Until the other '8' arrives

[parisian]

Now if I can just find some way of glueing the Minolta to the back of the 'R' we could be in business

[Clive]

I believe the Minolta scanner to be very good, Peter: I think Nick had/has one. In this week's BJP there is a review of the Nikon 9000ED which whet my appetite to do more film photography and scanning. But my Nikon 9000 is set up in an attic room and as yet I haven't ventured up there (I have to negotiate a 300 year old oak spiral staircase)

Scans done on that machine from MF slides are jaw-dropping.

[Benchista]

Mine's the MF one, the snappily-titled Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. It is very good indeed, especially from MF slides. It's being bothered to use it that's the problem, particularly since my old laptop died and the new one doesn't have a FireWire port. I certainly haven't got the patience to go back to shooting the amount of 35mm film I used to, but I do want to step it up a bit from the very low levels of the last couple of years, if only to keep those lovely old cameras in use.

[Clive]

My sentiments entirely, Nick, as I have a Pentax 67, Hasselblad V, Mamiya RZ and 645 ..............
but digital is just too easy and convenient ...............

[Benchista]

Indeed, I've got my Pentax 67 and Mamiya 645, plus all my Rolleis and my Exakta 66 outfit, all of which I love using - but...

[parisian]

But my Nikon 9000 is set up in an attic room and as yet I haven't ventured up there (I have to negotiate a 300 year old oak spiral staircase)

Humping heavy stuff (or people) up and down spiral staircases is the whole point of grown up children isn't it?

It is a bind at times (especially working through software you haven't touched for a couple of years )
However it is excellent 'me' time and I am going to get a shedload of that in a couple of months when the hip arrives (I think there is some small Vietnamese child whittling away as we speak).
Working away through those old slides and negs is however quietly satisfying, brings back a load of memories of times, places and people.
I certainly sent me out looking for film yesterday. Shot off to Llandudno and found................................zilch other than a couple (literally) of Kodak Gold in Jessies. I want to try the new Ektra out as it seems to garner pretty good reports.
The only problem with that scanner is that it cannot cope with XPan negs which still have to go away, otherwise it brings out more than is visible on the negs. Great machine.
Regarding your Nikon and Minolta scanners with associated MF cameras, while it is undoubtedly nice to have them it is nicer to let them do what they were made for.

[Clive]

"Humping heavy stuff (or people) up and down spiral staircases is the whole point of grown up children isn't it? "

Absolutely - but then they all go and live away! The only bit of stuff I have is my 8Gb Cruzer USB thingy, to transfer scan files downstairs. But it seem the 17th century staircase didn't come with a 17th century handrail.

I think Stoke based Mailshots still have a goodly list of films.

[parisian]

Managed to get a brick of the new Kodak at Cambrian in Colwyn Bay today Clive - while we were discussing an order for certain other items

[Zou]

Nick and Clive - you both have pretty serious digital gear - when you praise the quality available from your MF scans is there a 'for film' caveat or do you think it still stacks up quite evenly? How much difference do you see between a 645 scan, a 67 scan, and a D3/5D raw file?

[Clive]

I think one of the best compliments I paid the D3 was that it reminded me of 6x7 scans (Mamiya RZ) of Velvia 50. But I would say that a high end DSLR produces better images than a 35mm scan.

[TimF]

That reminds me of when I showed a few prints from the 1Ds to Grahame in Jacobs back in c2001. He said they looked like medium format.

[parisian]

When drum scanned or on very high quality home scanners such as the Flextight there will be a discernable difference between MF and top end DSLRs. The difference may be in rendered detail, sharpness, contrast. It may simply be in the photographers perception but there will be a difference.
Whether one is 'better' than the other depends very much on your definition of 'better'.

[Zou]

Thanks for the answers. My personal opinion is that for most purposes, a decent DSLR is capable of 'better' results (in colour at least) than most 35mm systems, although perhaps this is the wrong sub-forum to say that in! However, film MF still has a huge edge (especially in quality/affordability) on my own DSLR.

I am forever tempted to invest in a decent MF system which can in the future be coupled with a digital back (when prices calm down a bit), as I know that the quality is still there in a well scanned piece of film.

[Clive]

Yes, I have my MF systems in place waiting for the prices of digital backs to come down.

[hhmr]

..........My personal opinion is that for most purposes, a decent DSLR is capable of 'better' results (in colour at least) than most 35mm systems, although perhaps this is the wrong sub-forum to say that in! However, film MF still has a huge edge(especially in quality/affordability) on my own DSLR.....

We used to call 35mm 'miniature cameras'! When I look at the size of full frame top of the range DSLRs I can't help feeling that they are very far from miniature and the same applied to many film SLR outfits.

Perhaps what we should be looking at is the bulk, weight and cost of camera (and tripod if necessary) to produce a top quality image at the maximum size a particular user requires with the additional consideration of required turn round time where applicable. Advertising posters, images in magazines, prints on domestic size walls, prints in albums, images on the web, half-tones on newsprint of breaking news are all different requirements.

...........as I know that the quality is still there in a well scanned piece of film.........

And the film is easier to look after for long periods. Perhaps even glass plates are/were! The cost of processing between data capture and final result becomes part of the calculation too, whether the photographer owns it all or buys services.

I'd have thought that the image quality available from full size sensors exceeds most photographers' requirements, regardless of how it compares with film. The same may even be true of less than full frame sensors. Those whose living depends on the ultimate will spend the necessary money and carry the gear around.

The rest of us have more choice. Zou, your lovely shot of Culloden makes the point.

Henry

[Benchista]

And the film is easier to look after for long periods.

No, I simply don't accept that. Film deteriorates with time in a way electronic data doesn't. It takes up considerably more physical space. It deteriorates with use in a way an electronic master doesn't. Few, if any, of us have proper archival conditions for film - I certainly don't; I've got a built-in wardrobe in a spare room full of boxes of slides. It's dark, yes, but there's no temperature or humidity control, nothing to stop mould attacking, for example. Some of the rest of my negs and slides are in archival sleeves, but in a cabinet in the same room. The rest are in boxes in the loft. None of that is what I call easy, and that's with the luxury of a room largely devoted to storing the stuff (and my cameras). Automatic back-up routines and multiple hard disks make safe storage of digital files very much easier, and via DVD and my webspace, I've got off-site copies of any pics I'm really bothered about. No, digital files are hugely easier to look after for long periods than film.

[hhmr]

And the film is easier to look after for long periods.

No, I simply don't accept that. Film deteriorates with time in a way electronic data doesn't. It takes up considerably more physical space............

Benchista,

That isn't the point I was making at all!

Nobody disputes that film deteriorates with time, especially dye based images. Digital data, however, needs more effort to stop it being lost completely. Those who are running businesses using digital images have the necessary archival procedures in place, as long as they stay in business. Many other digital users do not. Keeping a file of negative sleeves is much less trouble than backing up data.

Henry

[Benchista]

And the film is easier to look after for long periods.

No, I simply don't accept that. Film deteriorates with time in a way electronic data doesn't. It takes up considerably more physical space............

Benchista,

That isn't the point I was making at all!

Nobody disputes that film deteriorates with time, especially dye based images. Digital data, however, needs more effort to stop it being lost completely. Those who are running businesses using digital images have the necessary archival procedures in place, as long as they stay in business. Many other digital users do not. Keeping a file of negative sleeves is much less trouble than backing up data.

Henry

My point, though, is that it isn't!

[hhmr]

.......My point, though, is that it isn't! ....

I assume that you are saying that backing up data is less trouble than putting a file of negative shelves in a box or on a bookshelf and forgetting about it. That may be a bit optimistic!

I'm sure most of us here are careful about data management but I don't think AP readers are necessarily typical of people with digital images.

Henry

[TimF]

My point, though, is that it isn't!

For you, Nick, for you!

Others mileage may vary, as they say; it'd be nice if that was remembered here sometimes, as we are all guilty of believing that what works for us will do so for others. Quite frequently, that isn't the case. FWIW, I don't have any opinion on the subject.