eddymendoza

I think everyone has touched on the type of film and the technique used so I'll just talk about an average shot. First I have to say I shoot

with a Mamiya RZ 67 Pro and some Fujifilm Acros iso 100 black and white film. I have the film processed online and then when I get

them back simply scan on a not so expensive canon 9800?? I usually print on an Epson R1400 that prints up to 13x19 just fine. I

have had some scans drum scanned and then printed online as large as 24x36 without any problems. I also had some 24x36 prints

done from a digital file that came out of a Kodak DCS 14n and I have to tell you the prints look just as amazing as the medium format

scans. I didn't want to believe it but I looked very closely to both prints and they are almost identical. I wish I could show everyone

both prints side by side.

I do have to say that the film looks very different than the digital but equally as good. The Kodak has this artistic almost acrylic paint look to it. When you look at 100% crop you can see what appears to be brush strokes. Weird huh?

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you take great care in the capture process you can achieve anything.

Ed

Michelle, I too love to work with my RZ and for a while was torn between the cost of film and scanning, good scans I

mean. The kind of scanning needed for selling your work requires a healthy wallet! I decided way back that I would

keep the RZ due to my longtime investment in lens and accessories. I use the RZ for specific work with both film back

and digital back as well. Not a very big digital back only 16 megapixel square format but it works very well for my food

photography because of the cropping and macro capabilities. There is something about the look and feel of an image

taken with a great camera system like the RZ that cannot be duplicated by DSLRs. For that reason alone I think is

why I haven't changed course. I do have to say that most of my work is done with a rental Hasselblad HD system due

to the ease of use and very large file not to mention great IQ too.

I love my RZ and use it as much as I can for both personal and business. I think the only thing I would do is maybe

someday soon get the new RZ system with it's integrated digital back and 31 megapixel and I'll be a happy camper.

Most of the images I now produce with the Hasselblad HD 31 megapixel are more than enough for what I do and I find

myself resizing them anyways.

Good luck!

Ed

Hello to all. Does anyone here own an S2 and more importantly does anyone have any images to look at? I often use

the Hasselblad HD system and love the IQ and file size and most of my fellow photographers do the same. I don't

know one photographer that uses th Leica S2 for work or even for personal use. Maybe it's the company I keep!

Thanks

I want to thank everyone here for all of their coments and advice. I think the bottom line is no one is using anything

else other than the main brands as I suspected. If anyone is using another brand of camera please don't hesitate to

send me your link and your thoughts.

Thank you very much and as always it's been a pleasure.

Ed

<p>Jens, I used to use large format but the clients demanded a faster and less expensive medium so I moved to MF digital. I still shoot LF for my personal stuff but not for clients. It's hard enough to get them to wait for the gallery on line much less processing film. </p>

<p>Ken, I saw Ben Kanarek's work on line and it is very impressive. I use a Mamiya RZ with both film and digital back for work and I have used a Pentax 645n in the past. <br>

Thanks to both for your input. </p>

Hi Igor, are you using a Polaroid for professional work? I like the black and white image you have posted was that shot with a

Polaroid? What type of camera is that? How big can you print those images. I've tried some polaroids in the past but the scans don't

really provide size and quality.

Ed

<p>Hello, I wanted to ask if anyone was using cameras other than Nikon or Canon for pro level work. When I shoot I either use Nikon DSLR or Mamiya and HAsselblad digital for both fashion and portrait work but i'm getting interested in other brands. There are cameras out now from both Sigma and Sony that offer lots of pixels but I would hate to spend money just to find out if they are worthy or not. I'm hoping someone here is using any of the mentioned cameras or anything else actually.</p>

<p>Thanks for your support.</p>

Thank you gentlemen! I did just that. I put it out on my driveway and connected the power for a few minutes then turned it off and

unplugged it. I then waited a few minutes again and connected the heads on the lowest setting which was 200 watts, then fired the

flash and they worked fine. I did this a few times and they worked fine. Tomorrow I'll try the higher power settings to be sure.

Thanks again. I'm so happy they work. Are these so old that they won't play nice with my digital cameras? I have some wireless

receivers I can test with them, will that be okay?

Thanks again

Ed

Hi everyone, just received an older light kit from an estate and was wondering if there is anything I should know before using them. It

didn't come with a power chord but I can get those at Home Depot or Lowes. It is a normal power chord but with a round male prong

instead of the typical square like type used with pcs. I read as much as I could on the Internet but there's not much out there. I own

an older unit from Novatron that is about 30 years old but works perfect or as perfect as a 30 year old unit is expected to work.

I could post an image if anyone needs to see it but right now I'm on my iPad and that's a problem.

Thank you

I for one think it's great news that cameras keep getting more and more megapixels, this way I'll be able to afford a 50 megapixel

Hasselblad pretty soon and I promise I'll stop there. Well, maybe!

Here's my two cents. I think Olympus ia only saying what anyone who is not at the forefront can say. If they where selling like Nikon

and Canon I believe they would be singing a different song though. When I started shooting back in the late 70's I shot with 35mm

and soon after that I went to medium format and soon after that I tried large format but it was too cumbersome and expensive so I

followed the other formats until digital came about. In 1995 I think it was when I seriously thought that shooting digital was the thing

but then it was only 1.3 megapixel then 2 then 4 and 6. I am now shooting 40 megapixel medium format and I have to say that if I

could afford 80 megapixel I would. It's not because I believe bigger is better but because my customer base changes and they

demand bigger more effective images. The bottom line is output! What are you using the images for? If you are posting on Facebook

or any other online sites then a 3 megapixel camera will do. I have printed nice looking 8x10 from my Nikon D1 and they still look

great. As a matter of fact I often look back at my digital negatives and find something interesting enough to work on and print. I'm

writing from my iPad so I can't include and image but next post I do will be from my computer and I'll make sure I attach one.

Cheers

Ed

Hi Tom, I feel your frustration. I too had problems when I went from labs taking care of all my scans to me using a scanner to do all

my work personally. It really is an art and it does require one to put in a lot of time learning the process. All I can say is you will be

frustrated beyond compare but if you keep at it you too will get to a point where it shall all become second nature. Only time and lots

of experience will make you understand that there is truly a big difference between shooting film and digital. This is of course

considering you don't shoot medium format digital in the range of 60-80 megapixel. In this case you can kiss all that frustration away

but you have to spend at least $40 gran on the camera and $8 gran on a Mac with a zillion processors and just as much ram.

Good luck and keep working on it. Quitters never win and winners never quit!

Ed

<p>I too use a small film base camera to travel (Yashica Electro) but i would love to use a small digital point and shoot because of the instant results, I just find them to be very substandard compared to even my older Nikon D2X. Is there a point and shoot out there that can compete with the likes of the bigger DSLR's? I have resorted to using my Kodak DCS 14n as a carry anywhere camera and so far the only issue is the battery won't hold a charge like the Nikon but the images are huge and the color very natural. </p>

<p> </p>

Kevin, to ad to your post I have to tell you that I recently replaced the shutter and the curtain on my D2X and the

count remained at or around 25K so I think there is no resetting of the shutter done. I also must express my shock at

the sheer amount of images you seem to take in one day. I shoot for a clothing manufacturer and I can't make myself

shoot that many images in a month yet alone a day. Like someone said here, how do you have time to choose the

best ones to catalogue them? I have trouble choosing out of hundreds! Just out of curiosity how many images do you

shoot for each clothing change? If I get to fifty each I have enough poses. But then again I have very strict guidelines.

By the way I shoot with a medium format digital and not a DSLR so maybe that explains the difference in amount of

shots.

Anyways, I guess you can buy those cameras cheap enough now a day.

It might help if you post some shots of both film and digital so others can take a look and offer some advice. I too had

some problems when I started shooting digital many years ago but after some much needed time spent on post

processing I was able to make my digital images look as good or better than my film images. Again, and I think many

here have touched on this, it is now you who has to do the post processing and not the labs. The best advice anyone

can offer is to learn to edit.

Good luck and post some images!

<p>Ted, i have a story that might make some sense. I have been shooting my Mamiya RZ 67 for years using film and scanning and never once did i stop to think of quality until i purchased a digital back to use with it. At first I thought the back had issues because i was getting some pretty crappy images and even thought it might be a calibration issue. As a matter of fact i even got word from a reputable camera repair store that i had to send them both the camera and back for calibration. After lots of trial and error i figured out that my problem was with with me and not the back at all. I now shoot and get excellent results with the digital back. In fact i get better results than from my scanned film even when i scan with drum. I know i'll get some slack from this comment.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

<p>Hi Edo and welcome to medium format A la RZ! I'ved used the RZ for years in fashion and although it's no longer my main system for shooting fashion, Hasselblad H3D has taken that spot due to it's digital capability I now use my RZ for food photography. The RZ is a great system and I think youre going to love using it especially with those lenses you mention. I have just three, the 50, the 110 and the 180 and that is all i need with that camera. I also use extension tubes so that helps get close. I also use a digital back with the RZ that allows me to get even closer to the food! One piece of advice though, get a good tripod you'll need it. It's a heavy son of a gun but once you get used to it the other cameras seem childish.<br />Anyways, good luck shooting with it and by all means post some pictures soon.</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>This image was shot handheld though. It's good exercise for the biceps.</p><div></div>

I know times have changed and probably laws too but Henry Cartier Breson and other street photographers never

asked for a model release from anyone I don't think. He and others like him managed to have galleries and showcase

their street photography and attract collectors from all over the world. I may be naive about the laws and I am certainly

not one to even point a camera at anyone without 1. Being asked and paid, 2. Being asked and paid and finally 3.

Being asked and paid. The reason for this is that I shoot lots of people and have for a long time. Their images are

important to them but no one else including me. I don't know many people that would buy an image of someone else

unless they are famous and of course famous to one person is not necessarily famous to someone else. I would go on

YouTube and look up street photographers and contact them and ask how they do it. I'm sure many of them will be

happy to tell you. Photographers like to pass on their knowledge, well, nice photographers at least.

Good luck!

Ed

Susan, here is my experience since it mirrors your concern to a T. I started with 35mm film and jumped to digital in

2000 I believe with nikon's D1 maybe 2001 but after I bought it I realized a few months later that although the camera

was good at some things, quality as I compared it to a scanned 35mm slide shot on my F5 was not one of them. Yes

it took instant images and yes my clients where very impressed but the quality was not there. Before the D1 I was

used to shooting 35mm for certain clients and with my Mamiya RZ for others depending on their needs so you can

imagine how I felt when I compared a scanned image from even the 35mm to this new 2.74mp camera. But the speed

at which I could get the images to my clients over quality won for some while others never embraced it. Of course like

a good little photographer I followed the upgrade path and every time a better more megapixel camera came out I

bought it because it would help my clients. Eventually I decided enough was enough. I no longer run after the

megapixel upgrade in fact I stopped at 12.4 and I think it's enough for a decent 13X19 which is what my current printer

can do. Instead I chose to upgrade my medium format film camera to a higher level with a digital back. This way I can

shoot film when I need to and digital when I need to. I also now shoot large format film for those occasions that require

it. It all depends on what your final output is fo an image.

If I had it my way though I would like to own a camera that can take a shot using both film and digital at the same

time. And when I say film I say medium format 6x7 cm and digital around the 40megapixel range.

Final thoughts! You will eventually come to your own conclusion once you hit enough walls and figure out what you

want to do, till then enjoy the process because once you get there it's not as much fun. The fun is in the process!

Cheers

<p>Here are my 2 cents! When people here post a critique or advice about anything and they don't even have 1 image in their gallery to show everyone what kind of photographer they are I usually find it a bit weird. I also find it weird that if they do have a gallery and they claim to be a Leica owner most if not all their images are made with another camera. Not to say that there are numerous amazing photographers on here that don't like to post their images but for the most part they show nothing to be judged by. I can't speak too broadly myself, i only have a handful of black and white images here in my "free" gallery but that's basically because I'm too cheap to pay for the yearly membership. Perhaps this year I will! I also shoot more people and products than scenery so I have to be careful with model releases and product liability. <br>

Please no bashing, it's only 2 cents worth.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

<p>Hi John, which RZ do you have? How do you turn it on and off? Although I have an older pro model and not the newer pro 2 or even d model I didn't know they could be turned off. I've rented pro 2 bodies before and used my owns lenses and never noticed any switches or buttons.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Thanks Charles! Any idea where I can get that part? I was on my way to Home Depot to see if I could make the piece out of something but I'd rather install the correct part if it's an option.</p>

<p>Thanks again</p>

<p>Ed </p>

Dan, if you look closely you can see that the spool is missing a piece that would actually hold the spool in place

otherwise the spool would spin and spin and spin for ever without advancing. Your second response is better but I

never thought about returning it. Thanks

Ed

<p>I use my ipad at night so I don't have the luxury to include an image, sorry! Here is the culprit.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>