Medium Format Film Query

[Edge100]

As though the size of silver halide crystals were the be-all and end-all of photochemical photography. Or the properties of a particular half-tone screen were the be-all and end-all of graphic arts reproduction.

No, they're all just one of several variables involved in their respective processes. They all define resolving-power. They don't define dynamic range. They don't define linearity. So yeah, none of them are the be-all and end-all.

Arguably, the most important characteristic printed on a film package (other than brand/product line) is ISO/ASA (sensitivity), while the most important characteristic on the packaging of a digital camera (other than brand) is megapixels (resolution). So there is a bit of a disconnect in emphasis between film and digital, but neither tells the whole story. I think it's a measure of what was most important going all the way back to the beginning of each medium.

In photochemical photography, it was the need for speed - freezing motion. Characteristics like grain took a back seat - grain was adequate, more or less from the start - just make the plate large (which wasn't hard to do).

In digital photography, speed was more or less adequate from the start. The problem was resolving power - matching or exceeding the resolution of film. Hence the pixel wars.

Let me rephrase:

As if ANY technical consideration were the be all and end all of photography.

 

[Meister]

The 9000F is a decent mid-range flatbed. It can produce scans of sufficient quality to make excellent 12x12 inch prints from a 6x6 negative, and I've gone as large as 13x19 on the sharpest chrome scans.
Do not even consider the 9000F for 35mm, where quality isn't sufficient for anything >4x6.
The true optical resolution of the 9000F is 1700-1800 dpi; 9600dpi is ludicrous.

They advertise specificaly 9600x9600dpi for film scanning.
If you only get 2000dpi I would call it false advertising.

 

[Edge100]

They advertise specificaly 9600x9600dpi for film scanning.
If you only get 2000dpi I would call it false advertising.

It'll produce a 9600dpi file; but it can't resolve that much detail. NO flatbed can.

 

[Meister]

It'll produce a 9600dpi file; but it can't resolve that much detail. NO flatbed can.

Could you recommend an affodable scanner that could resolve the approx 80megpix of 120 film?

 

[Edge100]

Could you recommend an affodable scanner that could resolve the approx 80megpix of 120 film?

Polaroid SprintScan 120, which is cheap and very good, but hard to find (I found one on APUG a while back; VERY good scanner).

Otherwise, you're looking at the $2k Plustek Opticfilm 120 (which lacks autofocus, but gets ~5000dpi true resolution), the Nikon 8000ED (which is about $1500, does 4000dpi, but is SLLLLOW and has a number of other faults related to banding), or the Nikon 9000ED ($3-4k, 4000dpi, no issues, but no longer serviced by Nikon).

Otherwise, a good option is 'scanning' with a high megapixel DSLR and a 1:! macro lens. A 4-6 image stitch from a D800E will rival the best drum scans.

 

[Meister]

Or a Hasslblad Flextight X5 for only 20k.

I think its smarter just to let special photos being scanned for 5,- a piece by a professional scanning shop and keep the rest analogue. Thank you edge for enlightening me about the canon scanner!

 

[steveash]

If they're "very film-like", then why bother? Just shoot film.

And why don't you see the point if you're "just going to scan it through"? You understand that a hybrid workflow is now commonplace, and retains virtually all of the characteristics of the source film?

----------

Because digital is quicker, easier and cheaper to use heavily. Weeks of my past life were spent scanning and removing dust and hairs from film positives and their scans.

In my view the attraction of film is the organic nature of a print made from a negative. A print has an physical link to the original scene whereas the pixels are only a representation. Just like how a painting is more interesting than a picture of a painting.

 

[compuwar]

T
Feel, look, tonality, etc...

You do realize that you can do exact match (for a value of exact that requires good processing of the reference sample(s) to get the readings) of film with digital for a wider range of films than are probably available any longer?

When I process my raw files in RPP, I often use the Kodachrome and Velvia film curves.

Paul

 

[Edge100]

You do realize that you can do exact match (for a value of exact that requires good processing of the reference sample(s) to get the readings) of film with digital for a wider range of films than are probably available any longer?

When I process my raw files in RPP, I often use the Kodachrome and Velvia film curves.

Paul

HAHAHAHA!

Thanks for that laugh.

----------

Because digital is quicker, easier and cheaper to use heavily. Weeks of my past life were spent scanning and removing dust and hairs from film positives and their scans.

All excellent-yet-completely-un-convincing reasons to shoot digital, for me.

I like film. I like scanned film. It begins and ends with that.

In my view the attraction of film is the organic nature of a print made from a negative. A print has an physical link to the original scene whereas the pixels are only a representation. Just like how a painting is more interesting than a picture of a painting.

The tacit assumption here is that a high quality scan of a piece of film either (a) does not retain any of the characteristics of the source film and/or (b) that the scan cannot be differentiated in any way from a digital photograph of the same scene, irrespective of the initial source film.

I'd argue that both are false, and I have extensive experience to back me up.

But of course, you (and I, as it happens) are free to do what you like. I like film, and I work with it almost exclusively. This in no way means I *dislike* digital. However, I would never go to the trouble to try to make my digital images look like film; I'd just shoot film.

Check out the work of Nick Brandt: http://www.nickbrandt.com/

All printed from scanned medium format film.

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

You do realize that you can do exact match (for a value of exact that requires good processing of the reference sample(s) to get the readings) of film with digital for a wider range of films than are probably available any longer?

When I process my raw files in RPP, I often use the Kodachrome and Velvia film curves.

Paul

Thanks, Paul. It's interesting to hear everyones ideas and practices.

Whilst I already have the VSCO packs and have played with them in Photoshop/Lightroom, it's also about stepping up the quality of my images a notch or two. I am currently using a fullframe sensor and would like more again from my architectural and landscape images. I have a tilt-shift lens, but that is limited by what it can achieve as compared to a view camera monorail system.

Thus far, Laird Knox has had the best suggestion for me! I get to continue in digital for now and with exponentially more to the image. Allowing me the time to really learn how to use the bellows to their best. I will then learn about film, processing and printing next year as part of a full year course. Then play with both and work out exactly what works for me.

Thanks all for the input and try and keep it civil, it wasn't my intention to start a film vs digital debate.

 

[steveash]

The tacit assumption here is that a high quality scan of a piece of film either (a) does not retain any of the characteristics of the source film and/or (b) that the scan cannot be differentiated in any way from a digital photograph of the same scene, irrespective of the initial source film.

I'd argue that both are false, and I have extensive experience to back me up.

But of course, you (and I, as it happens) are free to do what you like. I like film, and I work with it almost exclusively. This in no way means I *dislike* digital. However, I would never go to the trouble to try to make my digital images look like film; I'd just shoot film.

Check out the work of Nick Brandt: http://www.nickbrandt.com/

All printed from scanned medium format film.

I wouldn't say that a scan does not retain ANY of the characteristics of the source film, only that something (perhaps something intangible) is lost in the process. Perhaps I'm a romantic, but for me that is the wonder of film. For my own work I actually prefer the perfection of digital. As the OP says, each to his own. It would be a dull place if we all did the same thing.

 

[Edge100]

I wouldn't say that a scan does not retain ANY of the characteristics of the source film, only that something (perhaps something intangible) is lost in the process.

Perhaps, though it really makes no difference if you enjoy the look of scanned film, does it? And I do.

For my own work I actually prefer the perfection of digital. As the OP says, each to his own. It would be a dull place if we all did the same thing.

Indeed.

There are times that the overtly 'clean' digital look is preferable. I just can't think of any that apply to me, to be honest.

 

[chmilar]

Yes, it simply replaces the ground glass. My thought is to use the ground glass to focus then swap in the Fotodiox. Not sure if it will require a second round of focusing but the movements shouldn't change.

From the "in action" photos on the Fotodiox website, it is clear that the camera's sensor will be located much farther back than where the ground glass is located.

This means that, if you first composed and focused on the ground glass, you will have to refocus after attaching the camera. If you refocus by moving the rear standard forward until the sensor is at the same position as the ground glass, the movements should remain valid. You may need to make some small adjustments because the weight and lever-action of the camera on the adapter could induce some flex in parts of the large format camera.

 

[sim667]

Or a Hasslblad Flextight X5 for only 20k.

I think its smarter just to let special photos being scanned for 5,- a piece by a professional scanning shop and keep the rest analogue. Thank you edge for enlightening me about the canon scanner!

I used to operate one of those flextights...... beautiful scanners.

To be fair by the time the OP has got their Medium format camera, High Quality Scanner, all the stuff to process everything and a couple of years materials, they'd probably be better off buying a Hasselblad H4D second hand, or a leaf back.

 

[ChrisA]

Just wondering if some of you kind folks could help me out with a query or two about using medium format film.....

I don't see much reason to shoot medium format film. If you are going to shoot things that don't move and will wait while you adjust your camera then you can shoot a 4x5 view camera. I would not suggest a view camera for fashion models or weddings, those are what medium format was best at. But for ANY subject that can wait and does not move very fast the 4x5 will seriously outperform the medium format system and at lower cost. The biggest advantage of the view camera is the movements. You can keep ALL the vertical lines vertical in-camera and the result is nearly grainless and has enough detail for truly huge prints.

One problem with these larger film formats, both 4x5 and medium format is the amount of light you need. You are shooting at low ISO and maybe f/11 to f/22 and film has an exposure time limit. So yu end of needing to add some light. It was common in the film era for people to haul out 1000 watt-second "Speedotron" power pack strobes. These strobe lights fit in their own shipping containers and have wheels. "everyone" used these. At ISO=160 and f/22 you need a LOT of light.

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

I don't see much reason to shoot medium format film. If you are going to shoot things that don't move and will wait while you adjust your camera then you can shoot a 4x5 view camera.

Thanks, Chris. I have decided on this (4x5) as the right thing for me to go off and explore next.