with at least a 80mm T* CF lense and almost any A12 back that works. If you do not know how to determine the date of manufacture of Blad euipment, check the Archives here or e-mail me at genecrumpler@att.net

I own a number of cameras and camera systems,22 at last count(nikons,pentax67s,hassie,mamiya,contax,rolleis,etc). If I could only keep one camera and lens, it would be the p67 wth the latest 55mm. It is just awesome.

I've been a member of a number of clubs and this MF slide issue never came up. Guess not many people are shooting MF slides. I would not discount the value of the club just because they can't deal with MF slides. Our members do excellent work with 35mm. The half dozen of us in our club who use larger sizes(6x6 to 4x5)are doing prints. No demand.