alfisti
Member
Also - to clarify one more thing - I'm not always hung up on sharpness. It's just that I'm trying to find out the limitations of the gear (and myself). It's all learning. Thank
mgilbuena
San Francisco Bay Area
Your journey is similar to mine:
Wow, this Leica. It's magical! There's nothing it can't do! This is a $3k+ ASPH lens! It's got creamy bookeh!
Unfortunately, coming from a DSLR background, stylistically there are simply things I couldn't effectively do with my film (and digital!) Leicas. A rangefinder is a different beast: minimum focus distance, rangefinder focusing method, and of course a lot smaller. It allowed me to travel with lighter equipment, but did not replace my ability to take shots like I did with my DSLR.
I liked film. I liked it's character. I liked that rangefinders got me back into film. Thus, a natural progression was to get a film SLR body that allowed me to take advantage of my large Nikon lens collection from my DSLR bodies.
I started with a Nikon FM2. Same size as an M body. Totally manual focus. Battery for meter, but all shutter speeds mechanical and not reliant on a battery. This was a great body and I was able to return to my comfort zone (standing closely to my subjects; macro photography, etc) but found I was becoming frustrated with split prism focusing. I didn't find it as easy to focus as with a rangefinder.
Then I picked up an auto-focus SLR body. $40. Equal in functionality to a Nikon D700. Amazing. I now have all the ability that my DSLR cameras had, but with the quality and character of 35mm film. I was and am very happy.
Rangefinder? Day trip. Vacation to another country. Walk-around daily camera.
SLR/DSLR? Modeling. Macro work. Creamy bokeh from closer distance than allowed with a rangefinder.
PS. If you want to be astonished by the quality from a "cheap" camera body, check out an Olympus Stylus Epic point-and-shoot. Much larger "sensor" than a modern digital point and shoot. Full-frame!!
Wow, this Leica. It's magical! There's nothing it can't do! This is a $3k+ ASPH lens! It's got creamy bookeh!
Unfortunately, coming from a DSLR background, stylistically there are simply things I couldn't effectively do with my film (and digital!) Leicas. A rangefinder is a different beast: minimum focus distance, rangefinder focusing method, and of course a lot smaller. It allowed me to travel with lighter equipment, but did not replace my ability to take shots like I did with my DSLR.
I liked film. I liked it's character. I liked that rangefinders got me back into film. Thus, a natural progression was to get a film SLR body that allowed me to take advantage of my large Nikon lens collection from my DSLR bodies.
I started with a Nikon FM2. Same size as an M body. Totally manual focus. Battery for meter, but all shutter speeds mechanical and not reliant on a battery. This was a great body and I was able to return to my comfort zone (standing closely to my subjects; macro photography, etc) but found I was becoming frustrated with split prism focusing. I didn't find it as easy to focus as with a rangefinder.
Then I picked up an auto-focus SLR body. $40. Equal in functionality to a Nikon D700. Amazing. I now have all the ability that my DSLR cameras had, but with the quality and character of 35mm film. I was and am very happy.
Rangefinder? Day trip. Vacation to another country. Walk-around daily camera.
SLR/DSLR? Modeling. Macro work. Creamy bokeh from closer distance than allowed with a rangefinder.
PS. If you want to be astonished by the quality from a "cheap" camera body, check out an Olympus Stylus Epic point-and-shoot. Much larger "sensor" than a modern digital point and shoot. Full-frame!!
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Your scanner software is worth a look.
I scan on an Epson Perfection flatbed and found the Silverfast software miles better than Epson's own scanning software. A lot of people seem to like Vuescan too. You can download free trial to test them out.
I scan on an Epson Perfection flatbed and found the Silverfast software miles better than Epson's own scanning software. A lot of people seem to like Vuescan too. You can download free trial to test them out.
alfisti
Member
Re: scanner software. It's not on "auto", it just doesn't even HAVE options. Basically it is the bare-bones scanning software that came with the scanner. I will look into the others....
Thanks
Thanks
codester80
A Touch of Light
As said earlier, pick up a few books and start reading. The problem with digital is that the instant feedback allows you to constantly change things until you happen upon the right combination. You don't learn anything. Film requires you to have all the knowledge before clicking the shutter than having the knowledge after during the workflow to produce the final image. Think of digital as fast food and film as a gourmet meal.
Stick with the film experiment and I'll guarantee you'll see VAST improvements in your photography, both digital and film.
Stick with the film experiment and I'll guarantee you'll see VAST improvements in your photography, both digital and film.
not_in_good_order
Well-known
If you are used to a 5D, why not pick up a used EOS 3 and use your existing lenses? They are wonderful cameras and can be found quite cheaply. If you want to go even cheaper, an Elan 7 is nice light weight tool. Canon made many excellent SLR cameras that will handle just like what you are used to and you can get them for a song.
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
Your scanner is definitely a weak link. It simply does not have the effective resolution to get you a file that's worthy of the detail recorded on film. I used to have the Canon 8000F scanner, an older model, but a bit higher end than the 4200, I think. It was really frustrating. I tried a lot of tricks but in the end I decided that the scans would only be good for little images for forum posting. Lab enlargements from those same negatives were just fine. I have several hanging on the walls.
When the 40D came out, I jumped on the digital bandwagon. Used with the same lenses, the 40D files WIPED THE FLOOR with what I was able to get with the flatbed scanner. Mind you, I'm not saying it was dramatically better than my negatives (well, ok, for colour at ISO 400 and beyond it was) but the scanner output... I'd estimate the 8000F's files to have 4MP worth of useful image data at best. Even if your flatbed was twice as good as mine (it's probably more or less the same), it would still fall short of the 5D.
Try to get access to a dedicated film scanner (such as the Nikon CoolScan V) or get professional scans or prints made from your best negatives.
When the 40D came out, I jumped on the digital bandwagon. Used with the same lenses, the 40D files WIPED THE FLOOR with what I was able to get with the flatbed scanner. Mind you, I'm not saying it was dramatically better than my negatives (well, ok, for colour at ISO 400 and beyond it was) but the scanner output... I'd estimate the 8000F's files to have 4MP worth of useful image data at best. Even if your flatbed was twice as good as mine (it's probably more or less the same), it would still fall short of the 5D.
Try to get access to a dedicated film scanner (such as the Nikon CoolScan V) or get professional scans or prints made from your best negatives.
Steve M.
Veteran
The whole chain needs to be right. Metering, exposure, subject, development etc. Is the camera focusing correctly? Is the lens a good one? Is the scanner capable of good results? Did you edit the image to it's fullest potential in your editing software?
I have a much older flatbed scanner, and it will give excellent results (for medium format) IF everything is right. I would disagree that film is soft! You just gotta have good glass and have everything else right. Here's a shot from a Leica R lens using just the Walgreens scans and editing in PS, and another from a Rolleiflex using an older flatbed Epson scanner. I would recommend a dedicated film scanner for 35mm. A Minolta Scan Dual II or III won't cost much, but again, you have to confirm that everything else is on the money. If you use good glass, a good film like Tri-X, a properly focused and exposed (and developed) neg, and a good scanner....then the sharpness, tonal range, & detail will blow you away.
I have a much older flatbed scanner, and it will give excellent results (for medium format) IF everything is right. I would disagree that film is soft! You just gotta have good glass and have everything else right. Here's a shot from a Leica R lens using just the Walgreens scans and editing in PS, and another from a Rolleiflex using an older flatbed Epson scanner. I would recommend a dedicated film scanner for 35mm. A Minolta Scan Dual II or III won't cost much, but again, you have to confirm that everything else is on the money. If you use good glass, a good film like Tri-X, a properly focused and exposed (and developed) neg, and a good scanner....then the sharpness, tonal range, & detail will blow you away.
Last edited:
bronney
Established
Glenn,
I started with a Nikon D40x, ended up selling it when I got my 16th film body. Later got jobs coming in and picked up the D700. Out of all those cameras, the QL17 is the *** *** I hate the most. I like it, I like to collect it, but the *** *** results I don't know what's wrong with it. The photos from it just makes me angry I don't know what it is. Even my Yashica's do better than this quick-loading thing. Here are some samples of my QL17:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bronney/sets/72157618879042511/
To your question of pink scans, I think it's over exposure of negs. I find that if I expose a frame perfectly, the magenta/pinkish is gone with default WB. Alternatively, you can correct it during scan by picking (eye dropping) the correct neutral from the frame. I use silverfast to scan my stuff.
To test out if your camera's meter consistently over exposing your film, stick in a roll of positives and shoot. As positives have way lower tolerance, you can tell if all your highlights are blown, it's over. For me, I think I am the weakest link in terms of exposure and need to -EV my head.
So yeah, try some yashica if you're still on a budget or if you feel naughty, pick up some leica's. Here's a great tip, if you know how to shop your leica's you don't ever lose money when you sell it. The nikon's and canon's will lose you money.
I started with a Nikon D40x, ended up selling it when I got my 16th film body. Later got jobs coming in and picked up the D700. Out of all those cameras, the QL17 is the *** *** I hate the most. I like it, I like to collect it, but the *** *** results I don't know what's wrong with it. The photos from it just makes me angry I don't know what it is. Even my Yashica's do better than this quick-loading thing. Here are some samples of my QL17:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bronney/sets/72157618879042511/
To your question of pink scans, I think it's over exposure of negs. I find that if I expose a frame perfectly, the magenta/pinkish is gone with default WB. Alternatively, you can correct it during scan by picking (eye dropping) the correct neutral from the frame. I use silverfast to scan my stuff.
To test out if your camera's meter consistently over exposing your film, stick in a roll of positives and shoot. As positives have way lower tolerance, you can tell if all your highlights are blown, it's over. For me, I think I am the weakest link in terms of exposure and need to -EV my head.
So yeah, try some yashica if you're still on a budget or if you feel naughty, pick up some leica's. Here's a great tip, if you know how to shop your leica's you don't ever lose money when you sell it. The nikon's and canon's will lose you money.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I think you are trying to learn too much at once. You are trying to learn how to focus a RF camera/cameras which may or may not be in spec, how to get a proper exposure, how to develop film and how to scan film. How about eliminating some of the variables by shooting colour C41 film and having a lab develop and scan the roll. Then make sure your cameras are up to spec or just get a more modern film SLR body that is easier to use, more likely up to spec and cheap to buy. Once you are getting good results with film, then start to learn how to develop and/or scan.
Bob
Bob
atlcruiser
Part Yeti
Too many variables! I think your results are fine, camera is OK, film is good (would not be my first choice though, scanner is OK........
My suggestion would be to first do a bunch of test shots to figure out focus, then a bunch to figure out exposure/developing times. I would scan them but not worry too much about the scanner or softwear.....just get an image to look at.
Do this for a while and the learning curve will be very quick. You have the knowledge and skills but they need to be adapted to the process
My suggestion would be to first do a bunch of test shots to figure out focus, then a bunch to figure out exposure/developing times. I would scan them but not worry too much about the scanner or softwear.....just get an image to look at.
Do this for a while and the learning curve will be very quick. You have the knowledge and skills but they need to be adapted to the process
alfisti
Member
Correct. Thanks for the guidance - all of you. Here's what I've done
* Sent the FED in for a CLA, it should come back calibrated and "known good".
* Been shooting with the Canonet, with color film.
I would wholeheartedly agree that there have been too many variables. Once I feel I'm good enough with RF focusing, I'll go back to B&W and shoot some more.
Having fun learning, either way!
alfisti
Member
Just an update on this.
I sent the FED-5 in for a CLA. I also bought a few rolls of Fujifilm Superia 400. I shot two color rolls yesterday/today, and had them developed at Costco, with scans.
The results are night and day. First of all it's clear from the prints and the scans - I'm nailing the focus, nearly every time. It's also obvious the Costco scans are very good. Also - the lens seems to be performing well
Next step - shoot a roll of film with the CLA'd camera and follow my workflow from before, and see what I get.
One thing I have noticed already, it helps to flatten the negs before scanning them. I will make sure to do that from now on. My scanner has produced good scans, but not consistently. I think the curl of the film is contributing to that. I do have to apply obscene amounts of sharpening, though... Ideally, I get a better scanner.
Thanks all!!
(samples below - these are test shots, sorry for the content)
I sent the FED-5 in for a CLA. I also bought a few rolls of Fujifilm Superia 400. I shot two color rolls yesterday/today, and had them developed at Costco, with scans.
The results are night and day. First of all it's clear from the prints and the scans - I'm nailing the focus, nearly every time. It's also obvious the Costco scans are very good. Also - the lens seems to be performing well
Next step - shoot a roll of film with the CLA'd camera and follow my workflow from before, and see what I get.
One thing I have noticed already, it helps to flatten the negs before scanning them. I will make sure to do that from now on. My scanner has produced good scans, but not consistently. I think the curl of the film is contributing to that. I do have to apply obscene amounts of sharpening, though... Ideally, I get a better scanner.
Thanks all!!
(samples below - these are test shots, sorry for the content)
click
Established
I applaud your decision to learn film. In my opinion you'll be much happier with your prints in the long run. The equipment you have may need servicing but those tools are perfectly capable of creating amazing images. I recommend using only one film and learning it inside and out and the same goes for lenses.