Medium Format Film Cameras Still Being Manufactured?

Well to each his own of course - but if I was going to scan it anyway I'd just shoot native digitally. I get it about the space, but to me darkroom work is at least 1/2 the creativity and more than half the fun of film.

Jager said:

Hi Shutterlight,

I'd appreciate any tips or advice you might have on using the Imacon. It arrives today and I am very excited!

I'm fairly conversant with scanning, in general, having owned a couple of Epson flatbeds, a Nikon Coolscan 5000, and my present machine - a Nikon Coolscan 9000. The 9000 is actually a pretty nice scanner for medium format. It's challenges are its fiddly film holders and dearth of software to drive it. I use Vuescan, but am put off by several bugs, including lack of auto frame recognition and the preview area (marching ants) not exactly matching the scan area.

The X1 and FlexColor are reputed to be much more solid in terms of operation, interface, and output.

Best,

Jeff

Click to expand...

They sure are better. Flexcolor takes some getting used to, but in terms of what it can do, it's great. I'll message you some basics.

The X1 (and its bigger and more expensive brother, the X5) maximize what you can get out of digital. For me, using film also means scanning, as you mentioned for yourself. The dynamic range is the thing that sets the Imacons apart from everything else. They can rescue almost any highlight and recover shadow detail, and particularly the highlights.

Jager, great choice. I have a LS-9000 for medium format scanning. Have fun and enjoy yourself.

RattyMouse said:

If you have that kind of coin for a scanner, more power to you. I have a HUGE apartment and *still* can't print because I simply can't make any room dark. Every room has massive windows that let in enormous amount of light. 3 floors of living space and no dark room!

Click to expand...

Sounds like a great studio setup, RattyMouse!

Roger Cole said:

Could have set up one heck of a great darkroom for way less than that.

Click to expand...

How another person spends their money isn't for you, me or anyone to question. You should know that.

Cropline said:

How another person spends their money isn't for you, me or anyone to question. You should know that.

Click to expand...

Roger didn't question the expenditure. He simply noted an alternative possibility. One particularly in keeping with the context of this forum.

Nowhere did he say "You should have..."

Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

Roger didn't question the expenditure. He simply noted an alternative possibility. One particularly in keeping with the context of this forum.

Nowhere did he say "You should have..."

Ken

Click to expand...

Don't think Roger intended any harm but he did question Jagers decision indirectly. Jager spent his money on what he enjoys, and how he saw fit based on his circumstances. Accepting anothers choices shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand. Peace!

Cropline said:

Don't think Roger intended any harm but he did question Jagers decision indirectly. Jager spent his money on what he enjoys, and how he saw fit based on his circumstances. Accepting anothers choices shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand. Peace!

Click to expand...

Of course I accept it but hybrid methods have become so commonplace as to have become the norm and often people don't realize how cheap and relatively accessible darkroom work is. You don't need a dedicated room really, just a room you can make dark. I don't have running water in mine and make do.

Of course sometimes it is impossible or prohibitively difficult and some folks just like working in hybrid fashion. Fine with me of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

Well, a darkroom in my small, 1-bath, 2-bedroom house just ain't happening. It just... ain't. No matter how much creativity I may be ceding.

Roger, I'll gently disagree with your notion that if one cannot do analog the whole, entire way... it's not worth doing at all. I do do digital (Leica M stuff) and am quite happy with the results there. But I also think analog film has something to offer for those of us who don't have the means (or inclination) to print via enlarger and chemicals.

I do think your point about the economics and difficulty of setting up a darkroom space are not nearly so daunting as many people believe, is very well taken. Alas, those are not my hindrances.

Well I don't mean so much "if you can't do it all analog it isn't worth doing" as "it isn't worth much doing for ME." Oddly enough, I do entertain thoughts of going hybrid but the reason is that I enjoy large format and would like to move up to 8x10 some day and the difficulty in optically enlarging that becomes non-trivial. Granted, 8x10 contact prints are stunning, but if I limited myself to that I'd be taking a camera four times larger than my 4x5 in order to make prints 1/4 the size of ones I can routinely make from 4x5. The Beseler and Zone VI tabletop sized 8x10 enlargers are neither common or inexpensive, and the sellers often won't ship them, while the full sized ones are often given away, provided you can a) go retrieve them - bring a truck and a couple of burly guys at least, if not a fork lift! and b) you have a place to put an enlarger about the size of a compact car. The former MIGHT happen if I luck into one. But a good flat bed scanner is quite good enough for 8x10 where you'll only be enlarging 2x or maybe 3-4x with cropping at most, and modern ink jet prints can be very good indeed.

I'm not sure that I'd get any better prints (aside from the use of lens movements and there are solutions for that now) at those sizes from 8x10 than I would from a good full frame DSLR but it would sure be more fun.

I guess the bottom line is that I've always very very much enjoyed darkroom work. The quite dim lit contemplation appeals to me, not to mention getting AWAY from computers when I use them all the time to earn my living (network engineer.) I understand not everyone has those same priorities, or capabilities, and however someone wants to produce art is fine by me.

I still could have completed the plumbing, added a few pieces of gear, and bought a new Jobo CPP3 for that money though. OTOH I could make use of those things.

Roger Cole said:

Of course I accept it but hybrid methods have become so commonplace as to have become the norm and often people don't realize how cheap and relatively accessible darkroom work is. You don't need a dedicated room really, just a room you can make dark. I don't have running water in mine and make do.

Of course sometimes it is impossible or prohibitively difficult and some folks just like working in hybrid fashion. Fine with me of course.

Click to expand...

I think most people that do have a hybrid workspace (myself included) do so not because they don't like the full analogue workflow but because they lack the space and, more importantly, the time. For me, as much as I love seeing prints show up slowly on paper it is just impossible to do.

I could probably find the space if I really tried but I simply have no time for it. So I shoot, pay good money to the lab to dev and scan to my preference and then just enjoy the printing bit. I'll admit, seeing a large print slowly roll out of an inkjet is not as satisfying as a large print slowly appearing in a tank of chemicals but we make do with what we make do.

I just wish when my kids are old enough there will still be a way for them to see a print develop.

I totally relate to that. I've got a huge backlog of exposed rolls I haven't had time to develop, never mind developed negatives I haven't had time to print.

Some of this for me is due to that limitation of not having running water. A big dispenser of water filled from the hose out back and a holding bath and washing upstairs works but it prolongs set up and, especially, wash and clean up times into a real PITA. If I don't have several hours at one time I don't bother, considering I'll spend the better part of two of them just in setting up and cleaning up. Sigh.

film_man said:

I think most people that do have a hybrid workspace (myself included) do so not because they don't like the full analogue workflow but because they lack the space and, more importantly, the time. For me, as much as I love seeing prints show up slowly on paper it is just impossible to do.

Click to expand...

The space cost of a darkrooms can be high. For me the cost of stink-jet ink and the poorer quality the cost was too high. Now that I have a darkroom I will not go back to hybrid work until I am forced to and then I will probably pay labs to do the work [assuming the dogs can be properly trained.].

No mention as yet of inkjet printing, which is what I do. I scan negatives and then make inkjet prints of pictures. I'd much rather be using Hahnemuhle photo rag on an Epson 3880 than doing anything in a darkroom. But, that's just me.

shutterlight said:

No mention as yet of inkjet printing, which is what I do. I scan negatives and then make inkjet prints of pictures. I'd much rather be using Hahnemuhle photo rag on an Epson 3880 than doing anything in a darkroom. But, that's just me.

Click to expand...

Me too. I print nearly every day using a split-toned Piezography setup (http://jeffreyhughes.net/wordpress/2014/12/21/adventures-in-piezography/).

I find the high fidelity of that printing process to match very well with a compelling film negative, and that's what led me to buy the Flextight.