barry_r

<p>No answer yet. I would expect it's an actual half stop but I have never seen this discussed anywhere.</p>

<p>Just to clarify the half stops with an esoteric question - Is the click between, say, f/22 and f/16 the middle value, i.e., f/19? Or is it really a half stop, in which case it would be f/18?</p>

<p>[bill]"...color neg film has a great deal of tolerance for overexposure (make your errors in that direction), whereas color slides have to be right on the nose..."</p> <p>Just curious as I've never shot slide film but will be trying some out soon - that doesn't sound easy if you're using a camera that has discrete shutter speeds that are 1 stop apart, as my Bronica GS-1 has. The 100mm f/3.5 lens that it came with can be set to half stop positions, which would help, but I imagine not all lenses do that.</p>

<p>Okay, one last experiment. I couldn't find a uniformly illuminated wall, but it was again highly overcast so I simply pointed the light meter and cameras directly up toward the sky.</p> <p>Light meter set at ISO 200, f/5.6: 1/800 sec, independent of pointing direction.<br> Nikon D700 and 50mm lens set at ISO 200, f/5.6: small variation with pointing direction, average of 1/720 sec<br> The Pentax K1000 was set at ISO 200 but it was a bit problematical as it only has discrete shutter speeds at 1/500 and 1/1000. So I stopped it down to get a reading with the pointer in the center and then calculated the required shutter speed for f/5.6, also independent of pointing direction: 1/740 sec</p> <p>So all in all there was fairly good agreement and as I speculated in my original post and others have also pointed out, each device uses a different weighting so results with non-uniform subjects could differ. I think with my first outing using the medium format camera i will use the light meter and see what happens.</p>

<p>I guess I could use an inside wall, but I put everything away for now. Maybe tomorrow.</p>

<p>Too late now - it's dark.</p> <p>There was sky in the background as the trees are bare now. What is the reason for your asking?</p>

<p>Okay, here are the results of my definitive, highly scientific (not) experiment. All measurements with the same f/5.6 and ISO 200 settings. For the Sekonic, I used the Lumigrid reflective attachment. It's still very overcast so there's little dependence on the exact aiming spot.</p> <p>Shutter speeds are for Sekonic, Nikon D700 and Pentax K1000, respectively:<br> First scene, pointing at trees: 1/20, 1/10, 1/30<br> Second scene, pointing at top of trees: 1/160, 1/125, 1/250</p> <p>Again, the Pentax is indicating significantly faster shutter speeds than the Nikon, but the Sekonic and Nikon are in better agreement. So I'll just plan to use the Sekonic for incident and, if necessary, reflective measurements.</p> <p>I'm glad I posted as I had forgotten about the Lumigrid, and didn't relish carrying around a DSLR just for light metering.</p> <p> </p>

<p>My response didn't seem to go through - pardon if this is a duplicate...</p> <p>My light meter is a Sekonic L-358. I forgot that it had a "Lumigrid" for reflective light measurement. I'll compare that to the two cameras.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a medium format film camera that has manual exposure settings (no AE). I do have a light meter but there are some circumstances where the meter can't be used so I could use a second camera's reflective meter to get exposure settings. I have purchased both color negative and slide film.</p> <p>I did a test recently using two cameras: a Nikon D700 (digital) set to ISO 100 with a 50mm focal length lens at f/5.6, matrix metering, and a Pentax K1000 (film) set to ASA 100 with a same focal length and f/stop, both focused on the same subject on an overcast day. Sometimes the results differed by a stop or so. For instance, D700 said 1/50 sec. and K1000 said 1/125 sec. Results didn't change much by using spot metering on the D700 as expected due to the weather conditions.</p> <p>I read that the Pentax uses some kind of center weighted metering, which is not exactly what the Nikon is using, but the magnitude of the difference surprised me.</p> <p>So my question is which camera's meter should I use for the medium format film camera? On the one hand, the Nikon is more modern so possibly more accurate, but on the other hand the Pentax is a film camera so is its meter maybe more appropriate for film?</p> <p> </p>

<p>"What I'm more interested in knowing because of my own use, is whether I should scan flat with no adjustments in the scanner and make all edits in post. Or, adjust the white and black points on the histogram to points just outside the histogram range. I've been told I would get more data. But I'm not convinced because it seems that all that's happening in the latter procedure is that the points are being applied after the scan to the same data that would otherwise be available to the flat scan file."</p> <p>Alan: I'm going by memory here, but during my working days I used an Epson V750 and 11000XL, mainly running the Epson Scan program, for R&D not photographic applications. I don't remember where the actual setting is made, but by setting the histogram min and max grey levels, you end up with the 255 scanner levels (for 8-bit scans) between those two settings, not the default 0 and 255. This is better than scanning with the default and applying those settings afterward. If you compare the histograms using these two methods, the latter would have gaps since the scanned data is just being stretched to fit the 0 and 255 limits.</p>

<p>I was pretty much set on eventually getting the V800 over the V600 but started to read the numerous web postings about using a DSLR instead, as some people have mentioned in this thread. It seems to be unanimously favored over using a scanner that's in my price range, at least when used with appropriate software to process the image capture. I don't think I found a single website where the author concluded the V600/V800-type scanner was a better alternative. As I already have a decent macro lens, DSLR and flash unit, I think I will try to assemble a setup to do that.</p>

<p>"Of course its unlikely that you're going to get a unanimous view on any forum worth reading."<br> You want answers?<br> I want the truth.<br> You can't handle the truth.<br> David: It was worth a try. What I've decided is that I will shoot a roll of film along with my digital camera, trying to match the field of view, f/stop, effective focal length, etc. as closely as possible. I'll then have the lab do the scans and compare to the camera images. I know the scanning will be somewhat of a "black box" but it will give me an idea of what direction to take. Then, if I decide to continue down that road, I've read enough reviews to convince myself it would be the V800.</p>

<p>Peter: Can you elaborate on "single pass over sampling." I couldn't find reference to this in the Epson V800 literature. Is this something Epson Scan can do or do you need VueScan or Silverfast? The version of Silverfast that comes with the V850 apparently does some kind of double scan to get first the highlights and then the shadows (like using HDR with a digital camera), but the version with the V800 doesn't do that. Is that what you are referring to?</p> <p>Also, you say it's possible to get a good scan from the V600, but the V700/V800 are superior scanners. What I am trying to figure out is what visually discernible difference would result from using either one. If the V600 scan is of lesser quality such that the advantage of using film in the first place is compromised, then I would get the V800. If the differences are not visually discernible in the end product (which is usually a high-quality JPEG sent to a print lab), then the V600 might better suit my needs for this whole experiment in using medium format film.</p> <p>Alan: Re. the film profiles, I'm a complete newbie in this area, but my understanding is that if you scan a color negative you need to "invert" it to make it a positive image. Apparently VueScan and Silverfast have profiles for each film type in order to do this automatically and presumably in an optimal way. I was wondering if EpsonScan had these (as the V600 doesn't come with either of those programs).</p>

<p>Now that I've decided on a format and camera, I'm turning my attention to the scanner. I've read through numerous threads about this subject, to the point that I realized I was starting to read the same posts over and over, and still don't think I have decisive information. Since photography is a hobby for me and this whole medium format film thing is somewhat of an experiment, I am limited to reasonably priced scanners for maybe making up to 12x16 prints and since I have experience with the Epson V750 during my working days, I have limited my choice to the Epson V600 or V800, with a cost difference of about $450.<br> I've tried to make sense out of the specs, but have also read that scanner specs are basically fairy tales, so I am asking for personal experience with these scanners or their similar predecessors.<br> 1. Is the alleged Dmax of the V600 (3.4) enough for color negatives, as far as being able to capture gradations in dark areas, especially considering that the final result might be a JPEG image, which is what the print labs I've used have asked for, and supposedly 256 grey levels are more than can be discerned visually.<br> 2. Does the V600 come with film profiles for the more common films, or will I have to purchase either Silverfast or VueScan to convert the negatives to positives? If Epson Scan does convert, would those other programs do a better job?<br> 3. Some websites purport to show the advantage of one scanner over another at 100% image magnification, but what small differences there were could easily be attributed to operator input. In general, given two prints side by side made from scans of a 6x7 color negative, how obvious would the difference, if any, be for these two scanners in a 12x16 print?<br> Thank you, and if there are other relevant things to consider please let me know, but I'd appreciate if the discussion can be limited to these two scanners.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks all for the responses. Despite the lack of a totally conclusive argument for either format, I've decided to go 6x7 so as not to regret having possibly compromised. Helping in this decision was that I just purchased what looks like a very nice Bronica GS-1 on eBay, and it appears there's a significant reduction in bulk and weight to the Mamiya RZ-67 that I was considering.<br> Ian - what scanner do you use?</p>

<p>"What aspect are you going to be printing? Enlarge 6x7 full frame and you get the standard 8x10, 11x14, 16x20."<br> Good point. I never really liked the 3:2 aspect ratio of my digital cameras. It was sometimes hard to coax an image into 8x10 or 11x14, which are the sizes I have usually been printing up to now.</p>

<p>I've been contemplating a medium format film camera for landscape/nature photography, and with all my reading to date I still can't get beyond the initial choice of film size, in particular 6x4.5 or 6x7. Image quality and size are two main issues for me.<br> I know this has been discussed many times but so far I haven't been swayed one way or the other. I keep reading that 6x7 negatives and slides are "huge" and somehow "magical" and that 6x4.5 is not such a big step up from 35mm. When the 6x4.5 and 6x7 sizes are displayed next to each other with the "6" sides parallel, of course the 6x7 looks significantly bigger (7 vs. 4.5). For the image below, the grey area is based on the actual dimensions of 6x7 film and the black area the same for 6x4.5, both in landscape format. Unless I've done something wrong, the 6x7 is larger of course but somehow the word "huge" would not come to mind. And indeed, the area advantage of 6x4.5 over 35mm is significantly larger than that of 6x7 over 6x4.5.<br> Also, the argument usually comes down to how large a print you can make. But the 6x7 lenses appear to be generally slower than corresponding 6x4.5 lenses. Thus, with 6x4.5 one could use lower ASA film. Wouldn't that in some way negate 6x7's slightly larger size?<br> I'm not trying to make an argument here for 6x4.5, just trying to understand whether the apparently not very significant increase in film area would justify, for me, hauling around the significant increase in bulk and weight of, say, a Mamiya RZ67.<br> <img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-rtbospJmQv4/VnNkGR7WezI/AAAAAAAAHZU/qm3Cw4w2DdU/s67-Ic42/645%252520and%25252067.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I've been using digital cameras up to now but am exploring the possibility of using a medium format film camera, either 6x4.5 or 6x7, to improve on the ultimate quality of my images and maybe just for the fun of going old school.<br> I've read somewhere that is recommended to use positive slide film because of the lack of control over how a processing lab makes a print from a negative (I would not be doing that myself). So that means scanning in the film. I've had a lot of experience with an Epson V750 at work so I would probably use something like that.<br> <br />A very basic question that I am grappling with is this - given the potential advantage of film over digital in dynamic range, treatment of highlights etc., how much of that advantage is retained when the film is scanned in, since the scanner itself uses a digital sensor? Please note: I am not so much interested here in resolution, just color, treatment of highlights, etc. I've so far found both sides argued in various places, but I'd like to get the input from some of the knowledgeable people here. What, if anything, is "lost" by the scanning process?<br> <br />Also, although I've never had the need to do it before, I believe a scanner like the Epson 750 is able to scan a color negative and produce a color positive image. If so, what are the pros and cons of starting with positive vs. negative film? My guess is that the latter might involve more tweaking in software.<br> Thank you.</p>