4x5 on Flatbed vs 6x7 on film scanner

[Frank Petronio]

How boring this would be without Audioexcels. Who cares if he ever makes a photo?

[audioexcels]

[QUOTE=Tony Karnezis;37819

Thanks Tony. Very nice post and Joe's posts have been great as have others.

Very enlightening on the 35mm front of things. I think it's time for me to get back to rangefinder business.

[Robert Fisher]

audio, the only situation that is "mind-boggling" is your behavior.

[audioexcels]

How boring this would be without Audioexcels. Who cares if he ever makes a photo?

LOLOLOLOL

The always reliable Franky

[audioexcels]

audio, the only situation that is "mind-boggling" is your behavior.

Ouch...that stung Bob...

[Tony Karnezis]

Tony I remember TechPan film being used in 35mm circles that was the grail of detail in my earlier years. Unfortunately it was/is a fussy film and contrast control is a bit to manage.

The best work (sharp) in my archives comes from a Fuji 645 rangefinder followed by 35mm. Now a days I am getting sharp results with LF but the 645 is hands down far more portable and efficient.

Joe, I had a friend who was a die hard TechPan devotee, but he did mention that it wasn't very forgiving because of contrast issues. I was very impressed at the 16x20s he could produce--very smooth & grain-free. One could easily think they were done with MF because his technique was impeccable, for he was a sharpness freak.

I've heard such great things about those Fuji rangefinders. As you know, I carry a Mamiya 6 as my walk-around camera since it's compact, collapsible, has great optics, and I like the square format. I'd rather get a shot than miss it because I don't have the time to set up my LF rig.

Sorry to Don and any others around here for my remarks, but it's mind-boggling when you've been reading every piece of literature posted about film and digital for the past 6 years and now everything that has been read is basically in the re-working or should have been re-worked back when it was said!

How do you think the rest of us feel who haven't read every piece of literature?!

I just don't quite understand the words spoken of circumstances of:

1) On a Leica forum, people will state how much better even a $50 medium format camera is than any Leica 35mm setup due to surface area.

2) How the Canon and other various DSLRs or MF backs, when used correctly, produce quality as good as/similar to 4X5 or even 5X7 LF enlargements.

3) How tests show that MF film needs to be drum scanned to beat digital. Nothing else will do.

4) Then this mural that is 40X50" from 35mm film.

5) Lastly, there's Don's examples with 35mm film scans, especially the one using his Howtek scanner, though the color example did turn in a very impressive result.

Audio, if #4 refers to what I said in my previous post about the Franz Lanting photo, I didn't mean to imply that it was better than any particular film format (or digital) but rather I didn't know how good a print could be from 35mm. All the prints I've made have been scanned on a Nikon slide scanner, and they didn't look nearly as good printed at 11x14 as this mural did, undoubtedly because of several weak links in the workflow.

Makes me wonder why anyone shoots with a digital cam when film cams are so much cheaper and if you want to make an exhibition from your work, be it 35mm or digital, it won't cost a lot to have such small film go through a quality drum scan.

I.E. You can buy the Leica M8 and 35mm lens OR you can shoot with a Contax G2 w/45mm Planar, and achieve the same results. Why does anyone pay $8000-9000 more for the Leica setup???

I think the answer to your question varies with the user. For some professionals who need great quality with fast turnaround, or if it's what their clients expect, it's necessity. For others, it's convenience, as they can afford the Leica or digital system of choice. I can't afford the depreciation of a new DSLR, so I buy 1 generation behind. I shoot with a Nikon D200 when I'm on vacation with my girlfriend because it's good quality for what I need, fast & convenient. But in smaller formats, I much prefer shooting with the Mamiya or Nikon F4 or Leica M3. And I know I'll always be able to use the negatives.

To answer your question with a specific example, I know a well known photographer who had an exhibit of his work on "landscapes of the female figure" a few years back. He can literally afford any gear he wants, but he shot the project with B&W film using a Nikon and a 200mm Micro Nikkor. The resulting prints were up to 6 ft long and looked incredible. We're talking 1:1 macro shots of an areola that, when blown up to that size, look like some otherworldly landscapes. When I asked him why he didn't use a larger film format or digital, it was basically because he was comfortable with the Nikon, needed the closeup capability of 35mm, and knew he'd get good results from it. When asked in an interview, he said if he had to do it again, he'd still use film, perhaps with a Contax RTS III and a 60mm macro.

I still find all these format comparisons a bit confusing, partly because they all use different scanners run by different operators. I agree more with Joe in that Dmax seems to be as or more important than spi, at least for my needs. It's freeing to know that I can get great technical results from scans from any format as long as they are done with a good scanner run by someone who knows what they're doing. It allows me to simply use whatever camera is best to capture the moment.

[audioexcels]

Audio, if #4 refers to what I said in my previous post about the Franz Lanting photo, I didn't mean to imply that it was better than any particular film format (or digital) but rather I didn't know how good a print could be from 35mm. All the prints I've made have been scanned on a Nikon slide scanner, and they didn't look nearly as good printed at 11x14 as this mural did, undoubtedly because of several weak links in the workflow.


I think the answer to your question varies with the user. For some professionals who need great quality with fast turnaround, or if it's what their clients expect, it's necessity. For others, it's convenience, as they can afford the Leica or digital system of choice. I can't afford the depreciation of a new DSLR, so I buy 1 generation behind. I shoot with a Nikon D200 when I'm on vacation with my girlfriend because it's good quality for what I need, fast & convenient. But in smaller formats, I much prefer shooting with the Mamiya or Nikon F4 or Leica M3. And I know I'll always be able to use the negatives.


To answer your question with a specific example, I know a well known photographer who had an exhibit of his work on "landscapes of the female figure" a few years back. He can literally afford any gear he wants, but he shot the project with B&W film using a Nikon and a 200mm Micro Nikkor. The resulting prints were up to 6 ft long and looked incredible. We're talking 1:1 macro shots of an areola that, when blown up to that size, look like some otherworldly landscapes. When I asked him why he didn't use a larger film format or digital, it was basically because he was comfortable with the Nikon, needed the closeup capability of 35mm, and knew he'd get good results from it. When asked in an interview, he said if he had to do it again, he'd still use film, perhaps with a Contax RTS III and a 60mm macro.


I still find all these format comparisons a bit confusing, partly because they all use different scanners run by different operators. I agree more with Joe in that Dmax seems to be as or more important than spi, at least for my needs. It's freeing to know that I can get great technical results from scans from any format as long as they are done with a good scanner run by someone who knows what they're doing. It allows me to simply use whatever camera is best to capture the moment.

Funny how our thoughts or words resemble each other's...You mention the Nikon and 11X14 size, and that's my own experience, hence, why I got admittingly outlandish with the posts about 35mm when I can print larger and with zero grain from my Kodak FF SLR/C camera.

I did take what you said about the Mural as to being what is possible/potential and not to be compared with other formats, though I do know that many photos have often led people to question what camera/format it was taken with. And your thoughts echo my own since I have never seen any 35mm print that large that did not look like blur...let alone smaller prints, even 8X10 size!

That person doing the macro shoot has the exact camera setup I had...the Zeiss Makro-planar is supposed to be the sharpest macro lens on the planet and it can actually take excruciatingly sharp photos at distances...I guess it's like a Rodenstock Makro-Sironar or any of these APO's such as the Fujinon A, Claron, etc. that can be sharp as a tack at infinity and in close. The Zeiss lens came in three flavors from what I can remember...two from Contax, one from Rollei. Two from Contax featured one that could do a true 1:1, but the other could only do something like 1:2?? Rollei one was 1:1 if memory serves correct. One thing for sure, this lens is really cheap relative to the fidelity, on the used market. I think most just don't want to have a lens they need tripoded on their cams...Lens is such a beastly thing.

With respect to cams for fun...those that you mentioned are all ones I'd be into, though the D200 is not quite my cup of tea, unfortunately. And I definitely agree the previous year or two's models are the best value because they hold value. Digital's latest drop value after a few months, and then they stabilize through time at some given value/figure. So going with a D200 a year after release is very wise because you can always sell it for the same some 2 years later w/few exceptions. Like the Olympus cameras...they always get blown out at downright bargain prices for the expected replacements, and then the replacements come out, and a few months after or maybe even a year after, all those brand new cameras blown out at nothing are selling for more. Look at the E1 as an example...one could buy a brand new E1 for only $300-$400 about 1 year ago. Now, you can get $400 minimum for a used one.


One thing I have to wonder is why not do 10X exposures of 35mm film and then stitch them in PS for one large file? For example, digital shooters do a ton of photos for panoramics, but take a still life or a portrait like this person with the macro setup did...do 10X the shots and you have quite a significant file to work with if they all exposed correctly OR if even 5 of them did...

[Ron Marshall]

One thing I have to wonder is why not do 10X exposures of 35mm film and then stitch them in PS for one large file? For example, digital shooters do a ton of photos for panoramics, but take a still life or a portrait like this person with the macro setup did...do 10X the shots and you have quite a significant file to work with if they all exposed correctly OR if even 5 of them did...

I do 13x 35mm on film all the time, and I don't even have to bother stitching it!

[BennehBoy]

I think I'm pretty late to the show here, but my project workflow is pretty simple, shoot the hell out of the subject/location matter on 6x7 with my Mamiya 7, revisit the areas of high interest on 4x5 or 8x10 depending on accessability.

My current project is the first I'm doing in this way and I'm still in the embryonic stage shooting with the 7. I see this project as lasting maybe 5 years so am in no rush to waste 8x10 film -- In a way the 6x7's are the proofs/contacts for the large format work.

Everything will be scanned on my V700 - if it gets to exhibition stage then I will get drums done for high quality prints.

[Jiri Vasina]

I used to use the 90mm 6x9 Fuji rangefinder back in my darkroom days and the TMax 100 prints look like 4x5. That lens is great. I also used the 65mm version and it was good but the 90mm is amazingly sharp.

I'm using the 90mm one, have used the 65mm one too. Both are wonderful. Results are almost 9x12 in appearance... It's better and much more handy and lighter than RZ67.