janne_moren

<p>Well, it's negative film; one stop doesn't make that much visible difference in density, I'd think. Especially with the orange backing to muddle things.</p>

<p>Most likely it's still your scanner and/or software that's playing tricks with you here. The previews look almost identical because they were done in the same scan pass, with the same settings. In the individual scans there's still some process of color adjustment - by-channel level adjustment perhaps - that exaggerates the color differences that exist.</p>

<p>I have a light meter for film use (a Sekonic L308S). But I must admit that I sometimes use it for digital shots as well. I prefer incident metering over reflected; you meter a scene once, then you can set the camera and forget about exposure. And the exposure will be "right" (for some value of "right"), and more or less reflect the overall look of the scene. But that's just me; an in-camera meter works fine too, and I still mostly use that with my K10.</p>

 

<p>"(And I still get the pink lines if I scanned and saved the film as 16bit greyscale)."</p>

<p>This means your problem has nothing to do with the scan. If they're really grayscale there's no color information there; any color cast or other effect is happening when you display the file. And no, there is no color cast nor any lines in the picture you link to.</p>

<p>BTW, you really aren't picking up any more data by scanning BW in color. Easy to think you do, but you aren't. Save yourself a lot of memory and processing time and scan BW from the start.</p>

<p>What file format are you saving in? I have/had this strange effect in Vuescan where if i scan a BW image and save as DNG that image will not come up as a neat BW image, but have regular blue lines through it. It is possibly due to a buggy implementation of the DNG format for some readers/converters. Long shot, but if it can help...</p>

<p>MF film and small-format DSLR are completely different media. They'd only rarely be able to substitute for each other. You probably need to decide waht kind of photographs you want or need to take before deciding on your format.</p>

<p>And I don't think "my friend has it" is a good rationale for switching camera systems. If a second friend gets a Canon next year, are you going to switch again? DSLR systems are more or less equivalent to each other today; I suggest you stay with what you have until you know what you want to be doing.</p>

<p>I have to say I prefer the original. It looks more, well, "accurate", true to life. I have a Bessa I from that period as well, but so far I've only shot black and white. Perhaps time to try a color roll in it!</p>

 

<p>All of the usual suspects you'll see mentioned on these forums - Bronica, Mamiya RB, Mamiya 7, Pentax 645, Pentax 67, Yashica Mat, Rolleiflex/cord ... - are good cameras. But MF cameras vary a lot more in every way than small cameras do, so you really need to decide what kind of photography you want to be doing.</p>

<p>Me I love my Pentax 67, but for starting out with MF photography I'd say that getting a used TLR camera like the Yashica Mat is the best way to go. They're inexpensive, reliable, fairly compact and light (with a few exceptions) and produce good quality images. They're easy to use, but they're really different from using a regular 35mm format SLR camera, so you'll get a lot of new experience when using them. Use one for a while, then, if you decide that MF is for you for the long haul, you can always sell it (or keep) and then get a higher-end system that fits your style of photography.</p>

<p>BTW, don't worry too much about light metering. MF is inherently slower and more contemplative to use, so a handheld light meter is not the drawback it may seem at first, and a handheld meter tends to be more accurate than an integrated one. You'll disregard a lot of excellent cameras if you insist on an integrated meter. Besides, when you shoot film you have exposure latitude to waste; with negative film you can often simply guess the approximate light level and still get a good image.</p>

 

<p>Dave, thanks; it makes sense. One thing, though: it seems some sources (like fuji) give sharpness in terms of lpm for a given contrast (1:6 and 1:1000); is that an MTF value (at 50%, say) for targets of a certain contrast, or something else. The reason I ask is that where there is info about both (Fuji publishes both for their color films) they don't seem to correlate very well. Many films do seem to have MTF50 values in the 60-70 lpm range, though, and it seems a film like Acros has about 100lpm with this measure. Also, I wonder if using a lower contrast measure (30% for instance) might not be quite reasonable if you scan and postprocess, as you can bump up the microcontrast quite easily as long as there's clear data there to bump up in the first place.</p>

<p>Thanks again, Dave.</p>

<p>Karl, you're saying, more or less, that you're scanning not at the full possible resolution because "it brings out a lot of unwanted junk to edit out". Does that mean that your current setup more or less already give you the resolution you need? I mean to a factor 1.5 or so - nobody is going to see any difference between, say, 32mp and 36mp for instance, unless they're looking for differences in scaled versions of the same image up close (and depending on the image, not even then).</p>

<p>If so, then I would suggest that you consider the other qualities of each medium first and foremost. Film and digital really are different mediums, each very much with their own "feel". People starting with film today mostly seem to do so for this reason, not for technical differences. With really high quality images you can usually tell which is which even when the photographer has aimed for a neutral representation; they can both look very, very good, but they do look different. I'd suggest that you focus on those qualities for your decision rather than the relatively unimportant difference in resolution.</p>

 

<p>Dave, the film is absolutely one limiting factor, though, as you say, it can vary a lot from film to film, and it does vary a whole lot on your exact definition of "resolution" (a surprisingly slippery concept); you have chosen a fairly stringent definition. By my "it looks ok at 100%" definition, HP5 can (barely) support 32mp - about 75lpm - and it's not one of the higher-resolution films out there. Of course, the camera sensor is not perfect either; going by the same kind of resolution measurement you will probably have somewhat less "real" resolution than the pixel count would indicate. But more important than either is the lens and the photographer. At this kind of resolution even very minor shaking or optical defects will start showing up. Any time you're shooting handheld - with a MF camera or a high resolution DSLR - you're effectively capturing less than those resolution numbers would have you believe.</p>

<p>Ellis, I have it pretty well calibrated and I prep the film to stay decently flat beforehand so I'm at least fairly close. That said, with my latest scans it does look worse than it used to so it may be time to redo it. I'm going to make a couple of plastic "spacer" thingys to put on the film holder between the frames that can support the film; I made that for my previous scanner and it made a world of difference there.</p>

<p>I can get 32mp from a 6x7 negative with a V700; that represents the practical limit of the scanner (about 2400dpi). That's also fairly close to what a somewhat grainy iso400 film like hp5 seems to be able to capture. iso100 film has clearly more detail, though I don't have the scanner to capture it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Graham, I use a Pentax 67 mostly handheld and it does work very nicely that way. It's big by film standards, but actually not really larger than for instance the flagship FF cameras from Canon and Nikon. And it handles very well handheld. But if I had a Kiev, I'd probably just continue using it instead.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Pentax 67 should fit. Plenty of high-quality and fast lenses available (including a 90/2.8, 105/2.4 and 75/2.8) and lots of second-hand bodies. It's more compact and lighter than the Mamiya's (1700g with the prism finder, 1200 with a waist-level finder - that lump of glass is heavy) and the handling is much like a manual 35mm SLR.</p>

<p>But if you really enjoy the Kiev, why not continue using it? 6x6 is plenty big already in a negative.</p>

<p>Lenses for camcorders and similar are pretty low-resolution - no sense in building for a quality the camcorder can't capture - and you're probably going to end up losing quality, not gaining it.</p>

<p>I tried a good-quality wide-angle converter for video cameras on my DSLR once. The converter was pretty good - no problem when used on a video camera - but on a still image camera the results were less than spectacular. With the wide-angle converter on top, and the same view without below:<br>

<a title="Corner by JanneM, on Flickr" href=" title="Corner by JanneM, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/392967776_faccd2c9e8.jpg" alt="Corner" width="500" height="375" /> </a></p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>There is a bit more compression as you are working with longer focal length lenses for the same angle of view from the same position.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

Are you sure about that? From the same point, with the same angle of view you would get the exact same proportions of near and far subjects and thus the same perceived distance compression. Unless you are thinking of depth of field, which indeed varies with the focal length of course.

<br />

Anyway, I have only just picked up a Pentax 67 myself. I haven't used it enough to be any kind of authority on it, but so far it's proven to be a very competent street photography camera with the 90/2.8 and waist-level finder. I don't find it all that heavy in that configuration (about the same as my DSLR and a couple of lenses), and it's decently compact for an SLR MF camera. Stay at 1/125 or faster to avoid any shake - but then, you really want to be that fast anyhow unless you're looking for subject movement. For slower speeds a tripod is a good idea of course, but that goes for any MF camera if you want to squeeze out all possible detail.

<br />

About the only real drawback is the shutter noise. It's not loud, exactly, but it's distinct, heavy and hard to miss. Nobody nearby would doubt that you just took a picture.<br />

 

<div></div>

<p>As an aside, I prefer to first unroll the film completely and cut it from the backing. Only then do I feed it into the spool. Less stuff to keep track of that way.</p>

<p>I've used it a fair but at 1600, and it works fine as a general-use film at that speed. In 120 format the grain is not bad at all and the relatively low contrast makes it easy to scan. Just be careful that you use it with a camera with decently fast shutter speeds or it'll be difficult to use in bright light.</p>

 

<p>Scott, the instructions for ND-76 say to mix it into a smaller volume (750ml) first, then fill up with water to the stock volume afterwards. So yes, that no problem to do. If you want smaller volume still, just try; if you can't make it dissolve you just need to add a bit more water. I have no idea if you can store it over time that concentrated though.</p>

 

<p>I've never (yet) developed color myself, so take it with a grain of salt but: if you plan on scanning the negatives rather than printing directly, you can correct quite a lot of color-related errors afterwards, especially if you take care to shoot a grey card or equivalent in one image so you have a reference point. As long as you're vaguely in the right ballpark you can probably produce images just fine.</p>

<p>There's D-76 (ND-76; same thing) in 600ml packets too, appropriate for use in 35mm tanks.</p>

<p>Get a solid wooden LF camera, make a film holder adapter for the scanner and use it as a scanning back :)</p>

<p>Digital Large Format on the cheap!</p>

 

<p>Click on "Medium Format" link near the top. On that page, on the right, you have "Older Posts by Category" and (I guess) a green plus sign. Klick the plus sign to get the list.</p>

<p>The only things critical are setting the overall tonality and color of the image, and that is best done as part of the RAW conversion anyhow. If you do that then don't worry about it.</p>

<p>A 120 format box camera should be a good choice. They came in all levels of complexity, from really just a box to cameras with guess focusing and settable shutter speeds and apertures. You tend to get results similar to Holga and Diana, but without the hipster stigma associated with them.</p>