Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Film for my analog medium format camera

Reply
Thread Tools

Film for my analog medium format camera

 
 
Andrew Reilly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2012
On Wed, 09 May 2012 10:45:24 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sandman writes:
>
>> To be truthful, I had no idea there existed medium format scanners.
>> This is definitely something I should look into! Thanks!

>
> The Nikon LS-8000 that I had was a superlative MF scanner that produced
> beautiful results. I don't know if the LS-8000 or LS-9000 are still made. They
> were/are expensive. You need a good scanner if you plan to profit from
> digitization of your film, otherwise the investment in MF is largely wasted.
>
>> Developing the film costs about $6 per roll, which is a bargain, so
>> with a scanner, I would save a lot of money in the end, plus get them
>> digitally. SO, the question is what current medium format scanners
>> there might be? I'll google it!

>
> The Nikons above are the ones I know. Imacon used to make scanners, I don't
> know if they are still around. Up from there, you move to drum scanners, but
> they are very expensive and awkward to use, although they produce even better
> results.
>
> You need a scanner if you don't want to go broke paying a lab for scans. And
> flatbed scanners will not do the trick, as a general rule.


I've been happy with the results I've achieved with an Epson V700, which I
settled on when I realized that I couldn't justify the expense of a LS9000
(which was still available at the time). To a certain extent it probably depends
a bit on what your expectations are. The V700 produced *much* better scans
than the film developer shops near me. It has no trouble resolving discrete
film grain for the 400ISO colour film I've used, which seems a bit of a hard
limit, to me. Portra160 is a different ballgame, though.

Here are a couple of more recent examples of mine (35mm, not medium format):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-...ream/lightbox/
(ilford delta 400)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-...ream/lightbox/
(Kodak Portra 160VC)

There are film-scanning groups on flickr that have discussions and plenty of
examples to study.

Unfortunately my F3 is still broken (dropped), so my scanner is sitting idle for
a while...

The V700 has medium-format film holders, and I've scanned some negs from a
friend's Mamiya 7, and they looked awesome. Big files, though.

Cheers,

--
Andrew
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Andrew Reilly <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I've been happy with the results I've achieved with an Epson V700, which I
> settled on when I realized that I couldn't justify the expense of a LS9000
> (which was still available at the time). To a certain extent it probably
> depends
> a bit on what your expectations are. The V700 produced *much* better scans
> than the film developer shops near me. It has no trouble resolving discrete
> film grain for the 400ISO colour film I've used, which seems a bit of a hard
> limit, to me. Portra160 is a different ballgame, though.
>
> Here are a couple of more recent examples of mine (35mm, not medium format):
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-...ream/lightbox/
> (ilford delta 400)
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-...ream/lightbox/
> (Kodak Portra 160VC)
>
> There are film-scanning groups on flickr that have discussions and plenty of
> examples to study.
>
> Unfortunately my F3 is still broken (dropped), so my scanner is sitting idle
> for
> a while...
>
> The V700 has medium-format film holders, and I've scanned some negs from a
> friend's Mamiya 7, and they looked awesome. Big files, though.


Thanks for the samples, the quality of the scanner doesn't seem to be
a problem, really. And the scanner is cheap, so it seems like a given,
then.


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joe Kotroczo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-10-2012
On 09/05/2012 09:45, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sandman writes:
>
>> To be truthful, I had no idea there existed medium format scanners.
>> This is definitely something I should look into! Thanks!

>
> The Nikon LS-8000 that I had was a superlative MF scanner that produced
> beautiful results. I don't know if the LS-8000 or LS-9000 are still made. They
> were/are expensive.


They're no longer made and go for more than they cost new on ebay.

(...)
> The Nikons above are the ones I know. Imacon used to make scanners, I don't
> know if they are still around. Up from there, you move to drum scanners, but
> they are very expensive and awkward to use, although they produce even better
> results.


I believe Imacon was picked up by Hasselblad. I also believe they're
very expensive.

A cheaper alternative seem to be the upper-end Epson flatbeds, for which
there are wetmount kits.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-10-2012
In article <2012051001302111978-adunc79617@mypacksnet>,
Michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 2012-05-09 09:36:04 +0000, Sandman said:
>
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>> So, if I buy a medium format scanner (like the Epson V700) which
> >>> retails at $600, that adds $8 per shot to the first 5-pack of film I
> >>> buy. The more film I buy, the cheaper it gets of course.
> >>
> >> Remember that you need an excellent film scanner in order to profit from
> >> large
> >> negatives and transparencies (if you want them digitized), otherwise
> >> you're
> >> just paying a lot more money for something that will produce final results
> >> worse than 35mm. That generally means a dedicated film scanner, if you can
> >> find one, not a flatbed scanner.

> >
> > Hmmm, ok, I should look around for some film scanners that can take
> > medium format then, and compare prices... I'll create a new thread
> > here to ask for advice

>
> The Nikon 9000 series was the last of the dedicated film scanners for
> MF and it is not made anymore. They go on ebay for more than they were
> new and that means about $3K now. They were $2K new. The 5000 series
> cannot scan MF. The 9000 is significantly better than flatbeds and has
> better workflow. But they are scarce, no longer available new (unless
> someone has an unused boxed one on ebay) and $$$$$.


The Epson V700 got some mentions here by others, and it's a flatbed
scanner. I'm sure a dedicated film scanner will be better, but the
V700 has MF inserts and is only $600. Since I'm unsure whether I'll
really will invest much into MF photography, it seems like a
reasonable starting point.



--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there a decent film scanner for 6x4.5 medium format film $500 or less? Rick Baker Digital Photography 6 03-17-2006 02:22 PM
Epson Perfection 2400 - scanning medium format film? spassig Digital Photography 1 10-13-2004 10:44 AM
11MP digital or medium format film? Beowulf Digital Photography 56 09-05-2004 04:19 PM
Help..Digital vs film for small (35mm) and medium (2 1/4) format? Digital Photography 0 05-23-2004 08:14 PM
Help..Digital vs film for small (35mm) and medium (2 1/4) format? Digital Photography 4 05-23-2004 05:43 AM



Advertisments