Getting the most out of Medium Format??

[roteague]

You will need over 1GB on a PC for Photoshop if you scan 6x7 at 4000dpi. I assume a Mac will be the same. More memory always helps with digital imaging...

Don't do like me. I use a 1 GHz PC, 512MB RAM, Photoshop CS to open 325MB drum scans. Takes about 5 - 10 minutes to display. Let see - new computer or new lens (new lens wins every time).

 

[Tom Duffy]

If I put my questions about medium format in the wrong area, I apologize. All that I am trying to do is improve the quality of my landscape photographs by using medium format film cameras instead of 35mm & dslr cameras. I would love to have a home darkroom, but that is not possible in my house. I can only try to print my own images using the current digital technology. Maybe, I would be better off having a professional lab process & print my images (who would you recommend?). I would rather do my own prints, but would consider using outside prefessional services.

Again, if my question does not belong on this website, I apologize.

My apologies in turn. I've reread my reply and it seems harsh. It wasn't directed at you, it was directed at SatinSnow's dismissal of Mark's legitimate issue concerning the content of your post.

APUG was founded to foster communication about analogue photography techniques, in reaction to the prevalent digitalization on other photo sites. It's a haven from digital by by design. Many APUG members use digital for some percentage of personal or professional work; it's just not where we talk about it.

I think you've made an excellent choice with the Fuji 6x9. You have one of the best combinations of film size, sharp lens, convenience and cost in any one camera. I wish you the best with it. Ultimately, Bjorke is right, it's about the picture.
Take care,
Tom Duffy

 

[Dave Parker]

Well I do thank you for your comments Tom, even though I do disagree with them and I think the way the thread was going, it would have a tendancy to turn any new user of this system off and cause them to go elsewhere, I still don't think Mark's comment was legitimate or needed in this particular situation and did nothing to foster any more than the belief that Apug is being standoffish to new users..the base of the question, concerned Film Cameras and Film itself and based on the technology that is used by a great many of us, now adays deserved a legitimate answer.

He was not talking about a hybrid situation and the comment, if it don't belong there, then it does not belong on this forum was not needed, and not friendly in the least!

Dave

 

[Troy Ammons]

1. Film scanner vs. Flatbed scanner - I cannot spend more than an additional $1,000 on a good scanner and am leaning toward the dedicated film scanner (if I can find one for around $1,000). My question is: do the latest flatbed scanners by Epson & Canon come close to the performance of a mid-level medium format film scanner? The technology on the Minolta Multi Scan Pro is getting a bit old (2002). Is it still good enough for high quality film scanning?

Not even close. I have a Epson 4870 and a drum scanner. The epson is good for about 30-35 lp/mm but even at that it is fuzzy and it produces aome sort of halos around edges, maybe the newton effect. If you are shooting 50lp/mm at the film plane that extra 15lp/mm detail is just fuzzy info. I have some scan comparisons on my Pbase site.

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/drum_comparisons

Maybe a Nikon 8000 or 9000 if you can afford it. I think Minolta makes some decent MF scanners, but i have never tried one. If I had to have a sharp cheap flatbed I would take a look at a Artixscan 1800F, but i have never actually used one. It may be worth a look, but it is limited to 1800 optical dpi.

Here are some scanner comparisons

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/498605.html

http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/499116.html

2. I have an HP7960 printer (8-1/2"X11"), which I plan to keep as a b&w printer. I plan to buy a good used Epson 2200. Is the Epson still considered one of the best printers (quality, life of print, color, etc.)? If not, what would be a better choice?

Probably but I have heard Canon is coming out with some sort of new technology that will be pretty much dotless.

3. I know that I will need to upgrade my current computer to handle the file sizes of medium format. I am still using an iMac G3 and am thinking of buying a used Apple G4, with enough memory to handle medium format files. Would I be smarter to buy a new iMac G5 or something else?

The bigger the better. A 16 bit 6x9 file is huge, especially over 2000 dpi.
I had a 800mhz pentium with 2gb memory and it was crawling.

I ended up with 2.4 GHz and it is much better, but still can bog down.

4. Film - I normally use Fuji Astia, but will probably start using Velvia. Good or bad choice? I would prefer to stay with slide film and I am looking for the best quality film for landscapes and scanning purposes.

I have gotten to where I like E100G, VS and GX films. They scan super clean. On my 4870 there is no apparent grain at all at 2400 dpi. On my drum scanner there is some, but it is minor especially with a wet scan.

Any information or opinions would be much appreciated.

 

[mark]

Dave it is quite simple. This is Apug. A non-digital island. rrobinson54 is plenty welcome here but he has to realize that this is an analogue site, just like anyoneelse who comes here. Many people would love to be able to discuss digital here but that, according to sean, is not why this site exists. If it is standoffish and unfriendly to expect people to read the first page of the site then so be it.

Welcome rrobinson54 this is a great place to discuss the analogue portion of your photography. Your camera choice is great and so is your film choice.

 

[jovo]

Despite my best efforts (tripod, slow film, etc.), the results when shooting landscapes are often disappointing. .

hmmmm....the one question that comes to mind here is...what is disappointing about your landscapes that is not disappointing you in the other kinds of work you do? is it really an equipment issue at all? if you're using an E1 and looking at your work on screen, it should be excellent. so...is it skill in composition, light, design or just figuring out where to put the edges as Mark Citret would say that's really the problem?

medium format is wonderful...i use a P67 as well as a large format camera...but, neither one makes a weak landscape any better.

 

[roteague]

Ultimately, Bjorke is right, it's about the picture.

Is it really? Hmm, time for a new thread.

 

[Dave Parker]

Dave it is quite simple. This is Apug. A non-digital island. rrobinson54 is plenty welcome here but he has to realize that this is an analogue site, just like anyoneelse who comes here. Many people would love to be able to discuss digital here but that, according to sean, is not why this site exists. If it is standoffish and unfriendly to expect people to read the first page of the site then so be it.

Welcome rrobinson54 this is a great place to discuss the analogue portion of your photography. Your camera choice is great and so is your film choice.

Well Mark, I just guess I read his questions differently than you did, you won't find to many more anal than I am about analog photography, but thought his questions were legitimate, and were worthly of an answer, as a manufacture, after what I have seen in the last couple of days with color of banners and then this, I would really question if I wanted to be a sponsor of this type of stuff, yes I agree, it is there and it should be read on the front page, but did not feel this guy was asking about digital imaging as he was asking about his Medium Format Camera and His Medium Format Film. He was not flooding the system telling us how much better digital is or anything of the nature that we have seen in the past, he was asking legitimate questions based on the resources he has, .

But I guess I am off based and read the question wrong.

Dave

 

[roteague]

Despite my best efforts (tripod, slow film, etc.), the results when shooting landscapes are often disappointing. In an effort to improve my landscapes,

Sorry, you have had so many problems. I've done 11x14 prints from 35mm for years with no problems. Only reason I didn't do bigger, is because I couldn't afford 16x20 Cibachrome (at the time - I only do LF now).

 

[Julian Hart]

Hello rr

If you are trying to maximise quality, you NEED a proper medium format film scanner or better still a drum scanner. A flatbed scanner just will not cut it (even the latest 4990/9950F).

If you can't afford a medium format film scanner, you are better off getting a good 35mm film scanner and sticking with your N1, and getting a proper darkroom for your MF work.

OTOH, a relatively modest Epson 1290S can produce absolutely spectacular results!

Julian

 

[chuck94022]

Hello rr

If you are trying to maximise quality, you NEED a proper medium format film scanner or better still a drum scanner. A flatbed scanner just will not cut it (even the latest 4990/9950F).

If you can't afford a medium format film scanner, you are better off getting a good 35mm film scanner and sticking with your N1, and getting a proper darkroom for your MF work.

Julian

Julian, he clearly states in his original post that he is optimizing on cost - he can't spend over $1000 on a scanner. The question presented is whether the new flatbeds are close to the dedicated film scanners in the same price class.

My experience says yes, they are. The Canon 9950F does a credible job for medium and large format. (Remember that larger formats tax these scanners less, because it is not necessary to scan larger format negatives at maximum resolution.) The quality gap between the latest photo flatbeds like the 9950F and the Epson 4870, and the dedicated film scanners like the Nikon and Minolta, is very small. Given that the Canon and Epson will also allow reflective scans, for me the scale tips to the flatbeds. (That way, when he does decide to produce a wet processed print, he can show it to us!)

You are correct that these are not the best choices *if cost is no object*. But in this poster's case, cost obviously is. If cost were no object, of course he should get a drum scanner, or an Imacon at least. Plan to spend $3000-$15000 or more for that class of scanner.

The Canon and Epson flatbeds can be had for $350 new over the web, less if you shop around.

-chuck

 

[Julian Hart]

Hi Chuck

I have direct experience with both a Coolscan 8000 and a Canon 9950F. I found the 8000 to be a good bit better than the Canon, no matter how much you apply USM/manipulate the 9950F's file.

As I explained in my post, if the only option is a flatbed scanner for MF, I would not even bother with MF and use a 35mm camera and a decent 35mm dedicated film scanner (which is well within rr's suggested budget (of $1000))

I do, however, agree that the 9950F does a reasonable job with LF. I do not deny the latest breed of good flatbed are very good value but they do not "get the most out of medium format" as rr so desires.

Julian

 

[chuck94022]

Well, RR, you're hearing all sides. While Julian and I may disagree, I still maintain that a cheap flatbed will be useful, and with the money you save you can get lots of your best images commercially scanned if you need higher quality. (And with the difference between a cheap flatbed and a good dedicated film scanner you can equip a wet darkroom

But nonetheless, if you could get a pretty good film scanner and get better scans on your desk. As Julian points out, the Coolscan line is probably pretty good (I haven't used one.)

For me, I also needed the ability to scan 4x5, and do reflective scans, so I went with the flatbed. I intend to either print my favorite images traditionally or scan the negatives on a friend's Imacon then send them for Lightjet printing locally. I don't expect to invest in an Imacon or better of my own any time soon.

You can probably get a Super Coolscan 4000 on Ebay for <$1000. I'm sure that, or an 8000, or a used Imacon would do a great job for you. (The Imacon will definitely break your budget though.)

Good luck, and let us know what you decide!

-chuck

 

[kaiyen]

I have direct experience with both a Coolscan 8000 and a Canon 9950F. I found the 8000 to be a good bit better than the Canon,

wow. I sure would hope so. Even used, the 8000 is like $1200-$1500, isn't it? And if you want the newer 9000, you're up at $2000 or so.

If I had the money, there is absolutely no question that I'd get a Nikon 9000 or the Multi Pro from Minolta. But if I didn't have that much, I'd get an Epson flatbed for maximum versatility _in_conjunction_ with a 35mm dedicated scanner. I can go to at least 11x14 with my flatbed scans and can go larger depending on the image (some images are easier to enlarge then others, after all). I have gone to 44x36 with a couple of scans, even.

To each his own.
allan

 

[rrobinson54]

I really appreciate all of the comments & suggestions to my question. I apologize if I caused any problems with my original question. Right now, I use a high quality Minolta Scan Elite 5400 film scanner for my 35mm images. I refuse to pay $2000 for the latest Nikon 9000 film scanner, but will be looking for a good used Minolta Multi Scan Pro or Nikon 8000. In the meantime, are there any recommendations on where I can get quality drum scans from my 6x9 (Fuji camera) images? I would love to set up my own darkroom, but that is not possibe right now.

Again, thank you for all of your help to my questions.

 

[Vord.exe]

I use a Epson 4870 scanner myself
and looking at the comparisons posted between the drum scanner and the 4870
i'm stil very happy with my choice.
With a proper amount of Photoshop skill you can get alot out of the scanner

Epson 4970 Review

Take a look at this review it also makes comparisons to drum scanner and some film scanners.

The fuzzy edges as stated before can be helped by a good amount of USM
if you get a hang of this function you'll be able to avoid the 'halo's' around subjects and really get alot out of this scanner