First time TLR shooter

[bonatto]

Well not really first time, I did shoot a roll through a Yashicamat 124g a while back.

I've always been tempted by medium format but have put it off for various reasons, one of which is the lack of a decent MF scanner. I've shot film for a long time, all 135, scanned through Nikon scanners - after having been disappointed by a Canon 8800F.

I'll be shooting with a modern TLR for a while now and would like to get some general input on process.

I'm thinking of sticking to something like the Fuji 400h Pro film, for cost and speed, at about £11 per roll, developed.

I'll then need to scan these negatives, and am considering something along the lines of a V850. I've read the luminous landscape 89 page review comparing it to the Nikon 9000 and an Imacon and think I can deal with the grain level sharpness differences.

Are there any other options I am overlooking?

Thanks

F

 

[sojournerphoto]

Unless you want to take up dslr scanning I think you'll find the v850 very useful as it has good productive software. I had a 750 and it was very able to scan a roll at a size suitable for small prints/'contact strips' before working on selects. Somewhere around there is also a comparison I did with the Nikon 9000 for 35mm. While there are differences, unless you use the glass holder with the Nikon they may not be as great ad you think in a print.

It is of course possible that I had a good 750 or that my technique reduced them all to mush...

Mike

 

[mfogiel]

I made once a comparison between Nikon CS9000 and Epson V750, although at the time I probably did not know how to get the best out of the Nikon.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45878

The conclusions were:
- colour sucked on V750
- resolution sucked on V750
- grain actually looked better on V750, because V750 is unable to resolve the grain, so the appearance is less intrusive, evan after some sharpening.

The main point though would be to limit colour film to these special occasions when you really would want to shoot film over digital, for the sake of a different look and a colour palette you like. A known case are wedding photographers shooting Fuji 400H at EI 50 with some fast glass like Contax 645 Planar 80/2. Try to overexpose portraits a couple of stops with lens wide open and see how you like the results.
Otherwise, I'd use a MF camera with silver film, which is where you get unbeatable (for digital) results.

 

[bonatto]

Thanks for the input.

Marek, in terms of b&w film, any experience with HP5 on MF, or any other lesser priced alternatives?

Thanks

 

[Dan Daniel]

For B&W 120, I'd suggest trying different films. I really like Delta 400 over HP5 for that speed because my V700 scanner gives results I like. And I didn't like the look of the HP5 grain. But that's me, you might find HP5 nice. Neopan ACROS is my go-to B&W, but that's 100 ISO, not 400.

I've used an Imacon/Hasselblad and a V700. The V700 is fine; I know the Imacon is sharper, etc. but by the time it's printed out for my purposes the advantages aren't worth $12,000 for me.

I've printed 4'x4' from V700 scans and they looked fine-

The scanner is a significant part of your imaging chain. And like so many other elements, it's often a question of what you want and how you can make it work, not a question of 'what is the best.'

By the way, what 'modern' TLR do you mean?

 

[Fixcinater]

If you still have the Canoscan, I would advise giving it a few tries.

I've had much better results with my 6x6 and 6x7 negs/slides with my 9000F (same optics as your 8800, I believe) than I have with 35mm negs.

As for film, you have to try them and figure out what you like. Cheapest b&w would be expired if you can find it cheap (some on ebay want as much or more than fresh, depending on rarity of the emulsion, so beware) or Foma.

 

[harpofreely]

Fuji ACROS is relatively cheap in 120, and in a developer like xtol the fine grain is pretty forgiving on my v500.

 

[tuanvinh2000]

Plus 1 for Fuji Arcos. I use HC 110 with a variety of 120 BW film like Tmax, Trix 400 and they all turn out well.
For scanner, i use a digital camera and get about 10 megapixels from a square image, good enough for 12x12 prints with no loss in quality.
A TLR is very different mindset compared to RF. i was mostly using TLR last year but this year might be back on RF just to keep myself fresh aka dont make the same shots over and over. 🙂

 

[mfogiel]

For me silver film is not about avoiding grain at all costs, and not about getting the sharpness that will cut your fingers. It is about the tonality and about a hint of grain.
HP5+ might have the sweetest tonality of them all, has largish grain and good acutance. Tri X is very close, it has slightly less acutance but also slightly smaller and nicer looking grain, and the tonality is superb, but with more drama than HP5+: the contrast range seems to be wider. If you want something really sharp, go for Delta 100 - I don't particularly like Acros because it blocks the highlights quite quickly and is a very low acutance film. It might work best for studio portraiture.

 

[rayfoxlee]

I guess you might be based in the UK, from your UK price of £11 quoted. I buy my film and processing from Ag Photographic in Birmingham and find them first class and very quick. A 5 pack of Fuji Pro 400 works out at £4.98 for each 120 roll. They develop for £2.98 and scan to 18mb jpeg files for an extra £5. Those medium sized scans are good enough for A+ prints. They will also scan to Tiff files at no additional cost. Their scanner is a Noritsu, but they also have a Flextight for individual scans.

From my experience of using a analogue/digital workflow, I think monochrome is medium format film's forte and colour is best dealt with through digital. Getting the colour right from a scan is always (to me, anyway) an unnecessary challenge. Why not try a roll of FP4 B&W film rated at 80 ISO and see if you like the results. If you have Lightroom and Silver Efex you should be good to go.

Good luck.

Ray

 

[sojournerphoto]

For me silver film is not about avoiding grain at all costs, and not about getting the sharpness that will cut your fingers. It is about the tonality and about a hint of grain.
HP5+ might have the sweetest tonality of them all, has largish grain and good acutance. Tri X is very close, it has slightly less acutance but also slightly smaller and nicer looking grain, and the tonality is superb, but with more drama than HP5+: the contrast range seems to be wider. If you want something really sharp, go for Delta 100 - I don't particularly like Acros because it blocks the highlights quite quickly and is a very low acutance film. It might work best for studio portraiture.

I agree with all of this and really like HP5 in MF. I tend to develop in xtol 1+1 or 1+2 and to avoid rodinal for HP5, but apart from that I don't think you can go far wrong. I'm about to try the Fotospeed FX39 (iirc) as it comes in big bottles and seems to be able to keep and be used quite flexibly.

A couple of years ago I printed a picture of my daughters, taken on HP5 and developed in xtol. Scanned on the Nikon and printed on some rage paper. It wasn't even a big print, but it had a real beauty. When my Mum (proud grandma) showed it to a long term commercial photographer and friend, his immediate response was, 'Yes, there's still a lot to be said for film.'

Give it a go.

 

[Trius]

+1 for the Delta 100. It's very sharp and responds well to a variety of developers. TMax 400 (TMY-2) is also a film I like for ISO 400, but I'm not sure about pricing in the EU.