Think about getting into B&W film

[Markk9]

Think about getting into B&W film, developing at home and then either scanning the negative myself or sending them out. Right now I'm shooting digital with a Canon 7D, 17-40/4, 24-105/4, 70-200/4, 50/1.4, 100/2, and off camera flash. I shoot motorcycles, cars, aircraft, and woman. sometimes the woman with motorcycles and cars. I still have my old EOS 3, so I can use all my glass with it. I have also been think about going to medium format to shoot along side the 7D, been looking at a Mamiya 645 pro, and getting two lenes the 80/2.8 and 150/3.5. Is medium format really that much better than 35mm? What are your thoughts on the Mamiya 645?

 

[ann]

Years ago I considered that format and felt at the time I won't get much bang for the buck, however, I did move up to a Makina 67 which i really loved. I tried a hassy but don't care for square so I sold it off long before it lost any value

 

[TonyR]

Hi Mark

From my own experience at a college photography course a number of years ago, I'd recommend the Mamiya 645 (I had the 645 Super). I only used black and white (mostly FP4 Plus) under studio flash and 99% of the images with the standard 80mm. The Mamiya is easy to use, interchangeable film backs (great for quick work in the studio) and I used an old Lunasix F meter for exposures. 645 is a nice size negative to view on the light box and enlarges easily to 20"x16". I looked at Bronica and Pentax in 645 and for me the Mamiya just worked better. I'm still using it after 16 years without any problems.

Regards
Tony

 

[Alan Klein]

If you're going MF, from 35mm why go to 645? That's half MF. Go all the way to a 6x7 like a Mamiya.

 

[Doyle Thomas]

35mm does not scan well on a flat bed scanner if u want good sized prints u will want drum scans. the mid formats are ok but perhaps u could consider 4x5 or 8x10

 

[jeffreyg]

I use medium format (square) and 4x5 black and white and get excellent scans on my ten year old Epson flatbed scanner. I recently had two images printed to 30"x40". one was from a 4x5 negative and one from a 2 1/4x2 1/4 negative. I scanned both at 2400ppi and enlarged to 30"x40" and then reduced the resolution to reduce the file size. Both came out great all the details were reproduced and grain was surprisingly minimal.

HOME

 

[Alan Klein]

I scanned both at 2400ppi and enlarged to 30"x40" and then reduced the resolution to reduce the file size.

Jeffrey: Would you clarify the last part? Tks. Alan.

 

[jeffreyg]

Alan,

At the 2400ppi the file was almost 3gigabytes
As I recall I reduced it to 1200ppi. It was still a large file so I reduced a copy to 600ppi and burned them on to DVDs. The larger of the two took well over a half hour to burn. My son in law has a friend with a commercial printing business and he printed that image to the 30x40 inches plus white borders. He has since also done another print at that size from one of my 20 year old 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 negs. In both cases I think he used the 600ppi files. If I ever meet him I will find out what they did. Both were very sharply focused negatives and all the detail was reproduced. The latter image I mentioned was a street scene and the subject was the Coppertone sign which covered most of the side of a multi story building. I took it from at least a block away and even the words on a 20 inch "for lease" sign on the building are clearly legible.

I hope that's what you wanted to know.

HOME

 

[Alan Klein]

What did you mean you enlarged it from 2400ppi to 30x40"?

 

[lenny]

The 645 is a terrific camera. I have one. However, the quality of the 6x7 if far superior. Alan is very right. I also have a Mamiya 7 II and the quality is just amazing. The difference between 35mm and 6x7 is night and day…

I drum scan and the line is very clear, in my opinion. No, I won't compare 6x7 to 8x10, but the first line of superb quality is right at 6x7. This is personal opinion, of course, and my personal preference, not any rule that should apply to anyone else.

Lenny

 

[jeffreyg]

Alan,

I scanned the negatives at 2400ppi and then enlarged from 4x5 inches and 2 1/4x2 1/4 inches to 30x40 inches. I did not know just what they needed to print from and I wanted an exact reproduction so I figured it would be best to give them a file that all they would have to do was to click "print".

Jeff

HOME

 

[Alan Klein]

I guess my question is about upresolution - uprezing.

For the 4x5 at 2400=12000 on the 5" side/40"= 300/in ppi for the print which is very good.

However, for the MF, 2 1/4" at 2400=5400ppi on the 5" side/40"= 135ppi/in for the print, which is not as good. Did you uprez the 2 1/4 to increase the ppi and if so how?

 

[jeffreyg]

Alan,

I must be misinterpreting your question. I'm not into the math regarding ppi to print size ratios. What I did was : set my scanner resolution to 2400ppi then scan the negatives; open in PhotoShop and with Alien Skin Blow Up plugin increase the image size to 30 in X 40 inches at the original 2400ppi; then reduced only the resolution from 2400 to 1200 and then again to 600 in PS image size. Once I did the initial change to the dimensions (in inches) I only made the changes of ppi. I don't know what the dpi of their printing equipment is. What ever the case it worked out very well.

HOME

 

[L Gebhardt]

Alan,

I must be misinterpreting your question. I'm not into the math regarding ppi to print size ratios. What I did was : set my scanner resolution to 2400ppi then scan the negatives; open in PhotoShop and with Alien Skin Blow Up plugin increase the image size to 30 in X 40 inches at the original 2400ppi; then reduced only the resolution from 2400 to 1200 and then again to 600 in PS image size. Once I did the initial change to the dimensions (in inches) I only made the changes of ppi. I don't know what the dpi of their printing equipment is. What ever the case it worked out very well.

HOME

Your workflow is making your life more difficult. By using the blow up plugin to 30x40 at 2400ppi you have interpolated a huge amount of data. You then discarded most of this data by down resing to 600ppi.

You would get similar results with much less compute time by setting the output resolution to 300 or 360ppi in the Blow Up plugin. If you are using Epson inkjets 360ppi is the most appropriate resolution if you are upressing. But given that you are starting from effectively 130ppi you probably won't see any difference from using 180 or 240ppi and it will cut the size of the file down significantly.

Also, you may want to spring for one drum scan just to see the difference between your current scanner. My guess is it will be significant at the size print you made.