menos
Veteran
As many newcomers to 4x5, I started, to shoot 4x5 with Fuji instant film (I use FP-3000b 45).
Comparing the output with the few first sheets of Ilford 400, I see, that scanning the Fuji instant film, it doesn't really hold much detail.
While I can clearly see finest details like individual hair with the sheet film, scanning the instant film is much inferior in this respect.
How do you scan Fuji FP-3000b 45?
Where do you find the limitation - which resolution is still meaningful, and where do you stop?
I find shooting that Fuji instant B&W film quite fun and would like to continue, even after choosing more sheet film.
I do not see much interest though, to lug that heavy beasty Graphic around, shooting quality much inferior to taking a 35mm digital to begin with.
Comparing the output with the few first sheets of Ilford 400, I see, that scanning the Fuji instant film, it doesn't really hold much detail.
While I can clearly see finest details like individual hair with the sheet film, scanning the instant film is much inferior in this respect.
How do you scan Fuji FP-3000b 45?
Where do you find the limitation - which resolution is still meaningful, and where do you stop?
I find shooting that Fuji instant B&W film quite fun and would like to continue, even after choosing more sheet film.
I do not see much interest though, to lug that heavy beasty Graphic around, shooting quality much inferior to taking a 35mm digital to begin with.
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't think you quite understand what instant film is meant for. First and foremost it's a proofing solution. You take a shot on instant film to check exposure and composition before you expose a sheet of film. Obviously it's not going to give you anywhere near the resolution of a proper sheet of film. Heck, it won't even come close to the resolution of a 35mm film frame. With instant film you get a final print that's not really intended to be enlarged. Of course you can scan it and print it at larger sizes but don't expect to get more detail out of it. Besides, if you're after resolution it might not be the best idea to shoot ISO3000 instant film. Just sayin.
Shooting instant film as a final shot (as opposed to using it for proofing) is not about resolution. It's about that specific look you get from instant film. Graininess is part of it.
Shooting instant film as a final shot (as opposed to using it for proofing) is not about resolution. It's about that specific look you get from instant film. Graininess is part of it.
Robin Harrison
aka Harrison Cronbi
Add your name to the list of photographers pining for a Type 55 replacement.
Once upon a time, Polaroid made an instant film that produced both print and negative. It was wonderful and glorious and was responsible for one of the few truly unique and instantly-identifiable material-specific photographic aesthetics.
Once upon a time, Polaroid made an instant film that produced both print and negative. It was wonderful and glorious and was responsible for one of the few truly unique and instantly-identifiable material-specific photographic aesthetics.
menos
Veteran
Ok, Jamie, … now back to my question …
Robin, that might well be - I never experienced Type 55 :-(
I have experimented as well with the negatives of FP-3000b 45 and didn't find this worthwhile.
Please, guys no more advice for what instant film is for, etc … get straight to the point:
- which resolution and scanning methods did you guys find worthwhile?
I found more than 1200 dpi with an EPSON flatbed doesn't really enhance anything.
What is your finding in FP-3000b scanning resolution.
I find those instants quite fun, but don't plan, to use them as throwaways.
I scored a nice Grafmatic and will surely shoot sheet film, should that 4x5 experiment look worthwhile (so far, my belly feeling tells me, that the Hasselblad with 80mm is a much, much better second format to a few 135 rangefinders, when shooting outside).
Robin, that might well be - I never experienced Type 55 :-(
I have experimented as well with the negatives of FP-3000b 45 and didn't find this worthwhile.
Please, guys no more advice for what instant film is for, etc … get straight to the point:
- which resolution and scanning methods did you guys find worthwhile?
I found more than 1200 dpi with an EPSON flatbed doesn't really enhance anything.
What is your finding in FP-3000b scanning resolution.
I find those instants quite fun, but don't plan, to use them as throwaways.
I scored a nice Grafmatic and will surely shoot sheet film, should that 4x5 experiment look worthwhile (so far, my belly feeling tells me, that the Hasselblad with 80mm is a much, much better second format to a few 135 rangefinders, when shooting outside).
Jamie123
Veteran
I thought I was addressing your question. But maybe I just don't really get what your question is. You have found that 1200dpi is overkill and doesn't enhance anything. So just scan at lower resolutions until you find that the picture is losing detail. My guess is that with FP-3000B there's little point in scanning over 300dpi. Maybe 600dpi just to be on the safe sid. You can pretty much resolve all the detail by eye so it's quite easy to judge whether you're getting the most out of it.
I don't particularly like FP-3000B as it has terribly coarse grain. Polaroid's 667 was much softer and nicer. Fuji's FP-100B is pretty nice, though.
My point was simply if you're looking for resolution, don't bother with instant film. But don't decide whether or not it's worth it to shoot 4x5 based on what you can get from a Fuji instant print. That would be like judging the quality of a Phase One P65+ back by the preview image on the display.
By the way, when it comes to Fuji instant/Polaroids I prefer to use the 3x4 film on a Land camera. Not only is the camera much lighter and smaller than a 4x5 but the film is also much cheaper.
I don't particularly like FP-3000B as it has terribly coarse grain. Polaroid's 667 was much softer and nicer. Fuji's FP-100B is pretty nice, though.
My point was simply if you're looking for resolution, don't bother with instant film. But don't decide whether or not it's worth it to shoot 4x5 based on what you can get from a Fuji instant print. That would be like judging the quality of a Phase One P65+ back by the preview image on the display.
By the way, when it comes to Fuji instant/Polaroids I prefer to use the 3x4 film on a Land camera. Not only is the camera much lighter and smaller than a 4x5 but the film is also much cheaper.
menos
Veteran
No, no, no Jamie - the reason, why am quite specific of my actual question is, that I am really not interested, which film choice would be better or which camera more suitable, but just about one thing:
What is the real max resolution and best scanning method of the instant film gurus out there (for me, it's just the third pack of FP-3000b 45 - hardly any ground, basing decisions on).
The camera is fixed - a Crown Graphic - no intentions of adding another 4x5 camera anytime soon.
The film is fixed - a small stock of 4x5 3000b for instant (playing with flash, trying focussing, framing, handling of handheld shooting from a shoulder bag, etc (exchanging a Hasselblad against a 4x5 RF basically).
I am uncertain, which sheet film choice might be it, once my initial instant film stock is used out - mainly local availability pins it down to HP5, HP5 or HP5 - a film, I never used in 135 and 120.
So, the question still stands - what's the best scanning method, regular users use and what's the limit in resolution?
I am so far content, that 3000b doesn't hardly touches the potential of 4x5 over 120 film - it's just the film, to play with for now, nothing more (but I quite like the fun twist to instant film so far, really).
For the fun aspect, I just found a deal on a Graflok compatible Fuji 145 back, letting me use 60% less expensive Fuji film for the moments, I like that instant film thing … and so the resolution question stays relevant …
What is the real max resolution and best scanning method of the instant film gurus out there (for me, it's just the third pack of FP-3000b 45 - hardly any ground, basing decisions on).
The camera is fixed - a Crown Graphic - no intentions of adding another 4x5 camera anytime soon.
The film is fixed - a small stock of 4x5 3000b for instant (playing with flash, trying focussing, framing, handling of handheld shooting from a shoulder bag, etc (exchanging a Hasselblad against a 4x5 RF basically).
I am uncertain, which sheet film choice might be it, once my initial instant film stock is used out - mainly local availability pins it down to HP5, HP5 or HP5 - a film, I never used in 135 and 120.
So, the question still stands - what's the best scanning method, regular users use and what's the limit in resolution?
I am so far content, that 3000b doesn't hardly touches the potential of 4x5 over 120 film - it's just the film, to play with for now, nothing more (but I quite like the fun twist to instant film so far, really).
For the fun aspect, I just found a deal on a Graflok compatible Fuji 145 back, letting me use 60% less expensive Fuji film for the moments, I like that instant film thing … and so the resolution question stays relevant …
Jamie123
Veteran
Fuji states a resolution of 20 lpm in their data sheet.
But you don't need any 'instant film gurus' telling you what the limit in resolution is. You have the film right there, you can see what it resolves and what it doesn't. It's not like with neg film where there's a lot of detail hidden in the film that you may not easily be able to perceive with your own eye or even with a loupe. Try looking at an instant print with a loupe. All you'll see is magnified grain.
If you're having scanning troubles such as newton rings or dust, I'm sure a lot of people can help you but as far as resolution goes you're probably getting the most out of it already.
menos
Veteran
Now we cut to the case ;-)
Thanks a lot Jamie! My observations by loupe, scanning etc showed exactly that low resolution an demagnified grain, you are mentioning.
I was hoping, that others do some magic regarding scanning methods, to preserve the little resolution, there is (the EPSON flatbed indeed introduces quite a loss in quality).
charjohncarter
Veteran
In my opinion, Polaroid or Fuji 3000 speed film is not capable of really recording fine detail. In other words it is not like even 400 4x5. And besides that my experience with 3000 speed instant film is it doesn't scan well either.
This is one I took a little over a week ago and scanned. It is not 4x5 instant but I find it even much poorer than looking at the actual instant print:
Now Fuji 1000b or c is much better to scan and has much finer detail, but again no where near film. This is one of B and C:
Actually, my favorite Polaroid type film WAS FP100b and they have dumped it. But there FP100c is also great. This doesn't do you much good with 4x5 but it just reinforces your feeling that fine detail is not an instant film's forte.
This is one I took a little over a week ago and scanned. It is not 4x5 instant but I find it even much poorer than looking at the actual instant print:
Now Fuji 1000b or c is much better to scan and has much finer detail, but again no where near film. This is one of B and C:
Actually, my favorite Polaroid type film WAS FP100b and they have dumped it. But there FP100c is also great. This doesn't do you much good with 4x5 but it just reinforces your feeling that fine detail is not an instant film's forte.
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
I've been scanning them at 800dpi, mainly to have some overhead in case I want to enlarge it a bit. 400-600dpi is probably enough for extracting the detail.
From a recent NYC RFF meet:
From a recent NYC RFF meet:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
About scanning I'd take the advice Jamie gave. Regarding the oveall image quality of the current production 'instant films available' I'd take Jamie and Carter's comments as accurate and on the money. So shoot this stuff for the "look" if you are seeking resolution and enlargements that show the power of a large 4/5 negative buy some BW film and shoot and scan it. I scan my LF at anywhere from 600 to 1200 dpi.
If you're concerned about the initial costs of your new venture into LF, I would suggest you buy some decent but affordable Arista 4/5 film from Freestyle. How can you lose for $17 you get 25 sheets which is the equal of a roll of 24 / 135. Try some BW negative film next and then scan it. You will probably pick yourself up off the floor when you see a well exposed negative that was accurately focused.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/190125-Arista-EDU-Ultra-BandW-100-iso-4x5-25-sheets?cat_id=404
.......................
heavy industry neighbourhood by jannx, on Flickr
If you're concerned about the initial costs of your new venture into LF, I would suggest you buy some decent but affordable Arista 4/5 film from Freestyle. How can you lose for $17 you get 25 sheets which is the equal of a roll of 24 / 135. Try some BW negative film next and then scan it. You will probably pick yourself up off the floor when you see a well exposed negative that was accurately focused.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/190125-Arista-EDU-Ultra-BandW-100-iso-4x5-25-sheets?cat_id=404
.......................
heavy industry neighbourhood by jannx, on Flickr
menos
Veteran
Thanks guys for sharing your experience with scanning instant film!
I just received a Fuji FP-145 pack film holder, shaving a lot of film costs and planning to add some FP100c to try out ;-)
I will be looking then, to scan it around 600 − 800 dpi (maybe play with scanning @ 1200 and reducing size with sharpening in Photoshop, …
Is FP100b really out of production?
Jan, that housing with the factory is quite a sight ;-) Well done.
I just received a Fuji FP-145 pack film holder, shaving a lot of film costs and planning to add some FP100c to try out ;-)
I will be looking then, to scan it around 600 − 800 dpi (maybe play with scanning @ 1200 and reducing size with sharpening in Photoshop, …
Is FP100b really out of production?
Jan, that housing with the factory is quite a sight ;-) Well done.
charjohncarter
Veteran
About scanning I'd take the advice Jamie gave. Regarding the oveall image quality of the current production 'instant films available' I'd take Jamie and Carter's comments as accurate and on the money. So shoot this stuff for the "look" if you are seeking resolution and enlargements that show the power of a large 4/5 negative buy some BW film and shoot and scan it. I scan my LF at anywhere from 600 to 1200 dpi.
If you're concerned about the initial costs of your new venture into LF, I would suggest you buy some decent but affordable Arista 4/5 film from Freestyle. How can you lose for $17 you get 25 sheets which is the equal of a roll of 24 / 135. Try some BW negative film next and then scan it. You will probably pick yourself up off the floor when you see a well exposed negative that was accurately focused.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/190125-Arista-EDU-Ultra-BandW-100-iso-4x5-25-sheets?cat_id=404
.......................
heavy industry neighbourhood by jannx, on Flickr
You are right, I recently scanned some 4x5 B&W negatives for a Catholic High School in Oakland, CA, And was shocked at how good they were after 57 years. Here is one that had been sitting in a school drawer for all that time. One of my friends is in this one:
Photographer unknown, but whoever he was he did some classic shots.