Film Medium Format Cameras

[Kayaker72]

I have no experience with it, but if you buy in I think you do it as a hobby. The cost of film and the inability to have instant results is why Digital did so well ten years ago. It might be just as interesting to invest in an old medium format digital and see what you can do differently.

I did pick up the camera. It's "just" the 645, which is the smallest of the medium format sizes, but still gives you 2.7x the surface area of FF. Mentally, I am considering this a novelty. This is the first time I've ever taken a hard look at MF and LF and I've enjoyed this quick dive into it. However, I am genuinely impressed with how good we have it with FF digital.

Are you wet scanning your negatives?
I took up the same task last winter but ran out of steam about half way through. I bought everything to wet scan and was going to give it a try on the old family negatives we have. We had 2x2 prints of many pictures from the 20's thru the 50's and I was amazed how well their negatives did on the scan going dry.
The time it takes to do the 35mm film I was considering hiring a company to do those.

So, I haven't got to the negatives yet. I've scanned prints and am working my way through positive slides right now. For prints, I used two different epson scanners (FF-680W and a V850 flatbed) and I also digitized using a copy stand and taking a picture of the printed picture with my 5DIV. Each has its Pros and Cons....but that is a different thread.

For my positives, right now I am scanning with the flatbed scanner (Silverfast software), but also will try the picture of the picture of the slide with a macro lens and a light table.

For the negatives, I haven't gone as far as wet scanning. I haven't tried either yet but I have brought in a scanning mask from lomography and a film carrier from the negative supply company. I came across very positive reviews of both. The film carrier also seems rapid, which I am in favor of. I added a link to each if you are interested.

[HDNitehawk]

For the negatives, I haven't gone as far as wet scanning. I haven't tried either yet but I have brought in a scanning mask from lomography and a film carrier from the negative supply company. I came across very positive reviews of both. The film carrier also seems rapid, which I am in favor of. I added a link to each if you are interested.

Did you not like the film holders that came with the V850?

The biggest problem I have had with scanning film is the dust on the negatives and screen.

[Kayaker72]

Did you not like the film holders that came with the V850?

The biggest problem I have had with scanning film is the dust on the negatives and screen.

I am not scanning the negative film files yet. My family seemed to switch from slides to negatives in the early '80s. I have just entered the '70s. What I had done is in searching how best to use the scanner, I came across a couple of people that didn't like the film holders for the V850 and preferred, for example, the lomography "DigiLIZA". Then I came across other people that very much preferred the "picture of a picture" method over a flatbed scanner. While going through old prints, I did really like the picture of a picture method as well, but had an issue with glare from my light source. The negative supply company's film carrier seemed to solve that issue and also numerous people talked about how fast the method was (a big selling point).

But, to better answer your question, I just did a test of a grand total of 2 negatives, and my initial order of preference is: 1) V850 holder; 2) Film carrier (picture of a picture); and 3) DigiLiza. In testing scanning my positive slides, I noticed that I got sharper results with the feet fully extended, so I did that automatically for the V850 negative holder (this moves the holder further off the glass). The Digiliza rests on the glass, so it may not have been as in focus as the V850 holder, it was certainly softer. That said, the real purpose of the Digiliza is to flatten any negatives that want to bow and I can see how it would do that very well. It may perform better if I add feet to it to raise it off the glass. The "picture of a picture" negative test I could likely improve with a bit of practice. I just hand held the camera, for instance, rather than using the copy stand. I haven't bought the software that inverts the negative, I simply inverted the tone curve and didn't adjust from there. So, with tweaking, I bet this method will get there. No glare, so that goal was accomplished. I can see how it would be fast. But it will take a bit more work. But, for scanning only two negatives, the V850 holder gave good results right away. Inverted the image during the prescan, which was nice. Reasonable color. Nice. It will likely come down to speed of scanner vs the picture of picture and then using the Digiliza to flatten slides if needed.

Yes, the dust. Painful. And then the iSRD sometimes creates artifacts, so it is not a perfect solution. Right now I am scanning all my slides twice, once in regular and once with iSRD. I also have a pocket rocket, canned air, and microfiber cloths on hand.

What is nice, as I have already given the scans of my Grandmother's prints to family. I told them I would be happy to go back and rescan anything that they had an issue with as I had numerous issues (after a while you get in production mode). Not a peep. So, not surprisingly, my photographic standards are a bit above theirs. Which is something to remember, not all of these need to be fine art. They are about memories. A few dust particles and scratches might actually add to that feel. Then, a couple of special images, we might try to take and make perfect.

[Kayaker72]

Oh...by the way. I dropped off my first roll of 120 yesterday. Asked when I might expect them, as it was all tests to check focus, checking my ability to expose properly, etc.

Yeah, week.....week and a half. They'll call me.

Film

[Jonathan Huyer]

Yeah, week.....week and a half. They'll call me.
Film

Ha ha but now you get to relive the nostalgia of waiting for prints! I took a few trips in the film days, bringing several dozen rolls with me. It was always a nerve-wracking time, carrying them carefully in x-ray proof bags and guarding them closer than your passport. Then dropping them all off at the developer and pacing back and forth for a week, wondering if any would turn out. Good memories!

[Kayaker72]

Limit 5 images per post (when directly uploading) so:

6)

7)

OK...yes, we still had some Christmas decorations up in mid-January.

These are straight out of camera for the R5 and Sigma 50A. No modifications other than making the aspect ratio 4:3 to match 645. The MF images were scanned on my Epson V850 using Silverfast default settings. Only adjustments in LR was cloning dust (...and do new negatives attract dust!).

As for the key:
1) R5 and 50A f/1.4
2) Mamiya 80 f/1.9
3) Mamiya f/2.8
4) R5 f/2
5) Mamiya f/4
6) R5 f/2.2
7) R5 f/1.4

Ok, first, the equivalence of 645 f/1.9 for FF is f/1.2, but I do not own a 50 f/1.2 lens. But then some mistakes as I was rushing, 645 f/2.8 FF equivalence is f/1.7, I didn't shoot f/1.7. Also 645 f/4 equivalence is f/2.5, the closest I shot was f/2.2. There are also a few exposure issues as I was trying to adjust shutterspeeds to get the same exposure on the fly.

But, overall, you get the picture.

First conclusion. The MF images are not awful (IMO). I was prepared for them to be whether it be some sort of light leak in camera or to just totally miss exposure. They are underexposed, but I'll take it for the first attempt.


As for the differences:

• Check out the window in #1 and #2. I have heard it a couple of times now, but film holds highlight/white detail better. That sure seemed to be the case. Granted, there is an exposure issue between 1&2, but in every image I took with the window, with film, I can see details, with digital, I don't. I used 1&2 here to line up bokeh. But yes, this would be more conclusive is the exposure was identical.

If interested, here is #2 brought up a stop (and greens adjusted to better color match)

• The second item I've heard repeatedly, but film shadows are crushed. Definitely see something, but this could also be on exposure.
• Color is definitely different. Overall, I think the R5 was more accurate. However, what interests me is that colors from the entire scene seemed to affect the R5 image whereas with the film, each element seemed more independent. Specifically, I am looking the "A" in PEACE between 3 and 4. While I think the decorations and wall are more accurate with the R5, the metal letters have a tint that isn't there.

Otherwise, it seems to me that "equivalency" works.

Anyways, still just playing around. Hopefully I can get out and shoot some more and with a bit more experience and more preparation the tests will improve.

But now, I need to go work on my driveway....snow, sleet and freezing rain today. Yaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy.