thorsten_domeyer

Hi everybody,

I want to use a hybrid workflow (developing 35mm-film, scanning, printing on an

Epson 2400). My goal is to achieve prints that are at least equal to traditional

darkroom-prints. My concern is choosing the right film scanner. I shoot about

90% black & white film, 10% color negative film.

Since the Nikon scanners are known to be very good with color film, it is *said*

that they pronounce the grain of b&w negatives in an ugly way... so I am just a

bit unsure before spending my money on a new scanner. How does the Nikon

scanners work with B&W negatives? Will I have a noticeable increase in quality

when compared to my current flatbed scanner Epson 4990? Should I prefer the

Coolscan 5000 over the Coolscan V?

Thanks a million for any help,

kind regards,

Thorsten

Sorry for answering so late, but I have been away for a few days. Thank you all for your answers. Michael, thanks a lot for review of the MTF curves. Well, I think you could say, that the Helvetar is a good lens to go with, if you plan to stay with the Alpa (well, that's for what it is designed).

Regards,

Thorsten

Hi everybody,

<p>I am planning to go with an Alpa TC, shooting film (6x9). I need some advice

on which lens to start with. I am planning to mainly shoot landscapes,

cityscapes and scenics. As I was surfing through the Alpa-site, I thought of one

of the following:

<p><i>Super Angulon XL 5.6/38

<br>Super Angulon XL 5.6/47

<br>Apo-Helvetar 5.6/48</i>

<p>Which one offers the sharpest results, best color/tonality and best contrast?

Would you suggest something completely different from Schneider?

<p>Please let me ask <b>another question</b>: As I read so far, the difference

between the Super Angulon XL 47 and the Apo-Helvetar 48 is, that the Helvetar is

optimized to be used at f11, while the Super Angulon is optimized for f22. Is

this the only difference? Would this mean, that the quality of the results of

the Helvetar would be inferior when shot at e.g. f22 for landscapes?

<p>Thanks a lot and kind regards,

<br>Thorsten

Thanks again for your help. I more and more get the impression, that the Alpa would be an ideal piece of equipment for me. For the purposes I want to use it (landscape, cityspace, scenic), it seems to be enough to estimate the distance (perhaps I'll also invest in a separate rangefinder), perhaps using the hyperfocal distance. This combined with the outstanding quality of the system should make me happy enough. :-)

I just noticed (embarassing enough), that I always understood something wrong when it comes to hyperfocal distance (never used it though). I now tried to calculate an example for the hyperfocal distance of the Helvetar at f16 using this formula:

H = LxL/FxD

(H= hyperfocal distance

L= focal length

F= aperture

D= circle of confusion)

I took 0,08 as circle of confusion for the 6x9 format, 48mm for L and 16 for F and came to the result of 1,8 meters (circa 6 feet). Is this correct? So I had to focus at 6 feet when using the Helvetar at f16 to get maximum depth of field?

Thanks,

Thorsten

John, thanks for your answer. Again one point more on the "I want an Alpa"-scale. ;-) Please let me ask you, how you get around the focusing. Do you use the focusing screen back for shots with narrow DOF? How are you treating shots with maximum DOF... just choosing "infinity"?

Thanks,

Thorsten

Dan, thank you for your help. I wrote an e-mail to Henry Gaude and hope, he will take some time for me.

Wayne, thank you for the link to Gilde. I'll take a look at these cameras, but am more and more enthusiastic about the Alpa. ;-) I'll perhaps have an opportunity to "play" with one next weekend. This would be great!

I think about the focussing more and more and just came across some rangefinders of Leica (Leica Disto). These have a tolerance of only 1,5 mm. Perhaps this would be a good alternative for critical focusing?

Please let me ask a pretty dumb question. I talked to a collegue today who told me, that he is not too much into Alpa, because Alpa isn't offering any distance metering. He said, this would automatically lead to the fact, that pictures are misfocused and for this the nice Schneider lenses aren't used to their maximum. Is this true? Let's take the example of shooting a landscape or cityscape or something where a huge depth of field is wanted. In these cases, I understand, that I would only have to "focus to infinity" to get everything sharp (of course with the lens stopped down to let's say f12 with the Helvetar). Is this right?

Until now, I thought, that only in cases, where I need short shutter speeds or a selective focus with narrow depth of field (e.g. macro) I would need to focus critically with the Schneider LF lenses (e.g. through the focusing screen back). Correct?

Thanks again,

Thorsten

Thank you for your answers. I am aware, that I have to spend a lot of money on the Alpa system, even more if I regard the fact, that I am "only" an amateur, who sells very few of his work and won't get the money of the Alpa easily back through selling pictures. But photography gets a huge part of my life and over the last years I made the experience, that I take better pictures when I am totally pleased by the equipment and don't have to mess around with too much "mistakes" and "work-arounds". The picture is made by the photographer, not the equipment, but a more content photographer makes better pictures. ;-)

I also thought of the Hasselblad 905 SWC, mainly because it would save me money. I owned a Hasselblad 503 CW and though it is a very nice system (nicely built, modular, Zeiss lenses) I felt limited in using it without a tripod, simply because it's too square in the hands and the huge mirror slaps enough to cause motion blur. Also I felt somewhat limited by the 6x6-format. Square pictures are nice, but often I wanted a more rectangular look. My conclusion was to go now with 6x9, since cropping to a square would always be possible.

David, thank you for your hands-on-review. It's nice to hear raves about the 12 TC. ;-) I would like to ask you more about how you focus with the "numbers". Focusing should be pretty easy if it comes to landscapes or architecture (thanks to depth-of-field), but what about sceneries or even more critical focussing like portraits or macros? Do you simply guess the distance or do you use a distance-meter? Do you own the groundglass for metering?

Thanks again and regards,

Thorsten

Hello everybody,

this is my first post here. At the moment I am shooting digital (Nikon D200) and

with rollfilm on 6x6. Besides snapshots of my family (Nikon digital) I am more

and more concentrating on shooting landscapes, a few cityscapes, more sceneries

and a little bit architecture; I even get some few opportunities to sell

something of my work. For this type of work I prefer the great detail of large

negatives but do not want to loose a certain amount of portability for the

equipment. With film, I am working hybrid, scanning the negatives and printing

(soon on a nice Epson).

I am thinking of upgrading my mediumformat-equipment with an Alpa, since it is

*said* to be an outstanding system. I don't think, I would use shifting too

much, so I thought of saving a lot of money and going with the Alpa 12 TC, which

seems not to differ much from the Alpa 12 WC. Unfortunately, there aren't many

user reviews of Alpa 12 cameras on the net (in difference to the

Hasselblad-system for instance). So I would really appreciate it to get some

feedback from those of you, who had/have the opportunity to work with Alpa 12.

Is there much difference between the WC and the TC? Is there really an advantage

of the Alpa system like flat lying film in comparison with others? Which are the

pros, which are the cons of Alpa?

Thanks in advance and kind regards,

Thorsten