KatieInTexas wrote:
Mike - I saw you sold the mamiya 7 also. What, may I ask, are you planning to do with this great void in your lineup?? Inquiring minds want to know!!!
Hah.
Well, after using the NEX for the last year (now have the 7, used to have the 5N), I realized I should be a bit more dedicated to digital for the "smaller formats." 35mm was mostly just used for tooling around, and now that processing gets a little more expensive every year, it makes more sense to shoot digital for the smaller stuff.
Regarding the larger formats I realized I only really shoot the Mamiya 7 with wide lenses for outdoorsy things, so I decided to sell the system (though I still have the 43mm lingering) and replace it with a Fuji GSW690, which brings some cash in. For everything else, I use my Hasselblad. So basically...
NEX 7 = travel, general environmental
Swing system = ?
Hasselblad = environmental, studio, portraiture
GSW = landscape, scenics
We'll see what happens in that 2nd slot. Maybe a used M9 next year. Maybe something else mirrorless.
Get a Razzle 900 Mike, I have one on the way.
I have also had enough of running out of coverage, and have a 110XL on the way.
All shots below with the 75/4.5 Nikkor.
TMax 400
Delta 100 (same subject as earlier HP5+ shot)
Delta 100
Delta 100 - forgot to desaturate this one, a bit of a colour cast...
personally I chose hp5+ as my 4x5 film; I like t-grained films in 35 and 120 but for LF I found hp5+ to be the most pleasing overall. LF is the breaking point for me where traditional films are more attractive overall than t-grained films, to me.
Delta is still mighty compelling in any format. Im kind of bummed there is no 4x5 400 =/
thrice wrote:
Get a Razzle 900 Mike, I have one on the way.
Dan - I have seen that before - my first reaction was "if I am going to shoot 4x5, I should at least be able to have some movements." I figure I can stitch two 6x9 shots on top of each other and get to a similar place, but if the Razzle had some tilt, that could be very interesting indeed. Please post your impressions after you get your hands on it.
I love film's tone, and color. They were developed and scan at my local Costco store. Price is good and scan size is decent (6-8M?). The only problem is they only do C-41, no BW. If I want more from 35mm, I certainly will use my digital camera.
Edward, great series. That Neopan 400 pushed looks almost exactly like Neopan 1600 or is it just me? Very enouraging as that was one of my favorite 35mm films...
Simon Kennedy wrote:
Edward, great series. That Neopan 400 pushed looks almost exactly like Neopan 1600 or is it just me? Very enouraging as that was one of my favorite 35mm films...
More awesomeness Thrice!!
Thank you Simon! Most appreciated!
To be honest, I am very happily surprised by the quality of the grain. It is at least as good as Neopan 1600 and undoubtedly better than Delta 3200 pulled to 1600. Of course there are many variables in B/W processing, and the choice of developer and agitation will influence the grain structure substantially. But at least with whatever chemicals my local lab is using, Neopan 400 seems to give excellent results even pushed to 3200.
I got my test roll back today from my 645 AFDii. It seems to work fine. I'm contemplating using this for some outdoor portrait sessions so wanted to give it a test roll first, and see how the costings would work out. These are straight from the lab with no processing, I'm happy with them. This isn't the film I'd use though, but otherwise I think it could work. Just need to do something "real" with it now!
Edit: Good god, I almost forgot the mandatory "testing new camera cat photo"
Peter Figen wrote:
Here's a recent shot. Mamiya 7. 65mm Tri-X 25A. A portrait of my father and mother on the dunes just north of Monterey, Ca.
Peter, powerful photo. Very touching. Thanks for sharing.
I am using MC/MD Rokkor lenses on my Canon 1V, and have noticed that I don't like the results very much with B&W film. Color comes out fine, but my scans of B&W are awful. They look soft, focus is wonky, etc... I use the same lenses on my Minolta film bodies, and don't have the same issue. Could it be the adapter? Why don't I notice it as much with color? Is it my scanning? If so, how come I am able to scan other 35mm negs (from my Bessa) with little to no trouble?
Katie, post some examples both in colour and B&W? Hard to judge w/o actually seeing first hand what's going on. Also, if you're shooting film, you're not using one of those awful glassed adapters to get in on your canon are you ?
