I finally bit the bullet ...

[Peter S.]

... and bought a MF film scanner. I bought the Nikon, as I didn't see a
reasonable alternative. It resulted in a longer discussion with my wife, that
not necessarily was held in the spirit of affection. But it was too late -
I had ordered it already.

My wife went to Verona to see Aida - I stayed at home (I had to work and
to keep the dog). I got the scanner yesterday - and since then I spent
all the time I could manage to get it working. There is still an issue
that makes it impossible to use some of the more elaborate restoration
techniques. I also see that it has less resolution than my Minolta
Scanelite 5400 (I). But it got a better dynamic range, and I think the
colors are more consistent. I had an issue with flare on the Minolta,
the Nikon seems to be better here.

On the first night I scanned the first two MF films (if You are inclined
to see the results: I replaced the pictures in my two posts: 'My first
Hassie film' and 'My second Hassie film' here and in the general
photography section. You may need to refresh the page).

I also was able to scan two images, that I couldn't get pictures from with the flatbed scanner.
The first one was underexposed, maybe by 1..1.5 F-stops. Due to the
high dynamic range of the scanner the picture came out very pleasing...


Zorro taken with a 5.6/250 Sonnar on Velvia 50, scanned with the Nikon LS9000

I took the second picture during a short stop when driving home
from work. The exposure was ca. 3 minutes. That can be veryfied by the
ferry, that smears through the frame - there are too many ferries to
avoid this. And the light was that good only for some minutes. I was
lucky that I took the picture.


Schloss Maurach, the city of Constance, & Mount Säntis most likely taken with the 2.8/80 Planar,
underexposed, curves adjusted to fix this. Note the ferry. Or look at the rest of the scenerey ;-)

So, I have to stop camera (in my case: lens) collecting for the rest
of the year... but, I think, it was worth the effort.

Best regards
Peter

[GeneW]

Peter, congratulations! Medium format + a good MF scanner = Magic!

I'm highly jealous!

Gene

[John Parry]

Well those worked OK!!

My HP Scanjet HP5370c doesn't have adjustable focus to allow you to pull in slides. Negatives are OK, because they lie on the glass plate, but slides are always off.

Regards - John

[Peter S.]

Dear Gene,

Well, the quality of that Hasselblad gear when it comes to bragging is beyond doubt. The 500c/m
is a pure fun device - that's clear, too (unless You have to lug it around for more than 15 minutes....).
But, my wife says my pictures simply would not justify being taken in MF - I don't know whether she thinks
APS would fit my artistic ability - but she says, there were way too much nonsense in between my good
picture. I.e. first I should learn to take only good pictures before spending substantial resources into
(former) pro equipement.

To some extent she may be right.

But I should not say that. I should say (and I _want_ to say): I felt that lens/scanner/whatsoever
envy - until the point, I got money for overtime. More than an additional month's salary. Needless to say,
I could not resist...

And I have to confess: I love MF. The big viewfinder is great - and the rectangular format is an extremely pleasing
alternative to the 3:2 format. In my limited experience the square format is pretty resistive in landscapes -
but it is great for persons (not my cup of tea, anyhow) and objects (from pets to architecture). So intrinsically
one does not need nor the bulky (and expensive) long telephotos neither those ultra wide angle lenses,
that let You photograph the nose of Your neighbor in the same size than St Peter in the near background.

The smaller aperture does however make me want to use that Provia 400x more often. It is often a bit offensive
to take the tripod always at one's side.


Dear John,

I have a HP 7400 since a couple of years (I prefer scanning my handwritings to making Visio drawings
for my work) - and I dislike the way HP does not care for taking measures against their programming flaws.
Not a single firmware update in four years - and enough bugs that earn being wiped out.

The mere resolution may be sufficient for that hobby web publishing. But the dynamic range - and even
more important, the lack of automatic dust removal made me ruling flatbed scanners out.
I don't do more than one LF exposure (I don't dare to regard it a picture) every two month. So I made up my
mind to skip LF compatibility (which would have resultet in an Epson flatbed scanner).

And the time that needs to be separated from normal family life is way less for the film scanner compared to
the flatbed scanner. That was in the end the ultimate argument. Today I scanned a 35mm film that had been
forgotten in a letter from the lab in a bit more than an hour. It took my about for hours to do that with my
old Minolta scanner (that might have a small quality advantage in proper exposed slides). So I removed the
flatbed scanner from my desk - and it was a fun to do so...

Best regards
Peter

[GeneW]

Peter, one of the things I'm embarrassed about is that I always thought I'd love owning a Hasselblad and actually bought a used one: 500 C/M, with two lenses. I don't use it much, and it's party because I don't have a scanner that can do it justice. I've thought about the Nikon 9000 more than once, but it costs more than the D200 I just bought and I prefer the versatility of the DSLR over the Hassy. But I'll be the first to admit the results I get from it impress me. MF is lovely stuff. I'm unsure whether to keep the Hassy and get into it more, or cut my losses and sell the gear...

Gene

[doubs43]

Peter, not only are your scans very well done but Zorro is a darling puppy! (I'm a dog person) He looks like a terriffic dog.

Congratulations on getting a Nikon MF scanner with outstanding capabilities. I have a Nikon V ED and with old 35mm negatives it's TOO good. It shows every little fault just as a condenser enlarger would on glossy paper. But, with clean negatives it's great.

One of my first scanners some years back was an Agfa and it was very good for it's time. I was sorry to see them get out of scanners because I think they were on the right track.

Your wife is correct about the chaff between the gems but I wonder if she realizes that it's the same for ALL photographers? If a roll of film produces two or three really good pictures, I think I've done well and even that many "keepers" may be uncommon. I'm not talking just technically good but an image that has the power to express what we intended when we took it. I'm often surprised by the photographs my wife takes with her AF P&S camera. She can get exactly the right instant on film.... but has no interest in photography beyond her P&S. Maybe that's a good thing because otherwise she'd be wanting cameras and lenses that would deny me more equipment.

Walker

[Peter S.]

Gene,

Yes, the Hasselblad is not the allways-with-me camera. It is heavy and slow to operate. Slides are OK,
but paper prints from negatives are usually quite expensive. A MF slide projector might show the MF
qualities - but how often would You set up scanner and silverscreen?

I like the haptic feeling of the classic cameras so much, that I rather decided to invest in the scanner
rather than in a DSLR with some lenses.

But MF (irrespective of the brand, with a possible exception of Lomo and the like) is so fundamentally
different from current digital equipment, that I would refuse to chose in favor for just one of it -
a D200 might render my XD-7 useless (if there weren't the lots of Rokkor glass, of course), but not the 500c/m.

On the other hand, the amount of money I could get by selling the MF setup is not so much, that it would
open some possibilities otherwise were impossible for me. So there is no pressure to sell it. And since I
like it very much...

Btw in that half of a year I own the camera (now with a small selection of lenses, backs, second body...)
I took 8 films so far - er, just got a few more scans ready... so I stop ranting for two of them.




River Thur, 80mm Planar, Fuji Velvia, underexposed, but corrected due to great scanner...

and another one, taken only 15mm below the first place...



River Thur, same lens, same wrong exposure...

This is a hell of a nice place. I am there sometimes when driving from the HQ of the company
to my working place.

Best regards
Peter

[byuphoto]

Congrats on the scanner. Since my lab got a new Fuji frontier and scans to CD/Hi res for only $2(for me) It has become redundant and my Epson V750 just sits idle. I got it to also do LF and MF and have sold all of it but one old LF camera. I will keep it just to do LF scans

[Peter S.]

Rick,

I asked the lab, where I sent my films to - they want 20€ for _one_ MF scan in something
I would label as medium resolution. Do You have to pay 2$ for one picture or for the
complete film (in which case I would stop scanning, too)?

That LS9000 is OK. But it is loud, slow, and at least the Nikon Scan S/W is buggy.
I think about trying Vuescan. But the research phase is not over yet.

Best regards
Peter

[GeneW]

byuphoto said:

and my Epson V750 just sits idle.

Rick, how did you find the V750 for medium format? None of the labs in Toronto scan 120 at, for me, a reasonable price so I'm still looking for a home solution. I have an older 2450 and it's not bad, but it doesn't quite pull out the detail I'd like to see. In some ways I rather like using a flatbed scanner because I find the scans are more like a diffusion enlarger -- not quite as harsh and contrasty as a dedicated film scanner can be (like a condensor enlarger).

Gene

[byuphoto]

My lab is really a pro wedding photog ad he does the developing and scanning of my MF. I pay $2 per roll for develop and $2 per CD , usually24 exp of 120, He also soes all of my large printing and all my 4x6 sports and weddings. The V750 is the most outstanding MF flatbed scanner I have ever used. with the fluid scan, on B&W, it is like having dust/scratch removal. It's dynamic range rivals even dedicated scanners.