Film for my analog medium format camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, May 7, 2012.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    So, I'm expecting my Mamiya 645 Pro TL to arrive soon, and I'm curious
    about what film to get for it.

    Keep in mind that I have never shot medium format, and it's been
    almost 15 years since I shot with analog film, so I'm seriously out of
    the loop, but I'm eager to get back into it.

    So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
    though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.

    Kodak has P160WW and P400WW color film. The number seems to be the
    ISO, but is this a good film?

    I've also found some 120mm ISO 100 "lomography" film, which I have a
    hard time understanding what it does. the LOMO was a 35mm camera, so
    is this 120mm film trying to recreate the effect of the LOMO camera in
    some way? Sounds intresting.

    All I'm looking for here is some form of general commentary about
    120mm film, the Mamiya and Things to Think About. :)

    Thanks in advance!

    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 7, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 07/05/2012 11:43, Sandman wrote:
    > So, I'm expecting my Mamiya 645 Pro TL to arrive soon, and I'm curious
    > about what film to get for it.
    >
    > Keep in mind that I have never shot medium format, and it's been
    > almost 15 years since I shot with analog film, so I'm seriously out of
    > the loop, but I'm eager to get back into it.
    >
    > So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
    > though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.


    No, you're looking for 120 film, which is 60mm wide. Or 220 film, which
    is also 60mm wide. Depends on which back you're getting with the camera?
    AFAIK there's also 135 and polaroid backs.

    > Kodak has P160WW and P400WW color film. The number seems to be the
    > ISO, but is this a good film?


    Never heard them referred by these numbers, but are you talking about
    Portra 160 and Portra 400? Google should come up with loads of reviews.

    > I've also found some 120mm ISO 100 "lomography" film, which I have a
    > hard time understanding what it does. the LOMO was a 35mm camera, so
    > is this 120mm film trying to recreate the effect of the LOMO camera in
    > some way? Sounds intresting.


    No, that's just a batch of discontinued Agfa APX 400 B&W film sold with
    a Lomography label. But given that it's at least 7 years old film, you
    might still get interesting "effects". ;-)

    Lomo has a nice list of available 120 film here:

    <http://microsites.lomography.com/filmshop/120>

    --
    Illegitimi non carborundum
    Joe Kotroczo, May 7, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Joe Kotroczo <> wrote:

    > > So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
    > > though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.

    >
    > No, you're looking for 120 film, which is 60mm wide. Or 220 film, which
    > is also 60mm wide. Depends on which back you're getting with the camera?
    > AFAIK there's also 135 and polaroid backs.


    The camera hasn't arrived yet, so I can't double check, but it was my
    impression that it was to be delivered with a 120mm back.

    > > Kodak has P160WW and P400WW color film. The number seems to be the
    > > ISO, but is this a good film?

    >
    > Never heard them referred by these numbers, but are you talking about
    > Portra 160 and Portra 400? Google should come up with loads of reviews.


    Yes, sorry, the full listing is:

    Negativ färgfilm P160WW 120-film 5-pack Potra

    So regardless of the spelling, it seems to be Portra 160/400

    > > I've also found some 120mm ISO 100 "lomography" film, which I have a
    > > hard time understanding what it does. the LOMO was a 35mm camera, so
    > > is this 120mm film trying to recreate the effect of the LOMO camera in
    > > some way? Sounds intresting.

    >
    > No, that's just a batch of discontinued Agfa APX 400 B&W film sold with
    > a Lomography label. But given that it's at least 7 years old film, you
    > might still get interesting "effects". ;-)


    Hmm? These are 120mm ISO 100 color "lomography" film...

    Here is a pic of the box:
    http://www.kaffebrus.com/files/100frontr.jpg

    Doesn't strike me as refurbished 7 year old film to me :)

    > Lomo has a nice list of available 120 film here:
    >
    > <http://microsites.lomography.com/filmshop/120>


    Right, it appears that the branding is the same as the "official"
    lomography film from that site, but the official site doesn't seem to
    carry this ISO 100 color film (anymore?), which probably means it's
    not in production any longer.

    Any comment on this film? Why would I get lomo 120mm film for my
    camera? Does it differ from 35mm in a LOMO camera? I'm note sure how
    these two worlds combine :)



    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 7, 2012
    #3
  4. Sandman

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 07/05/2012 15:18, Sandman wrote:
    (...)
    >>> I've also found some 120mm ISO 100 "lomography" film, which I have a
    >>> hard time understanding what it does. the LOMO was a 35mm camera, so
    >>> is this 120mm film trying to recreate the effect of the LOMO camera in
    >>> some way? Sounds intresting.

    >>
    >> No, that's just a batch of discontinued Agfa APX 400 B&W film sold with
    >> a Lomography label. But given that it's at least 7 years old film, you
    >> might still get interesting "effects". ;-)

    >
    > Hmm? These are 120mm ISO 100 color "lomography" film...
    >
    > Here is a pic of the box:
    > http://www.kaffebrus.com/files/100frontr.jpg
    >
    > Doesn't strike me as refurbished 7 year old film to me :)


    How do you know? I still think it's re-branded old stock.

    >> Lomo has a nice list of available 120 film here:
    >>
    >> <http://microsites.lomography.com/filmshop/120>

    >
    > Right, it appears that the branding is the same as the "official"
    > lomography film from that site, but the official site doesn't seem to
    > carry this ISO 100 color film (anymore?), which probably means it's
    > not in production any longer.


    Well, if it is old stock, they can only sell it as long as the stock lasts.

    > Any comment on this film? Why would I get lomo 120mm film for my
    > camera? Does it differ from 35mm in a LOMO camera? I'm note sure how
    > these two worlds combine :)


    It's "surprise" film, you never know what you'll get.


    --
    Illegitimi non carborundum
    Joe Kotroczo, May 7, 2012
    #4
  5. Sandman

    Peter Irwin Guest

    Sandman <> wrote:
    >
    > So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
    > though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.


    The number 120 for the film has nothing to do with the
    dimensions, it was just a sequential number assigned by
    Kodak. In the early days, Kodak introduced a new rollfilm
    format for nearly every camera. Around 1912 they numbered
    the existing sizes from 101 to 129, and then finished the
    series off with 130.

    120 film was the film for the no.2 Brownie, which was the
    best selling camera from 1901 to 1932. The film for the
    most popular camera was widely available, and so a lot of
    camera manufacturers made cameras that took that size film.

    > All I'm looking for here is some form of general commentary about
    > 120mm film, the Mamiya and Things to Think About. :)


    All the films from Kodak, Fuji and Ilford are good.
    400 speed film is easier to shoot hand-held than
    100 speed film. An 8x10 made from a 645 400 speed
    negative will show some grain, but generally less than
    a 100 speed 35mm negative making the same size print.

    Peter.
    --
    Peter Irwin, May 7, 2012
    #5
  6. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    > Sandman writes:
    >
    > > So regardless of the spelling, it seems to be Portra 160/400

    >
    > Portra is nice for people pictures. And the 400 is okay to use for MF because
    > the larger format offsets any increase in grain, although Portra has never
    > been a grainy film.
    >
    > Examples of this and other films, in both MF and 35 mm:
    >
    > http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan1.jpg
    > http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan2.jpg
    > http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan3.jpg
    > http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan4.jpg
    > http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan5.jpg
    > http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan6.jpg
    > http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan7.jpg
    > http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan8.jpg


    Amazing shots and amazing grain, thanks!


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 8, 2012
    #6
  7. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Joe Kotroczo <> wrote:

    > >>> I've also found some 120mm ISO 100 "lomography" film, which I have a
    > >>> hard time understanding what it does. the LOMO was a 35mm camera, so
    > >>> is this 120mm film trying to recreate the effect of the LOMO camera in
    > >>> some way? Sounds intresting.
    > >>
    > >> No, that's just a batch of discontinued Agfa APX 400 B&W film sold with
    > >> a Lomography label. But given that it's at least 7 years old film, you
    > >> might still get interesting "effects". ;-)

    > >
    > > Hmm? These are 120mm ISO 100 color "lomography" film...
    > >
    > > Here is a pic of the box:
    > > http://www.kaffebrus.com/files/100frontr.jpg
    > >
    > > Doesn't strike me as refurbished 7 year old film to me :)

    >
    > How do you know? I still think it's re-branded old stock.


    I have no idea, really, just got the impression that it wasn't :)

    > >> Lomo has a nice list of available 120 film here:
    > >>
    > >> <http://microsites.lomography.com/filmshop/120>

    > >
    > > Right, it appears that the branding is the same as the "official"
    > > lomography film from that site, but the official site doesn't seem to
    > > carry this ISO 100 color film (anymore?), which probably means it's
    > > not in production any longer.

    >
    > Well, if it is old stock, they can only sell it as long as the stock lasts.


    Indeed.

    > > Any comment on this film? Why would I get lomo 120mm film for my
    > > camera? Does it differ from 35mm in a LOMO camera? I'm note sure how
    > > these two worlds combine :)

    >
    > It's "surprise" film, you never know what you'll get.


    Haha, well, that kind of explains it then :) I should probbaly get
    some, just to try it out :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 8, 2012
    #7
  8. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <jo8soq$942$>, Peter Irwin <>
    wrote:

    > > So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
    > > though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.

    >
    > The number 120 for the film has nothing to do with the
    > dimensions, it was just a sequential number assigned by
    > Kodak. In the early days, Kodak introduced a new rollfilm
    > format for nearly every camera. Around 1912 they numbered
    > the existing sizes from 101 to 129, and then finished the
    > series off with 130.


    Wow, I had no idea. Thanks!

    > 120 film was the film for the no.2 Brownie, which was the
    > best selling camera from 1901 to 1932. The film for the
    > most popular camera was widely available, and so a lot of
    > camera manufacturers made cameras that took that size film.


    Wait, so 120 still pertains to a specific size, then? Because when I
    look online, I see listings for "polaroid", "35mm" and "120" (I think
    I may have added "mm" to the end of 120 myself at some point). And as
    far as I'm aware, the Mamiya would only accept film of a specific
    X-dimension in the back piece that it is coming with, and as far as
    I'm aware, that's "120 film". Maybe I should look this up on wikipedia
    before assuming anything more? :)

    > > All I'm looking for here is some form of general commentary about
    > > 120mm film, the Mamiya and Things to Think About. :)

    >
    > All the films from Kodak, Fuji and Ilford are good.
    > 400 speed film is easier to shoot hand-held than
    > 100 speed film.


    I am predicting to do most of my MF shooting in my (amateur) studio
    though, which will have sufficient lighting and needn't require the
    camera to be handheld. Would you recommend the ISO 100 for studio work?

    > An 8x10 made from a 645 400 speed
    > negative will show some grain, but generally less than
    > a 100 speed 35mm negative making the same size print.


    Yes, someone sent some sample pics as a reply, and the grain was
    beautiful whatever little could be seen. I don't mind grain, really.




    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 8, 2012
    #8
  9. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    > Sandman writes:
    >
    > > So, I'm expecting my Mamiya 645 Pro TL to arrive soon, and I'm curious
    > > about what film to get for it.
    > >
    > > Keep in mind that I have never shot medium format, and it's been
    > > almost 15 years since I shot with analog film, so I'm seriously out of
    > > the loop, but I'm eager to get back into it.
    > >
    > > So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
    > > though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.
    > >
    > > Kodak has P160WW and P400WW color film. The number seems to be the
    > > ISO, but is this a good film?

    >
    > Portra was a good film for portraits and people, as the name implies. Is this
    > the follow-up to Portra? I haven't been keeping track.


    It seems as the model numbers above is for the Portra film, and I
    can't explain why the online listing for it had that model number.

    > I also liked to shoot Fuji Provia 100F, sometimes Velvia, sometimes Portra
    > chromogenic black and white which had extremely fine grain (which, when used
    > in MF, gives fabulous results).


    Yes, I saw some samples from "Mxsmanic" which were awesome! I found
    the Provia film. It's out of stock for the moment, but I'll look into
    it.

    But that begs the question, and I know I'm showing my ignorance not
    only about MF, but analog shooting in general - the Provia I see is
    "135"-film. And as far as I know, the back piece of my incoming Mamiya
    is a 120 film backpiece. Is this interchangeable? Irwin said that
    "120" isn't the number of the dimension, just a sequence naming
    number. So would 120-film and 135-film both fit in the same backpiece?



    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 8, 2012
    #9
  10. Sandman

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 08/05/2012 07:41, Sandman wrote:
    > In article<>,


    (...)
    > But that begs the question, and I know I'm showing my ignorance not
    > only about MF, but analog shooting in general - the Provia I see is
    > "135"-film. And as far as I know, the back piece of my incoming Mamiya
    > is a 120 film backpiece. Is this interchangeable? Irwin said that
    > "120" isn't the number of the dimension, just a sequence naming
    > number. So would 120-film and 135-film both fit in the same backpiece?


    No, 135-film is 35mm film.




    --
    Illegitimi non carborundum
    Joe Kotroczo, May 8, 2012
    #10
  11. Sandman

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 08/05/2012 07:33, Sandman wrote:
    > In article<jo8soq$942$>, Peter Irwin<>
    > wrote:


    (...)
    > Wait, so 120 still pertains to a specific size, then?


    Yes.

    > Because when I
    > look online, I see listings for "polaroid", "35mm" and "120" (I think
    > I may have added "mm" to the end of 120 myself at some point). And as
    > far as I'm aware, the Mamiya would only accept film of a specific
    > X-dimension in the back piece that it is coming with, and as far as
    > I'm aware, that's "120 film". Maybe I should look this up on wikipedia
    > before assuming anything more? :)


    Yes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format_(film)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format




    --
    Illegitimi non carborundum
    Joe Kotroczo, May 8, 2012
    #11
  12. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Joe Kotroczo <> wrote:

    > On 08/05/2012 07:41, Sandman wrote:
    > > In article<>,

    >
    > (...)
    > > But that begs the question, and I know I'm showing my ignorance not
    > > only about MF, but analog shooting in general - the Provia I see is
    > > "135"-film. And as far as I know, the back piece of my incoming Mamiya
    > > is a 120 film backpiece. Is this interchangeable? Irwin said that
    > > "120" isn't the number of the dimension, just a sequence naming
    > > number. So would 120-film and 135-film both fit in the same backpiece?

    >
    > No, 135-film is 35mm film.


    Yeah, I just learned that. Thanks!

    120 is 6cm wide holds about 15-16 exposures
    220 is also 6cm wide and holds twice the amount of exposures
    135 is 3.6cm wide

    Just typing to remember myself. See, I'm learning! :-D


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 8, 2012
    #12
  13. Sandman

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 08/05/2012 08:37, Sandman wrote:
    > In article<>,
    > Joe Kotroczo<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 08/05/2012 07:41, Sandman wrote:
    >>> In article<>,

    >>
    >> (...)
    >>> But that begs the question, and I know I'm showing my ignorance not
    >>> only about MF, but analog shooting in general - the Provia I see is
    >>> "135"-film. And as far as I know, the back piece of my incoming Mamiya
    >>> is a 120 film backpiece. Is this interchangeable? Irwin said that
    >>> "120" isn't the number of the dimension, just a sequence naming
    >>> number. So would 120-film and 135-film both fit in the same backpiece?

    >>
    >> No, 135-film is 35mm film.

    >
    > Yeah, I just learned that. Thanks!
    >
    > 120 is 6cm wide holds about 15-16 exposures
    > 220 is also 6cm wide and holds twice the amount of exposures


    Yes, but 220 is also thinner than 120 and needs a different pressure
    plate. Which is why you get different backs for 120 and 220.


    --
    Illegitimi non carborundum
    Joe Kotroczo, May 8, 2012
    #13
  14. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Joe Kotroczo <> wrote:

    > > 120 is 6cm wide holds about 15-16 exposures
    > > 220 is also 6cm wide and holds twice the amount of exposures

    >
    > Yes, but 220 is also thinner than 120 and needs a different pressure
    > plate. Which is why you get different backs for 120 and 220.


    Yes, I looked at the manual, and indeed, there are two different backs
    for my camera. Now I don't know which is included... So I shouldn't
    order any film until I know :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 8, 2012
    #14
  15. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    > Sandman writes:
    >
    > > Yes, someone sent some sample pics as a reply, and the grain was
    > > beautiful whatever little could be seen. I don't mind grain, really.

    >
    > One of the advantages of medium format is that you can show higher speeds for
    > film without worrying as much about grain. If you shoot ISO 400 film on your
    > MF camera, you'll still get extremely smooth, sharp photos, whereas on 35mm
    > the grain would be much more intrusive. Of course, if you decide to shoot ISO
    > 100 film on your MF camera, the results will be extraordinarily smooth and
    > silky.


    Nice, thanks for the info. I will try both speeds and compare :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 8, 2012
    #15
  16. Sandman

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > In article <jo8soq$942$>, Peter Irwin <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > > So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
    > > > though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.

    > >
    > > The number 120 for the film has nothing to do with the
    > > dimensions, it was just a sequential number assigned by
    > > Kodak. In the early days, Kodak introduced a new rollfilm
    > > format for nearly every camera. Around 1912 they numbered
    > > the existing sizes from 101 to 129, and then finished the
    > > series off with 130.

    >
    > Wow, I had no idea. Thanks!
    >
    > > 120 film was the film for the no.2 Brownie, which was the
    > > best selling camera from 1901 to 1932. The film for the
    > > most popular camera was widely available, and so a lot of
    > > camera manufacturers made cameras that took that size film.

    >
    > Wait, so 120 still pertains to a specific size, then? Because when I
    > look online, I see listings for "polaroid", "35mm" and "120" (I think
    > I may have added "mm" to the end of 120 myself at some point). And as
    > far as I'm aware, the Mamiya would only accept film of a specific
    > X-dimension in the back piece that it is coming with, and as far as
    > I'm aware, that's "120 film". Maybe I should look this up on wikipedia
    > before assuming anything more? :)


    Mamiya made four backs for the 645 Pro TL. One was for 120, one was for
    220, one was for 135, and one was for polaroid.

    120 and 220 are the same width, but 220 has twice the length and no
    backing paper--since it's thinner it needs a different pressure plate
    and since it doesn't have an opaque paper backing, any transport for 120
    that has a window through which the frame numbers are visible will
    result in exposed streaks on 220. The Mamiya 120 and 220 backs are the
    same but with different inserts--the inserts are removable and
    interchangeable.

    135 is ordinary 35mm film, the back can be set to shoot a panorama on
    135 with a single shot, other than that or using special films that are
    not available in 120 it doesn't seem to have much utility.

    The Polaroid back uses Polaroid film packs and is a useful accessory--in
    studio use you shoot a polaroid to double-check lighting and whatnot
    before going with negative film, pretty much the same concept as
    chimping with digital.

    All of the backs result in a 56x41.5 image except the 135 back that is
    24x36 or 13x36 with the panorama adapter.

    You can find details on all of them at
    <http://www.mamiya.co.jp/home/camera/eng/products/645protl/access.html>
    J. Clarke, May 8, 2012
    #16
  17. Sandman

    otter Guest

    On May 8, 3:14 am, Sandman <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >  Joe Kotroczo <> wrote:
    >
    > > > 120 is 6cm wide holds about 15-16 exposures
    > > > 220 is also 6cm wide and holds twice the amount of exposures

    >
    > > Yes, but 220 is also thinner than 120 and needs a different pressure
    > > plate. Which is why you get different backs for 120 and 220.

    >
    > Yes, I looked at the manual, and indeed, there are two different backs
    > for my camera. Now I don't know which is included... So I shouldn't
    > order any film until I know :)
    >
    > --
    > Sandman[.net]


    Assuming you are shooting 120, how much will it cost per shot?
    otter, May 9, 2012
    #17
  18. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    > > Nice, thanks for the info. I will try both speeds and compare :)

    >
    > If this is your first venture into medium format, you'll be amazed by the
    > quality of the results.


    I'm sure. I currently shoot with a Nikon D3s, which has amazing
    quality, but gathering from the shots I've seen with this camera and
    lens (80mm/1.9), it has some real potential :)

    > Do you plan to scan the film, or project it, or optically print it, or what?


    I've found a lab that can develop the film for me, and enlarge it.
    Seeing as this is my first attempt in this world, I'll go about it
    slowly, but I have thought about setting up a dark room in the shower
    next to my studio for developing and enlarging shots myself, but
    that's a later question. :)

    > I used to scan everything with a LS-8000 (which is probably obsolete these
    > days), yielding excellent scans of about 8160x8160, as I recall, that were 450
    > MB in size uncompressed (60 MB as highest-quality JPEGs). They were always a
    > great pleasure to look at. Had to sell all the equipment, but I still have the
    > scans to remind me of the good old days.


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

    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!

    This seems to be a contender:
    <http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?sku=B11B178011&utm_s
    ource=google&utm_medium=shopping&utm_campaign=base&ref=googlebase>

    And only $600!



    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 9, 2012
    #18
  19. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article
    <>,
    otter <> wrote:

    > On May 8, 3:14 am, Sandman <> wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > >  Joe Kotroczo <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > > 120 is 6cm wide holds about 15-16 exposures
    > > > > 220 is also 6cm wide and holds twice the amount of exposures

    > >
    > > > Yes, but 220 is also thinner than 120 and needs a different pressure
    > > > plate. Which is why you get different backs for 120 and 220.

    > >
    > > Yes, I looked at the manual, and indeed, there are two different backs
    > > for my camera. Now I don't know which is included... So I shouldn't
    > > order any film until I know :)
    > >
    > > --
    > > Sandman[.net]

    >
    > Assuming you are shooting 120, how much will it cost per shot?


    The camera has now arrived, and the included back is a 120 film back.

    A five pack of 120 film here is about 300 SEK ($43), which thus
    contains 15 * 5 = 75 shots, which means that it costs 57 cents per
    shot. Then add developing, which is $9 for one roll, which adds 60
    cents per roll, so $1.20 seems to be the result, per shot.

    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.

    Just a mathematical exercise, I already make about $120 per studio
    shoot (I'm an amateur, remember?:) so it's not like I'll loose money
    by trying out medium format. I paid $437 for the camera, which is
    $6800 less than what I paid for my Nikon :-D


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 9, 2012
    #19
  20. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Mxsmanic <> 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 :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 9, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    495
    Mxsmanic
    May 23, 2004
  2. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    422
    Guest
    May 23, 2004
  3. Rick Baker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,147
    Scott W
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    680
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Whisky-dave

    kickstarter, medium format film popup camera

    Whisky-dave, May 7, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    118
    Whisky-dave
    May 8, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page