|
I hope I am allowed to day dream ... ... has anybody ever done a critical comparison of the Phase One XF IQ4 100MP Trichromatic vs. the regular XF IQ4 150MP?
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
alkanphel posted:You might be able to find some info on that on the gear sperg forums like GetDPI or Luminous Landscape. Thanks, I'll check them out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:I'm raising my centre column rn op LOL!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
 : Can I ask a gear question here?I have been curious about MF ever since opening this thread for the first time. What kinds of questions should I be asking myself to determine what MF system I might enjoy as a second camera (primary camera is a digital FF, I use manual focus 90+% of the time, and I frequently spend many minutes on just one subject)? Alternatively, since I already have one compatible lens, would a Hasselblad 500 be a decent choice for walking around and landscape shooting? If the Hassy 500 is a decent choice, all I need is a camera body, a film back, film, a finder, and a lens, right? Any reason to pick the CW over the CX or the CM?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
Thank you for the input everybody. I don't care about flash sync, but I do care about camera shake (though the camera will be on a tripod when it really matters). My understanding is that vibrations should already be at a minimum with a solid tripod and mirror lock up, so a leaf shutter won't add anything.(?) But this does not mean that I want to use a focal plane shutter, I just think a leaf shutter is not necessary. I could get used to various formats I think, but I am not sure where the best tradeoff between size and exposures per roll is (being ignorant, I would aim for the middle and toss a coin between 6x6 and 6x7). I am not on 'Gram, so that is not a consideration. I think I would prefer an SLR over a TLR. Doing a bit more reading, I would prefer an all mechanical camera. Also, if I need a separate meter, will it work well during blue hour with telephoto lenses (the average light will be low, but perhaps I will be pointing the camera at a far-away mountain that is already in sunlight)? A TTL meter would be super handy. And speaking of low light, I would need a system that can be accurately focused at infinity in relative darkness (blue hour), preferably by having lenses that have an accurate hard stop at infinity or at least accurate markings on the lens or the bellows of the camera. Ethics_Gradient posted:Curious which lens - the 80mm 2.8? A Hasselblad CF 250 mm f/5.6 Superachromat. I started this hobby doing astrophotography, and CA was the first thing I developed an eye for. In addition I wanted an outstanding manual focus experience (thus ruling out focus-by-wire lenses) and more reach than my existing 180 mm. And since the hop to MF has been on my mind for a while, I figured I should get a lens that would be compatible with MF (although the focal length would be rarely used). If I didn't want to develop my own film (at least initially), I would just have to pay for negatives, right? Is that cost always the same, or will I need a higher quality negatives if I want to make larger (30"x20") prints? Or is that determined by the quality of my scanner?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
Megabound posted:From that criteria my choice would be a Mamiya RB67. It's the fully mechanical version of the RZ which uses electronic leaf shutters, and has a metered prism available for it if you're not shooting waist level. Awesome, thanks. I just finished watching a few videos about the Mamiya and it does look very attractive. I'll watch/read a little more before I make up my mind.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:... resell ... Resale is a concern, as I have no idea if I will bond with the system. Helen Highwater posted:... macro work ... My existing camera is so dope for macro, I doubt I will try macro with film. alkanphel posted:Do take note that if you do get a 500CM, the blackout might be up to 1/3 of the mirror with a 250. I understand all the words, but not the message. Can you elaborate? alkanphel posted:The 503CW and 501CM come with the Gliding Mirror System which removes viewfinder vignetting when using telephoto lenses. "viewfinder vignetting" = "the viewfinder vignettes the film" OR "the image in the viewfinder has vignetting but the film does not have vignetting"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2020 15:56
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:The latter. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Basically the longer the lens, the more you see a portion of the viewfinder "disappearing" and being just black. Like a black bar coming up from the bottom or top of the viewfinder, I forgot which it was. Doesn't affect the film. Got it. 1/3 of the mirror blacking out would be annoying, so I'll look into it.  and  for the input everybody. Really appreciate it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2020 17:47
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Extra benefits of the 501 and beyond is that you also get the much brighter acute-matte screen by default. The 500c and 500cm screens are not even close to as bright, and the acute-matte is a $250+ upgrade (and the acute-matte D is a $400+ upgrade) Thanks. No matter what I decide on, since this would be a new system I was going to go with KEH, B&H, or Adorama, and I'll be sure to look for the acute-matte screen. Thanks! Wild EEPROM posted:And here are some about the lenses Yeah, I remember going through this and the MTF diagrams here (http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx) before I bought the Hassy 250 mm SA. If I go with the Hasselblad system, a 50 mm FLE and a 100 mm Planar (along with the already existing 250 mm SA) would appeal to the minimalist in me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Horseman ... obviously.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
*Only if you are a white male.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Hello fellow dorkroom posters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2020 02:07
|
|
|
It's like a massage for the eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
Edit: gently caress it.
theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Aug 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
My used RZ67 Pro ii just arrived ( ), and I am trying to decide between returning it (strongly leaning toward this) or fixing it myself. The coarse focus know is really stiff in 2 spots and while the fine focus knob moves fine, it does not actually move the bellows at all. The manual I found did not look confidence-inspiring.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2020 04:06
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:drat, did you buy one that was EXC+++++++ instead of Near MINT-? These days seems like EXC means broken somehow, no matter the number of pluses. Ask me about my returned EXC Pentax 67s that had shutter drag above 1/125, or delaminated focus screens (easy fix tho), or just straight up couldn’t mount a lens. I expected the lens to have all sorts of issues because it was ~$300 cheaper than all the other copies that had "no haze/fungus/separation/scratches", fortunately the lens looks perfect. But LOL yes, I saw dozens of "EXC+++++" that had haze/fungus/separation/scratches.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2020 13:17
|
|
|
beergod posted:What’s the group consensus on a scanner for 120 negatives? The leap from a V700 to the next thing will set you back ~$15k: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/ I've read good things about the Epson V700/800 when using wet mounting. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Aug 23, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:There's a Plustek 120 scanner thats supposed to be good -- https://plustek.com/us/products/film-photo-scanners/opticfilm-120-pro/index.php Cool. I'll have to look into that once I get tired of having my films scanned.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Sorry for more noob questions. I know that I need to get off my rear end and just start shooting, and that will happen once the (functional) body arrives (next week, fingers crossed). Until then ... 1. With my MILC, I always use the bulb blower to remove potential dust on the senor whenever I am changing lenses. How paranoid should I be with a MF camera? When should I clean which parts of the camera to minimize the impact of dust/particles on my images? 2. I have been perfectly happy with Capture One for editing my MILC raw files (I rarely spend more than 2 minutes on an image). What limitations can I expect when editing scans which would be in tiff(?) format? I briefly played with a sample file and noticed that I can't correct for pincushion distortion and chromatic aberration. Suppose I can live with this, are there any other drawbacks for not using Photoshop? How would I fix general pincushion distortion and chromatic aberration on a tiff file in Capture One? ansel autisms posted:i have my local lab develop (2.95/4x5 sheet for c41/e6) because it's way more economical in the long run to do scanning myself and developing sucks rear end I do some work in a cleanroom where I do quite a bit of lithography and I can confirm that developing can suck rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:1. I don't think I've ever dusted my MF camera in a decade. Maybe the occasional blowing of the lens but even those don't really affect the image. You can't even blow the "sensor" anyway. I was thinking of blowing obvious dust particles away from the area behind the film (before loading the film) as that might cause a bump in the film (and thus an uneven focus plane, a scratch, defect during developing if it sticks to the film), but I guess that's not really a thing to worry about. I moved to C1 to get away from Adobe's subscription model. But does the LR distortion slider work on tiff files or just raws? Either way, I am happy that PS does not seem to be a hard requirement to edit MF scans. Maybe a more recent version of C1 allows me to adjust the distortion slider for tiff files. I'll investigate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2020 02:14
|
|
|
Any recommendations for a long lens support? I have a 350 mm lens for an RZ67, but unfortunately the lens didn't come with the standard support bracket, nor can I find one on ebay. I don't want to use the lens without the support bracket. Amazon has a few options in the $50 range. Are they any good or is the RRS worth every cent?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2020 03:35
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Here's an original for £80 and shipping. Thanks! You have some serious skills. I used various combos of search terms for over an hour and found nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2020 13:16
|
|
|
So far MF sucks major balls. I've been trying to buy an RZ67 for a few weeks now. All the accessories are here, only the body is missing. The first body I bought was obviously not as the seller had described, so I immediately sent it back. The order for the second body was cancelled by the seller. I just placed an order for a third body. I think this experience is a training/preview of the slower work flow compared to digital, so at least I am learning something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:The lesson is hold on to whatever you end up with that works because there’s an ever-diminishing supply of stuff that’s still in good condition. Good Kermit: Maybe you should not have bought into MF. Evil Kermit: Buy a backup body.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
rockear posted:reject modernity If you rack in the bellows, can you use the dark slide to slice the pineapple? Edit: Dark slice 
theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Sep 2, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
I know I have no business posting here yet, but I figured if I was a curious newbie lurking this thread, there might be others, and this is for them. A few months ago I got serious about MF. After a few probing questions, I boiled it down to the RZ67 Pro II, a Hasselblad, a Rolleiflex 6008af, or a version of the Pentax 67. I really wanted a WLF, so the Pentax was out. The Hasselblad's square format was too intimidating, and I read reports that the Rollei can be finicky, so I got the RZ67 Pro II along with a 110 mm and some portra 400. Megabound's recommendation was spot on: Megabound posted:From that criteria my choice would be a Mamiya RB67. I was worried about light leaks, the shutter timer being off, metering, and achieving critical focus with a WLF, so I just focused on those things. Well, the first roll of film came back, and it's not complete garbage.    Conclusions for far: - I love the WLF while shooting. I never cared for the discussions about viewfinders - they all seemed the same. But the WLF is a mind-blowing experience (on a fast lens). Having said that, I did miss focus on a few shots, so there is still work to be done. - I do pay more attention to what I am doing (rather than taking 25 shots with digital and seeing what comes out ok), and I make an effort to "make it count". - Carrying a digital camera for metering is a decent solution for now, although I look like the dorkiest of dorks. - Portra 400 film grain is grainier than I had hoped. Fingers crossed that I am happier with the ISO 100/160 films. One question: I used thedarkroom.com for developing/scanning, and they supplied jpgs. Is that normal? I was expecting tifs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
Cool! I am still sucking, so it doesn't matter. If anything it helps me speed up my work flow and reduce disc space.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:If you're going to be shooting a lot of film and you want more control over your results I'd recommend getting a scanner or scanning with a DSLR and a light table (there has been plenty said about each option). Also welcome to reasonable sized formats chat! A scanner (one way or another) is definitely on my radar, but I wanted to focus on basics first.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
Lovely! More sucking from me - only my second roll and my first BW roll.    I've also ordered a refurbished scanner, so with any luck I can make some of these less crunchy. But they were shot on HP5+, so I am not expecting much of an improvement.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
A noob's journey continues: The scans from the lab looked very grainy, and a couple of goons recommended that I do my own scans. So I got a scanner (Epson V850), and sure enough, the grain is practically gone. The scans from the lab were simply over-sharpened. But I ran into another issue. Silverfast has two options for color cast removal - one in Negafix and one in the histogram tool. When I enable the one in Negafix, I get a decent result. But when I also enable the one in the histogram, it appears to impact the black and white levels of the output image. Is this normal? Since I am happy with the results from just Negafix, I'm thinking of just leaving the CCR in the histogram unchecked. Or am I using it wrong? Here is an example: https://imgur.com/a/8otSr47 Top image with CCR just in Negafix. Bottom has CCR in Negafix and Histogram. Notice the difference in how the sun is displayed in the lower right.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
Cool, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
Ethics_Gradient posted:Am I the only one getting big magenta energy in the first couple frames? Most definitely, but it's a plausible color cast - it is plausible that the sky had a magenta cast which resulted in whites showing up as magenta. Fixing this type of color balance would take away from the mood of the pictures imo, so I like the way it is. Edit: Newbie update: My third and fourth roll came back. First roll of Ilford Delta 400 and I am happy to have more keepers than last time.    While I am bonding with the camera very quickly, I am less enthusiastic about scanning film*, but I think I just need to find a way to do other poo poo while scanning. The roll of Fuji Pro 400H looks more challenging to process. Fingers crossed I don't drive myself insane as I try to find a decent color balance. I am also looking forward to shooting some XP2 Super so I can let the software remove the dust spots more efficiently. *But my own scans are infinitely better than the scans that the lab supplied for my first two rolls. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Oct 6, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
The roll of Fuji Pro 400H was more disappointing. No doubt that poor subject choices and light contributed, but the colors were difficult to get right too. I am only half-way happy with two frames. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Pro 400H just sucks like that to be honest. I heard about how awesome Fuji greens were, but I guess that only applies to Velvia/Provia? I don't think my metering skills are at a point where I will touch either of those yet. Edit: Or did I gently caress it up by overexposing a full stop? theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Oct 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:400h really does suck, and your metering is probably fine for slides. a full stop overexposure on negative film should be just fine Cool. Having only one choice for color film at iso400 simplifies my life anyway. I'm glad I only bought 5 rolls of it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
Yes, I am happy with Portra 400, but I wanted to know what I was missing out on.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I just developed a roll of 400H over the weekend and actually I think it's fine. Although I should have tried pushing it, it was a very overcast day. Yeah, these look great! I'll be sure to shoot a couple more rolls with more appropriate subjects and better lighting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
Wildlife*  *not wild, not alive
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Noob noob here again. I just got a roll of XP2 back, and I noticed that one end is curled like this Is this a property of XP2 or did the lab mess up?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2020 19:21
|
|