david_simonds

I am just a country boy from Maine who is used to shooting subjects

that do not shoot back. I am taking a trip to NYC in a few weeks and

plan to burn a lot of film. Would appreciate any suggestions for

slide film particularly suited to urban light and dynamics. I shoot

a Rollei MF with 90mm f4, so the faster the better. Thanks.

Matt,

What would you regard the strengths and weaknesses of the Nikon to be. Banding? Need for glass slide for 120?

Roger,

I respect a man whose passion for his craft exceeds the bounds of all reason. You have my admiration...but not my drum scan order. Best regards.

Roger, what is the learning curve for using a drum scanner. Plug and Play, or more likely Plug and Pray?

Friends, I am in the market for a MF scanner. I have read all the

archived threads and follow new ones. I have read too many reviews of

Imacons, Minoltas and Nikons, and have studied the alledged merits

and weaknesses of flat bed versus dedicated scanners. The most

seductive of the reviews purport to answer the "best scanner"

question by isolating a tiny fraction of the the same image, enlarge

it to monitor size and then attempt to show me the differences which

I often find to be without distinction - a "test" that verges on the

absurd as I carefully scrutinize 1/100th of the entire image

ultimately seen on a wall by someone several feet away. I want an MF

scanner. I use a Canon for my 35mm. It is a joy to polish on the

monitor the image you saw in your finder. Whether I print to my Epson

2200, or send out for Lightjet treatment, I will have the pleasure or

pain of knowing that I not only took the picture but made the image.

If cost were no issue to me, or any of us, perhaps we would all go

out and buy the fanciest Imacon or Tango. We would then know that we

have "the best." Realistically, most all of us struggle with the

issue of diminishing returns for every photographic dollar that we

spend. Much of what I read reveals our fellow enthusiasts' need to

squeeze the best quality from the least money - except for those

whose needs are instinctively met with the purchase of trophy

equipment. So back to the scanner dilemma. Do I want an Imacon? Of

course. Would I be content with the latest Nikon or Minolta?

Undoubtedly. But is all I need an Epson? Possibly. So to all you

scanner gurus, I ask you, when does it really make "sense" to spend

the long dollar on the next level of machine. I moved to MF because

the size of the negative, I was told, gives a better result. And it

has done that, as well as energized my passion for this craft. In the

same way, is finished image size the most critical consideration, and

quantifyable limiting factor that would justify adding a zero to the

scanner budget? If my goal is 13x13 prints, is a current Epson

sufficient, but inadequate for 16x20? Ultimately, at what size is

there a discernable and material difference in quality that makes an

investment in a dedicated slide/neg scanner defensible to my

parsimonious side. And at what size does it make "cents" to buy the

top tier machine. Do the weaknesses of a scanner become more or less

identifyable if printed to my Epson vs Lightjet? I would be pleased

to hear from you who have unassailable answers to these early

morning "big picture" musings.

Gents,

Thanks for your kind replies. Sounds like a very servicable option for studio work. But I tend to haul my gear into the woods and up mountains. I was hoping that it was a bit more transportable, like the Kodak back, which does not fit our rig (and is discontinued). Hopefully there ultimately will be a full frame unit that regular humans can afford. Best regards.

Anyone used an Imacon 3020? I am interested in it for use with a

Rollei 6008i. Compatible? Dependability? Does it give the same

quality as a good chrome? Thanks.

Gents, thanks for your replies. I get it now. But if the min focus for the 150mm is 4.9 feet, what is it with the 9mm or 17mm. Is one for head shots and the other for head/shldr shots. Thanks as always.

Andy, the "point" of the exercize, as I indicated in my initial post,

was to test the capacity of my printer to process MF images before purchasing a MF scanner. I did, and it does.

Thanks, Gents. I am going to give it a go.

Friends, I have a Canon FS4000 that I have been printing to an Epson

2200. I recently got a MF camera and have been amazed to see how

much better the positives and negs are. I am debating whether to get

a dedicated film scanner tht can handle these bigger images. But I

would first like to see what the final product from the printer

would look like. If I cut a 6x6 slide to the dimensions of a 35mm

slide, will it scan in the same way the full slide would on a MF

rig? Is there anything other than the physical size of the film that

makes it different than a 35mm slide? If not, am I correct in

assuming that this 6x6 slide scanned to the Epson would produce a

print that would be close to what I might get from a Nikon 8000 or

Minolta Multipro? Any particular adjustments needed to get this

done? Thanks

Can someone explain to me the functional and practical differences

between these two extenders. What are the best uses of each. I would

be using it with the 150mm EL. Many thanks.

Ray,

My version of the 6008i Users Manual indicates that when changing the film cartridge the first step is to "push drawslide bar 50 to top of 'magazine change.'" I have a 6006 120 magazine which does not require this step before changing the film insert. I know I am supposed to and I try to remember. Apparently, Rollei does not trust us to remember. And in my case, they are justified.

Scott, as always, thanks for your insight. How big were the prints you had made? I am wondering at what print size the inherent limitations of a flatbed would become apparent. I do not see myself having images larger thn 20x30, but you never know. The price difference between a good flatbed and dedicated scanner has narrowed some. The Epson 4870 is around $500 and a new Nikon LS8000 goes for about $700 more. Would you spring for the Nikon if you were not going to make pics greater than 2'x3'?

 

William, I will have to try the Pictorio. I would recommend Tentenal Glossy and Semi Matt (really a luster finish). The color is deep, and I have had no bronzing problems.

Cheers

Gents, thanks so much for your replies. As I anticipated, for some of you, the weak link is the scanner, and for others the printer. But I particularly like the suggestion of scanning/working the image and then sending it off to the shop for printing. In fact, my local pro printer, Portland (Maine) Color Works will make you a 16x20 Lightjet image from your CD for $18. A 24x30 is $37. But it is a straight print job, with no color correction or image work. But the fun, as Scott says, is in the making of the image (My wife and kids are Photoshop widow/orphans). No matter how fine the Epson may be, the 13x19 is its limit. And in 6x6, that means a 13x13 print or some heavy cropping. I know that many have very acceptable results from flatbed MF scanners. But can I assume tht the limits of these devices relative to a dedicated film scanner would be magnified in a Lightjet print, particularly as the print size increases?

Edward, and at what print size might you reach the quality limits of a well scanned image with either the Nikon 8000 or the Minolta (assuming that the neg/transp merits big attention).

Friends, I would appreciate hearing from those of you who have

experience printing MF images with the 2200. I have been using this

printer to produce prints from my Contax G2 35mm in combination with

a Canon fs4000. I generally get very good results. But I have just

got a Rollei 6008i and am amazed at the quality of the 5x5 test

prints from my local photo folks. Extraordinary detail and that

creamy color transition and depth that makes the images look almost

three dimensional. I am hooked. Unfortunately, I can not use the

Canon with the MF film. I am looking at MF scanners. But before I

pull the trigger I'd like to know whether the Epson 2200 can

reproduce the quality of a well-exposed and well-scanned neg or

slide. If I get a quality scanner, like the Minolta Multipro, or

Nikon 8000 or 9000, can the Epson make a print that "looks" like it

came from an MF neg, with those qualities that I see in the store-

bought ones? Where is the weak link - the scanner or the printer? If

the Epson/Nikon/Minolta combination can not take full advantage of

the MF image, I probably will spend the money more slowly on Lightjet

prints. But it sure is fun to see those babies slide out of the 2200.

Its like alchemy.

Eric, that is a lot of money to pay for a lens that my be fatally flawed. One in reportedly fine condition just closed on Ebay for around $1650. Might I suggest that the seller agree to send the lens to Rollei in NJ. They will assess the condition without charge. They will clean and adjust it for around $70 if need be. I just sent my entire 6008i kit to them, and the turn around was less than 24 hours, which included repair of my 90mm APO. The kit works flawlessly now. You can get the phone number at the Rollei USA site. Ask to speak to Carmen. He is a great guy. One of the pleasures of owning this system has been the professional support from him and his people. You may also want to consider one of the less expensive 150mm options. The PQ regularly goes for $700-$900 on Ebay. And I just got an EL version (same optics as the PQ) for just over $500. Granted, it is not the Schneider, but that $1100+ difference looks good in my bank account. And it gets me a down payment on the 40mm or 300mm... Good luck.

Ray, as always with my thanks and regards.

Could someone please provide me with the length and circumference of

the 150mm EL (Sonnar or Schneider would be fine as well). I am

looking to buy a Kinesis bag for this lens and need to get the size

right. Thanks.

Ray, Thanks for your kind replies to my two posts. I have the graduated bifocals which seem to work well enough with the 45, though under some circumstances, the split screen center goes black at certain angles. I will retract the rubber piece as you suggest. Ray, I was wondering if you have had experience with other focusing screens used with the 45. Many thanks. David

Erik, thanks for your imput.

Erik, when you look through the viewfinder and turn the ISO dial on you "00" back, does film speed appear, and change accordingly? Since mine does, I am assuming that camera's functions are also responding. The previous owner must have modified the "06" back that I have. Guess I will find out tomorrow. I shot a roll of NPH today. If the shots come out two stops overexposed, the the camera was shooting this 400 film at 100, and my theory goes out the window.

Ferdi, Thanks for your reply. The ISO dial is on the film back, in the identical location as the newer ones specifically designated "6000" for the 6008. If, as you say, the stock 6006 back has no ISO setting, then it would stand to reason that my 6006 back has been upgraded. Regards.

Curiously, the 6008i manual indicates that the 6006 backs "do not transmit the ISO speed to the camera." But it appears to in mine. When I look through the viewfinder the film speed appears in LED's and changes as I turn the ISO dial. And if I take an exposure, it will change in responsse to the turn of the dial. The manual indicates that the 6006 magazine can be "upgraded." Is what I am describing consistent with the functioning of the 6008 magazine? If so, it would appear that my 6006 has been "upgraded" to perform in the same fashion.

Friends, my newly acquired 6008i came with a 6006 back. I understand

that I must make an adjustment with the exposure correction dial to

use any film other than ISO 100. I picked up some Portra 160NC today.

What would be the proper dial-in for this. Would it be the first or

second dot before the -1 postion. And should I just leave the ISO

dial at 100? Many thanks.