Ah. That was the cheapest way to get the medium format bug out of my system. I have to thank Matt for loaning me the Pentax 67 because I had an epiphany after using it.
Epiphany 1: only one camera can occupy a place in your heart at any one time.
The converse: if you are using the MF camera, then you are not using another camera (in this case my M3).
If you are out there going back and forth about medium format (ask yourself about your own style) and then borrow or rent the MF camera of your choice. See if that gets it out of your system or draws you in deeper. My own conclusion should have been fortold by the fact that over the years I've sold all my medium format equipment: Not for me. And no, it wasn't the Pentax 67 that pushed the epiphany button. Would have had same result with any MF camera.
And it's not only the camera.
I still get a better scan from a 35mm negative with a dedicated film scanner than from the Epson 4990. With the transparency scanner you've got two pieces of glass to keep clean. You've got problems with Newtons' rings (yes, once in a while even when using the supplied Epson carrier); you've got to keep the film flat. And of course not many shots on a roll which means changing rolls more often and more time developing to get an equivalent number of negatives.
Nah. Not for me.
Disclaimer: Your results may differ.
Anyway - the whole gestalt (did I spell the right?) totally turned me off.
Let's face it, I like the look, in fact I love the look of my Tri-x 35mm negative at 8 x 12 inches or cropped to 11 x 14.
So why does medium format come up at all... ? That is just the restless mind talking when it is bored. That is just (for me) a way of distracting myself. Someday that part of my mind is going to say, "hey wouldn't it be fun to shoot with the view camera again?" Please, keep reading this blog and if you ever see me going in that direction, remind me of my MF epiphany. Please, I beg you.
5 comments:
Hey Dave, Before you return the 6x7 you might want to shoot a few rolls of 120 Infra-red if it's still available. The 35mm I.R. that I've shot seems to pale in comparison. You could have an InfraRed epiphany...
Jeff: Absolutely. There was a reason that I sold all the big cameras. Sometimes I just need to be reminded.
Craig: The fact that I won't be going back to digital is one of the few things I will write in stone (unless of course I can't buy film or chemicals anymore).
Matt: Nah. I'll make a 67 run to your place next time I get the car; maybe sooner.
Is it me and the way I'm producing images from my 35mm negs or transparicies but my MF images even to only 8x10 shows dramatically cleaner and sharper images.
I'm using the Minolta Multi Scan (1100dpi) for the MF film and a Kodak RFS 3600 scanner (3600DPI)for the 35mm film. (Both pretty ancient in terms of scanners). Could it be the scanners? Would I see a dramatic difference by using for instance a Minolta 5400 with Silverfast for my 35mm work vs the Kodak? Should I invest in the Minolta 5400?
The Kodak scanner gets the pixel count but I'm wondering if I'm extracting all I can get. Also the Kodak seems to exacerbate and seems to emphasize the grain. Maybe I need to upgrade the Kodak.
Any thoughts appreciated.
For this reason I much prefer the MF. I even prefer the MF over a 10plus MP digital camera. Not to mention so easy to blow the highlights, dynamic range (and artifacts)with digital.
By the way, my vote is that all things being equal in terms of obtaining the best possible image quality, use the smallest, most flexible, operator friendly system or camera out there.
Ever try to get that decisive moment (even landscape) with a large format and a tripod? You can do it but be prepared for more misses than captures.
I make these comments to what I must say is a pretty experienced and knowledgeable group and forum.
That's what I'd say. If you can have someone do a scan with a dimage 5400 then that should give you some idea.
I've been using the Dimage 5400 for what seems like a long time now (the original one, not the current model) and I don't think I could get much more out of a b&w negative.
The new dimage 5400 ii is supposed to be faster. Every 35mm image you see on the site has gone through the 5400. They have mostly gone through Photokit sharpner after that, and then depending on the image, some PS stuff has been done. But not very much.
Or: depending on where you live - buy the new one but know that you can return it within a week or whatever if it doesn't improve your scans.
Wow, Barrett, Dave, JeffK, Thanks for the response and advise!
I think I've forgotten what a good 35mm chrome can deliver for image quality. Been using the Kodak so long I guess you get used to and accept the results.
I've stopped using my 35mm gear because of it..........
I'm going to look for a 5400 right away. Barrett if I don't get one right away and I'm in the BIG city I may take you up on that offer!
Thanks again,
J Alan
Post a Comment