carstenw wrote:
Linear, but higher. Interesting. I'll have to play with that a bit.
Unfortunately it doesn't work very well with digital files (I suppose that's what you're using?), because they have quite high global contrast to start with. But if you use the "flattest" possible settings in the RAW converter, you can apply a similar curve with a very different result than you normally get.
I suppose a similar strategy would work with typically flat Canon/Nikon files with their own lenses, perhaps with less exaggerated deviation from the middle line.
carstenw wrote:
I suppose a similar strategy would work with typically flat Canon/Nikon files with their own lenses, perhaps with less exaggerated deviation from the middle line.
I don't think so. A typical digital camera has something like ~11 stops of usable DR, while some B&W films have ~16 stops or more. The deviation from the middle line is because this negative was over exposed, but it doesn't matter that much. What happens is that you move the exposure data within the DR, and it only compresses somewhat to the right and gets noisier from the scanner, to the left.
A properly exposed file from a digital camera will fill much more of the histogram even when the contrast is low. So there's less "room" for applying a curve, even when the image quality is higher.
This is the reason that cameras with a single shutter speed and fixed aperture really works. And you can go out shooting a camera without a meter and get decent images just from guesstimating the exposure. Forget that with a digital camera.
Edit: The problem with film is that you have to dig out the tones with a very high bit depth, because the information is gathered in a very narrow band of greys. It's there, but if the scanner lacks, it will fall apart in image noise when you cut off the "empty" ends of the histogram.
By exposing lower and developing higher, you'll use more of the bits when scanning. But on the other hand you risk compressed highlights and blocked shadows. I find the V700 good enough for using "box speed" and normal development, but only with medium format.
Interesting. I will try it anyway, just so I can see things fall apart But more seriously, I will keep this in mind for when I develop film again, hopefully soon. In fact, I still have some older unscanned negatives which I could work on.
Anybody want to comment on 645 systems? I have been thinking about picking up either a Mamiya 645 (AF) or maybe splashing out on a Contax 645 (though the huge run-up in used prices on these is a deterrent). I have a Mamiya 7 which I like, but I was thinking about times I may want to, you know, look through the lens, and maybe the day I get a used digital back.
The main thing stopping me is that 645 isn't really that much bigger than 135, and while the Mamiya 7(ii) has great optics, it sometimes feels like I am going to break the thing in two when I handle it. I am sure the 645 system is a little better built.
corposant wrote:
Anybody want to comment on 645 systems? I have been thinking about picking up either a Mamiya 645 (AF) or maybe splashing out on a Contax 645 (though the huge run-up in used prices on these is a deterrent). I have a Mamiya 7 which I like, but I was thinking about times I may want to, you know, look through the lens, and maybe the day I get a used digital back.
The main thing stopping me is that 645 isn't really that much bigger than 135, and while the Mamiya 7(ii) has great optics, it sometimes feels like I am going to break the thing in two when I handle it. I am sure the 645 system is a little better built....Show more →
I'd go for a classic Hasselblad. Yeah, it's 6x6, but still smaller than most 6x4.5 systems, and with film you get the larger area "for free" then. And you can use digital backs!
With a prism viewfinder and perhaps a grip, it'll handle like any large SLR. There is a wide variety of lenses and the system is still "alive", which many other systems aren't.
Reservation: I really don't know anything about this.
I will add that ergonomics are important, and I really prefer to compose through a 90 degree VF and not at waist-level.
I should probably also throw Pentax into the mix too. Contax scares me a bit b/c of the price and the limited amount of service life left from Kyocera. I also think that the 645N will take Contax lenses with an adapter - maybe that's the way to go.
corposant wrote:
Nothing like an informed opinion, thanks Martin!
I will add that ergonomics are important, and I really prefer to compose through a 90 degree VF and not at waist-level.
I should probably also throw Pentax into the mix too. Contax scares me a bit b/c of the price and the limited amount of service life left from Kyocera. I also think that the 645N will take Contax lenses with an adapter - maybe that's the way to go.
The Contax 645 is wonderful. When you pick it up and hold it in your hand it feels perfect (at least my hands). But as you said, it's a lot of money for a dead system stuffed with electronics.
I tried Bronica and Mamiya for 645, nice systems, I actually owned a Bronica ETRS for a few months but didn't really like it. Mamiya I never owned simply because it just didn't feel right when I held it. I ended up with a 501CM, like Martin suggests. One thing to note is that grips for Hasselblad are left hand and pretty crappy, the exception being the uber-expensive and heavy CW winder for the 503CXi and 503CW.
But to be honest, I have no issues using my 501CM without a grip and with a PM90, even with a 250 lens. You need to adjust a bit compared to a digital camera with how you hold and then of course the lack of a grip is not such an issue because for square photos well...you don't need to rotate the camera
Comparing the 501CM with the ETRS (which I had in parallel), I'd say that the difference in size is small. The weight does go up though, particularly with the prism on. That thing is heavy.
You may also want to consider a 45 prism, lots of people prefer it to a 90 but I'm either 90 or WLF. Fits better with the square format
I own Hasselblad 203FE and Contax 645, both are great systems. The Hasselblad is somehow more classy, and has so many accessories. I love the WLF and loupe, but also own a 45 degree viewfinder (for which I need to get the right diopter, finally). The Contax 645 feels less classy, and the viewfinder is a bit darker and smaller, but the camera is awesome in use. The lenses are great, the AF okay, and the system just works. Either is a great choice. The Rolleiflex 6008 system is also worth a look. Somehow the middle option between my two systems. 6x6, but more modern than Hasselblad.
Yeah, the Contax 645 gear has gotten very expensive but it is nice gear. Honestly, as a Contax 645 user, the body leaves a bit to be desired but it's still about as good as it gets before switching to a modern Phase One or Hassy system. The viewfinder, while much better than 35mm, is still a bit small and hard to manual focus with. You only get full stop adjustments with shutter while in manual and realistically full stop aperture adjustments. However, that Contax Zeiss glass is flipping amazing and what's keeping me in the system. These lenses seem to give everything a luminescence that cannot be duplicated with any Canon L lens I own. In fact, I just got a 45mm and 55mm to add to my collection that should be arriving tomorrow. And realistically, if a body goes out, you'll still be able to get work done by 2nd hand techs and you can always buy additional bodies.
corposant wrote:
Nothing like an informed opinion, thanks Martin!
I will add that ergonomics are important, and I really prefer to compose through a 90 degree VF and not at waist-level.
I should probably also throw Pentax into the mix too. Contax scares me a bit b/c of the price and the limited amount of service life left from Kyocera. I also think that the 645N will take Contax lenses with an adapter - maybe that's the way to go.
Some really terrific and inspirational photos being shown on this thread.
I would love to start using my 120/220 cameras again, but no inexpensive film scanner is available. I would need a scanner for 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, and 6x9. I would prefer one like an upright 35mm scanner.
Any ideas, other than flatbed? No simple slide/neg copier stage to attach to a Canon 100L?
What's wrong with the flatbed scanners? For a few hundred bucks, you can come within a few percent of a Nikon 9000 with an Epson V700 and an aftermarket holder.
Graham Mitchell wrote:
I believe it was a Hasselblad HD4-60, but I'll have to ask. There were about 20 of us in the group, but this chap (whom I had not met previously) made a great subject, being the only one there in traditional arab dress and also being the only other medium format user. I found the contrast between traditional and high-tech amusing
I believe that's Tareq Alhamrani. If it's him, he jumped from and H4D-50 to a H4D-60 in a year!
