thinking of taking the med format plunge for product shots. What do I want?

[ic-racer]

I'd like the best images for the web (build musical instruments). I'm currently using a Nikon D40

I'm not sure what a D40 is, but for web posting of musical instruments I use a little 5.1MP point and shoot I got in 2005. Do you really think the camera is the limiting factor? I can't imagine the expense and time to process film, make prints and then scan them for the web. With the little digital camera I just plug it in to the computer and I'm ready to post. Unless you are offering up multi-megapixel images that take minutes to download, your viewers are unlikely to appreciate any advantage of medium format film for a 75dpi screen image.

1976 LP Custom with Chrome Hardware.

 

[Worker 11811]

I say go ahead and use the medium format camera for your work but keep in mind that it would be for your own satisfaction. There are benefits to using film but convenience is not one of them.

If you want to use MF for its own sake use it for general photography first. Then, as you get used to the workflow, move into using it for the product shots.

I propose that the greatest benefit to using film is that your photography skills will improve regardless of the format you end up doing your work with. Even if you have used film before but switched to using digital, shooting film will serve to refresh your skills and help you relearn the sense of craftsmanship that is part and parcel of the photographer's art.

 

[polyglot]

I'm not sure what a D40 is, but for web posting of musical instruments I use a little 5.1MP point and shoot I got in 2005. Do you really think the camera is the limiting factor? I can't imagine the expense and time to process film, make prints and then scan them for the web. With the little digital camera I just plug it in to the computer and I'm ready to post. Unless you are offering up multi-megapixel images that take minutes to download, your viewers are unlikely to appreciate any advantage of medium format film for a 75dpi screen image.

This. While I heartily recommend getting and enjoying a 6x7 system and shooting chromes and loving the results, if your ultimate output device is the web then a new camera will gain you absolutely nothing. If a product shot is done well then you won't be able to tell what shot it unless there are features like lens movements present or you need to print it 80" wide.

 

[BrianL]

I agree that you should look at a LF camera with tilt and shifts and has the ability to use a rollback. As your need is not for a lot of photos, sheet film does make more sense. USe the digital to confirm the lighting and exposure and then use the LF for the shot. Why burn a roll if you only need a couple of tries?

A TLR does not make sense as the viewing lens does not offer the same view as the taking lens so there is a variable you'd need to work with. A rangefinder has the same issue. A plate camera and SLR does away with the shortcoming. With the plate camera, you can use a magnifier to aid in assuring the focus is where you want it, usually easier than with an SLR that has a smaller viewfinder and usually dimmer.

I won't get into the digital discussion onther than it is usefull as a substitute to a Polaroid to check lighting and composition.

 

[SafetyBob]

This has been another superb discussion of options and capabilities on APUG. And at first I would have agreed that an RB for maximum economy or an RZ would be the most logical choice. I know my Mamiya Press Super 23 has movements but by the time you find one in decent shape and have it CLAed something like a 4x5 would make more sense. All I know I do want an RB or RZ.......been wanting one of years actually.

I almost made the decision to bit the very big bullet and get a 120 scanner. There was one here on the sales forum not to long ago for......please sit down now.....around $3400. That's alot of money and that could buy a whole bunch of film cameras in a variety of film formats. If I knew I was doing product shots for "real" customers even once a quarter, I would consider one of those kinds of scanners, although even a $100 drum scan sent off to who knows where every quarter would still be more economical than that $3000 scanner. We can recommend someone close or reasonably close if you need a real drum scan........I have found that even the plain jane scans from my local lab of my 645 film results are far, far superior in detail....well, everything, compared to the same labs scans to cd of my 35mm film.

If you have the time and the lab nearby, the results from 4x5 should be spectacular compared to anything smaller. Nothing better than looking at the picture through ground glass and making those minute movements to perfect the shot.

So since I have essentially rambled on and said nothing really new or earth shattering than earlier posts, I wish you luck in your choice. I will tell you this though. I also have a Nikon D60 instead of your D40, I was not overjoyed by the results I got when going critical for some special occasion. That's why I returned to film and have been slowly, steadily increasing my format size over the past couple of years. I think my lab can still do 4x5, so I may go that way soon. I would be interested to know what you end up doing. Touch base again and let us know what you decide.

Bob E.

 

[PaulMD]

I wonder if there's a way to get good scans on a CD from a film processor reasonably. I really only need a few good photos of my main models. A 5D would be a cheap way out if what you said is the only way to do this. I hope it's not! lol

No. Good or cheap, pick one. Minilab scans are ""cheap"" ($5-10 a roll), but will be inferior to one of today's digital p+s. To save myself some scanning, I got my vacation photos scanned from Sam's Club this year instead of proofs. I think the effective resolution is maybe 1280x1024 or 1600x1200. Really bad. Pro lab scans are going to be quite expensive. To say the least. For a mid-res CCD scan, you're probably looking at $25 a roll. For drum scans, assume the position - $100 a scan is probably the right neighborhood.

Same thing when you're buying a scanner, really. A V500 does about 1600dpi, a V700 does about 2200dpi, for $150 and $400 respectively. These are OK for web publication but they aren't really that great for high-end critical work. You also have to invest a lot of time into running them, and this may affect your turnaround times.

Regularly but infrequently you can find some old CCD scanners (Microtek M1 and so on) that'll do 2500dpi or so, you might pay from $100 to $500 depending on what you can find. Prepare to deal with some hassles - either running a legacy box to do the scanning, or figuring out how to get it working on modern hardware. Hope you like SCSI. Kudos to Ed Hamrick for keeping all those old scanners going. These are sometimes a bit slower to work with than even the flatbeds, requiring more frequent attention. They also often don't have ICE.

On that note, you can also occasionally run into an old drum scanner - same issues with legacy hardware hassles, plus all the pains of running a drum scanner. The drums need resurfacing and you have to pay for the mylar and the fluid. No idea how the costs work out, I don't own one. On the other hand, the results are great and the price isn't terrible (something like $1500 for a basic working setup). Even a cheap one will be head and shoulders above even the high end CCD scanners. Better resolution, better noise, better dynamic range.

High end, you've got the Nikon scanners (awesome) and the high-end CCD scanners like the Imacons. Great results, but hard on the wallet. If you're a professional, though, and you NEED the quality, it's the only game in town except drum scans. $3k is probably a good estimate.

 

[PaulMD]

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that to discourage you or to be elitist about scanners. An Epson V500 will produce acceptable 8x10s from a sharp 6x7 negative, for sure. I use one. But for super critical pro work, in order to get the most out of your pro quality (and very expensive back in the day) lenses you can't just slap the negatives on a consumer scanner. 1000 dpi is something like 10lp/mm, so drum scans and good CCD scans are only like 40lp/mm and the V500 is basically Polaroid resolution.

My general rule of thumb is that with a digital workflow, go one negative size up from the conventional wisdom of what you need. A 35mm negative makes a good 8x10 wet print. Digitally, you need medium format. Medium format make good reasonable-sized wet enlargements (14-20" on the long end), to do that digitally you probably want 4x5.

Wet printing to a large size and then scanning that is not a terrible idea if you can stand the cost.

e: Well, I guess I misread this thread and thought you were a pro looking to sell product shots. If you're just sticking stuff on Etsy/Ebay, a V500 would do just fine. Feel free to disregard everything I wrote.

 

[landscapepics]

I have a RZ67 and love it ... teamed up with an Epson v700 scanner. BUT I'd be surprised if you couldn't get perfectly acceptable web images at 1600 pixels with the 35mm SLR you have and a scanner. So my suggestion would be:

a) First pay a bit more for a scanner, say an Epson v700 or 750. These will scan anything from 35mm to 8*10 large format.
b) Try it with your 35mm (that macro lens may well be useful for detail shots)
c) If the images still aren't what you want for the web, or if you have other needs for larger images, then get a medium format camera

Your quest for "mood" or a specific "look" may be more to due with lighting than the camera.

 

[John Koehrer]

One of our members here Stradibarius also builds custom instruments and bought into the RB setup. Each lens has it's own shutter and flash will
sync to 1/400th With it's built in bellows and close up ability It has more flexibility than the 645. It is quite a bit heavier but I'll assume you're going to be using a tripod.
You can search the site for threads by Stradibarius or PM him, I imagine he could be a great help to you.

 

[keithwms]

Will this be for b&w or colour work, or both? With artificial light? What kind of reproduction factor is required- 1:1, 1:2, 1:4...?

On the whole I am very enthusiastic about the RB and RZ systems and the price is right. I would also nominate the mamiya 645 pro for consideration; you have to do the math on how much it will cost you to process a roll and how many shots you'd like to do. If you're going to be shooting a lot then 6x7 might get pricey. I'd also look at a 645 if travel is involved. And if there is some possibility of putting a digital back on this is a few years, I would consider a 645 AFD2 or such.

Note that there is a 6x8 back for the rb; that might be useful.

For macro product stuff I would probably want my Horseman VH with it's 6x9 back, that thing was sweet! Bellows focus makes macro so easy. And it had just enough movements to deliver whatever I wanted. I sold it finance some other gizmo and quickly regretted it.

 

[polyglot]

For macro product stuff I would probably want my Horseman VH with it's 6x9 back, that thing was sweet! Bellows focus makes macro so easy. And it had just enough movements to deliver whatever I wanted. I sold it finance some other gizmo and quickly regretted it.

That's actually a good point. If you're going to be only in the studio, a cheap monorail (<$200) with a rollfilm back ($100) would be an excellent option because you get the movements you want for macro product shots (DOF is crazy-thin as your sensor gets larger and if you stop down into diffraction, you lose all the benefits of having a larger sensor). However you will probably want a dedicated close-focus lens designed for macro work, e.g. a process or enlarger lens.

The other thing is that you can get graflok backs that will adapt to a (D)SLR, which means that you can do (tiny - 16x24mm is 10% of the area of a 6x7 frame and 3.5% of the area of a 4x5 frame) preview shots with your DSLR and then slap a film holder in there for the final image. Or you can slide the back around, taking shots as you go and then stitch them.

 

[vpwphoto]

There is one and only one reason you should "step up" in format for your digital display.
If you have too shoot film, do it on a view camera for perspective and emphasis of these products through use of the tilts, shifts, and swings. Otherwise continue photographing as you have with D 35mm and pay more attention to your lighting rather than move on to some wierd hybrid workflow that will gain nothing unless you actually move on to a camera with movements.

 

[vpwphoto]

@polygott... diffraction isn't an issue at least for me in the F32 range and large sensors. Diffraction wasn't an issue for those decades of catalog photography done on 8x10 film... and DOF can be manipulated.

To OP...
Those stiching backs are crazy expensive! and a PITA without a FOBA (a used studio stand will cost $1600 or more $4000 new) studio stand that is ROCK SOLID!!!!

Digital proofing with DSLR and "slapping on your film back" won't happen as the film planes of each are soooo far appart.

Sinar makes a DSLR micro view camera... for $8000 new.

Speaking as someone who actually has done this, and not shooting from the hip with what I read in a magazine.
Slidingback with 6x9 film and a decent view camera and scanning these refined images is the most cost effective way to go (it will still cost you $1000 or more for a set up).

Sorry about frank tone... but all these presumtive answers make me nuts... let someone say something that is actually experianced in the issue at hand.
Cheers.

 

[keithwms]

Let me speak digitally for a second

Yes, actually I think stitching makes a lot of sense these days, particularly for product stuff indoors. I have one stitch back that I think cost $200-300, it was no big deal. Not exactly a joy to use but it gets the job done. A full frame D700 dslr on that thing plus a little bit of patience can easily demolish any of the megabucks digital backs out there. I also have done on-the-fly stitches that make a complete joke out of the $$$$ MF digital backs. The software has gotten so good at correcting the distortions and falloff etc.

Anyway.... for product, a monorail or something like a horseman VH would be great fun. Also, n.b. the horseman VH takes RB backs as well as sheet film.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Funk,

As someone who shoots both film and digital on a daily basis (full time professional) I would say you are setting yourself up for frustration with shooting film and scanning. Not sure of your production schedule, but with film you may have to shoot one piece one day and then wait a week or more to finish the roll, get it processed (another day or two), get scans or proofs, and then make final scans, with spotting in Photoshop, and in many cases color balance issues.

Honestly, for web work I would get a few tungsten floods from HomeDepot, set your camera for 2800-3000 K (try a few numbers) and work with a tripod. I shoot tons of products for my clients: rugs, mouldings, furniture, etc. and I would croak if it all had to go through a film to scan workflow.

That being said, I love my film and would never give it up for my personal projects.

Hope that helps.

 

[polyglot]

@polygott... diffraction isn't an issue at least for me in the F32 range and large sensors. Diffraction wasn't an issue for those decades of catalog photography done on 8x10 film... and DOF can be manipulated.

While it's "not an issue", it means you lose all the resolution to be gained from going to a larger size. Say you can shoot at f/11 on 35mm, to get the same DOF on 4x5 you need about f/40... and you'll get no more resolution than you would have with the 35mm frame, so why burn 9x as much film? Much better to use some movements, shoot at f/11 or f/22 and get a much higher quality result from the larger film. Same logic applies to medium format - if you can get a good enough lens and some movements, 6x7 or 6x9 is probably big enough that you're fundamentally limited by optics rather than film area so there's not really much to be gained from going to 4x5.

The point is that the movements are necessary and can save you from diffraction in a lot of cases. And if you don't have movements when shooting macro, you're just wasting film at the larger sizes because you'll practically always be diffraction-limited.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I hope to start shoot products sooner or later, i did some shots and i like some of them but all doesn't as high quality professionally look, so i have to shoot again and try to edit them better way, and i will use any gear to have good enough quality or look or whatever i want, DLSR, digiMF, LF,...etc.