I agree. as OP, I request you to read the first page of the thread, altern. think. is there any point in speaking of technicalities here ? but thanks, it has been entertaining nevertheless.
satybhat wrote:
Hi folks,
I currently own a Ricoh A12 mount with 35 cron and 50 ZM for family shots. I also shoot BIF with D4-500f4 combo. However, the two systems are essentially mutually exclusive, i.e. when i take one, i don't bring along the other.
A few weeks ago, I saw the photos printed out on the michaels gallery in Melbourne ( living in Melbourne and loving it)... and I was blown away by the quality of the prints and the look of the photos. The chap said they were made from a film camera .... and the devil got me. Moments later, I was handling a used MP downstairs, the sales chap said it was already sold, but was good enough to let me play with it.
So a few questions have been racing in my mind... ANY pointers to previous threads discussing these would be helpful as well..
1. Is film really dead ? or going to be ?
2. In Melbourne, how convenient is it to get a few rolls processed and the good images scanned into digital ? Any recommended labs to buy and process ?
3. Would you recommend a film scanner ?
4. What do you gain in terms of convenience compared to digital? what do you lose ?
5. Do airport scanners destroy film ? how do you protect it ?
6. Does fuji make rolls > 36 exposures ?
7. Best recommended film for colour ? for b/w ?
8. Thinking about a Leica MP (used) - is it worthwhile for the next 10 yrs ? or would any other RF suffice ?
9. How do you backup / archive the keepers ?
10. AM I silly changing / indulging and will this pass ?
THANKS for your comments folks. Have been thinking about this topic for quite a while.
This is a great forum.
Saty...Show more →
I have a very sophisticated word processing app.
But most of my creative writing...such as it is....is with my 30 yr old Parker fountain pen. I guess that in my case I pick the tools that work for me and give me satisfaction.....I'm not interested in the technology as such...only the outcome.
Probably why I don't see the need to 'upgrade' beyond my 40D, G10 and 1V HS...and Bronica MF gear. Mustn't for get the odd rangefinder.....particularly my Canon one.....the best selling RF ever apparently....
zalmyb wrote:
mawz, why do you say the Frontier is so bad? It seems that it's the scanner of choice for many very good wedding photographers. Not for the scan size, but for highlight retention, skin tone, and color it seems to be pretty darn good.
Because it can be paired with the development process and output fairly fast.
There isn't a lot of choice when it comes to batch scanning.
zalmyb wrote:
mawz, why do you say the Frontier is so bad? It seems that it's the scanner of choice for many very good wedding photographers. Not for the scan size, but for highlight retention, skin tone, and color it seems to be pretty darn good.
It's fast and you can get proof prints at the same time and it adds no extra time to the development, but the colour, highlight retention and skin tones are grossly inferior to even low-end dedicated 35mm scanners, it's also low resolution and the stock profiles massively oversharpen. Frankly I found even good Frontier scans from 35mm to be inferior to what I was getting with a flatbed and ANR glass, let alone my Scan Dual III or IV.
The scanner in the Frontier's is designed to produce consumer-acceptable 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 prints rather than quality scans.
Note that it's pretty much the only option for fast batch scanning of 120/220. For 35mm you're a heck of a lot better off getting a Nikon Coolscan 5000ED and the batch adapters if batch scanning is a need (which it would be for Wedding Shooters). Note that if I was a film-shooting Wedding Photog I'd be using a Frontier for my first-run scans, then a better scanner for the final selects (Imacon or Nikon) where I have a limited number of scans to do and want primo quality.
Y'all may think I'm just a dirty old Devil's Advocate, trying to shoot holes in all the fun ideas about film.
Well, you should know that I'm not immune to the allure.
I just pushed the BIN button on eBay for a decent used Canon T90 (I owned two, just prior to converting to a Canon D60) with FDn 50/1.4 lens.
In recent weeks I've bought FD 85-300, FD 50 Macro and FD 24/2.8, all adapted to M4/3 and with converter to EOS.
Just thought I'd try cutting out the middleman and work with these FD lenses on their own body.
The surprise to me was that the T90 + 50mm cost double what I paid a couple months ago for a EOS 1N with Power Booster E-1 grip! A newer and more sophisticated pro film camera! Granted, I got a smoking deal on that piece.
Additionally this year, I've bought two Contax N1 bodies and N24-85 and N70-200 lenses.
So please be kind in your thoughts when I shoot holes in the film premise -- I'm just a enamored as anyone (well, maybe not!).
To paraphrase the movie title: There Will Be Pictures.
mawz wrote:
It's fast and you can get proof prints at the same time and it adds no extra time to the development, but the colour, highlight retention and skin tones are grossly inferior to even low-end dedicated 35mm scanners, it's also low resolution and the stock profiles massively oversharpen. Frankly I found even good Frontier scans from 35mm to be inferior to what I was getting with a flatbed and ANR glass, let alone my Scan Dual III or IV.
The scanner in the Frontier's is designed to produce consumer-acceptable 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 prints rather than quality scans.
Note that it's pretty much the only option for fast batch scanning of 120/220. For 35mm you're a heck of a lot better off getting a Nikon Coolscan 5000ED and the batch adapters if batch scanning is a need (which it would be for Wedding Shooters). Note that if I was a film-shooting Wedding Photog I'd be using a Frontier for my first-run scans, then a better scanner for the final selects (Imacon or Nikon) where I have a limited number of scans to do and want primo quality....Show more →
I should have been specific. I was talking mainly 120/220. I usually get Frontier scans (though recently I've been getting them done on a Noritsu, just because it's cheaper) and with medium format I'm very happy with everything besides the size (If I ever needed to print larger than say 16x20 I'd probably get them rescanned). But in regards to skin tones and highlight retention I am very, very happy. (this whole set was with the Frontier and I am very happy with the color and especially skin tone).
