H/U My Film Days are Nearly over

[Gid]

I got a serious film bug as a result of this site. As usual, when I go for something I go for it in a big way as my recent purchases will atest to. However, the biggest issue, by far, has been the dev and scan process. I've just not been getting the results that are worth the effort (more scanning than deving). What really brought this home was when I presented 3 prints to my family and asked which they liked best (all at approx 15 x 10). They chose the print from the Epson RD-1, followed by the Bronica RF 645 and last by a long way the Hexar RF - all were at ISO 400 (HP5+ film). The film was scanned in at 4800 DPI on my Epson 4990. Also, the amount of time the whole process has been taking is time that I don't have especially with a house renovation project on the go too. Whilst I absolutely love my cameras, they are going to have to go and I am going to move over to the dark side for MF like quality (most likely a Canon 5D). I will be keeping my Canon F1 for occasional excursions with film and I will be staying here with my RD-1.

So this is a heads up the the classified I will put together, hopefully, tonight. For sale will be,

Bronica RF645 with 65mm lens LNIB only about 5 rolls through it, with B+W UV filter fitted, plus a B+W 2 stop ND filter, plus about a dozen mixed rolls of HP5+, FP4+ and XP2. £450 plus postage.

Zenzanon 45mm lens + viewfinder LNIB with B+W UV filter fitted. £250 plus postage.

Konica Hexar RF kit (bought recently from Laptoprob) - cam, 50mm hexanon, flash, strap etc. Excellent camera and it does work with Leica glass - tested with my 35 and 50 summicrons. £550 plus postage.

Leica M6 classic (chrome from 1988) - absolutely like new with boxes, caps, strap, paperwork. Serviced last year at Solms by Leica tech. £800 plus postage.

50 summicron - late with built in hood with fitted UV filter - excellent condition. £370 plus postage.

Epson 4990 - about 6 weeks old - in box with all the bits. £250 plus postage.

I will post this properly this evening, but just wanted to give a heads up. PM me if you are interested in any of this stuff.

Best regards

 

[jaapv]

We'll form a hollow square and rip off your buttons and drum you off the forum for HERESY !!
😀😀

 

[Gid]

We'll form a hollow square and rip off your buttons and drum you off the forum for HERESY !!
😀😀

That actually sounds like fun 🙂

 

[jlw]

We'll form a hollow square and rip off your buttons and drum you off the forum for HERESY !!
😀😀

Smiley duly noted, but come on -- this is a RANGEFINDER forum, not a FILM rangefinder forum! An R-D 1 fully qualifies one to keep one's buttons, dontcha think?

I've been through exactly the same process -- losing big chunks of my leisure life to the feeding of the ravenous scanner, and eventually deciding it makes more sense to originate the image digitally -- and wound up in about the same place.

I've still got a couple of film RFs just because they're pleasant to use, and the time required to scan isn't as important for kinds of photography in which all you're going to do is select the ONE best image, rather than trying to deliver a vast quantity of images. (In fact, for "one-best" photography, film may actually have an edge in time requirements, because you can farm out all the the other post-production steps.)

We'll even have to forgive you for buying a DSLR, as long as you keep talk about it on Jorge's other forum (DSLR Exchange.) If your experience is like mine, though, you may find that you'll use the DSLR less than you think, and the R-D 1 more than you think. I do almost all my digital shooting with the R-D 1, and haul out the big clunky SLR only with extreme reluctance.

Remember, pixel count isn't everything: You can definitely get "medium format quality" with an R-D 1, just at a slightly smaller maximum print size. Pixel count itself doesn't affect ANYTHING except how large a print you can make before the pixel structure gets large enough for the eye to see.

 

[jaapv]

Yeah-sure but a CANON 5D ??? Not even a DMR?? 😉 (btw, I'm seriously considering upgrading my 10D for a 5D).

 

[fgianni]

Yeah a 5D with the new 85mm f1.2, an heresy, but a really cool one!
Shame I can't afford it right now.

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

PM sent on Bronica RF645.

Wayne

Edit: Sorry, I jiust did currency conversion and I am going to pass on the Bronica.

 

[bmattock]

Gid, Best of luck with the sale, sorry that the film is not your cup of tea. I find that my DSLR does eliminate most of the need/desire for me to shoot color film, but I still maintain a small stock of it - the cheap Walgreens/Agfa stuff - to test my classic cameras as I get them, fix them, etc. I still shoot a lot of B&W, though. I find the time I spend processing, scanning, and so on to be time well-spent; quite enjoyable for me.

But each will find their own level, and you'll hear no argument from me on that acount.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Gid]

I may yet keep the Bronica (it is by far and away my favourite) and use where MF counts and I want bigger prints - get the film developed by a lab and low res scans and if I want prints done, again get them done externally. That will reduce the amount of additional time I have to put in. If I do this, then I won't by a 5D - the Epson and my Olympus E1 do fine to A3. This may be heresy, but the 35mm doesn't cut it - at least in terms of effort and cost versus result. Might be different if I had a darkroom and was hand printing, but scanning on the 4990 isn't doing it - I've tried lots of approaches. I suppose a dedicated film scanner might produce better results, but there is still the time issue.

DMR? I can get an adapter for the Canon to use Leica glass and have the best of both worlds - decent camera with good glass 😀 Jorge, only joking, don't ban me please - the DMR is way out of my league price wise.

 

[jaapv]

A dedicated film scanner DOES do the trick Minolta 5400, Fuji Sensia

 

[bmattock]

I may yet keep the Bronica (it is by far and away my favourite) and use where MF counts and I want bigger prints - get the film developed by a lab and low res scans and if I want prints done, again get them done externally. That will reduce the amount of additional time I have to put in. If I do this, then I won't by a 5D - the Epson and my Olympus E1 do fine to A3. This may be heresy, but the 35mm doesn't cut it - at least in terms of effort and cost versus result. Might be different if I had a darkroom and was hand printing, but scanning on the 4990 isn't doing it - I've tried lots of approaches. I suppose a dedicated film scanner might produce better results, but there is still the time issue.

DMR? I can get an adapter for the Canon to use Leica glass and have the best of both worlds - decent camera with good glass 😀 Jorge, only joking, don't ban me please - the DMR is way out of my league price wise.

Those Punk Rock Days - by Whisk

Well i am glad those punk rock days are gone
It seems that i ran outta fun
Seems that i got tired of dyed hair
Irish pubs and pints of cider
No more gigs in front of dorks
No more stupid power chords
Therefore just by incident
I picked up my midi instruments

My band mates tell me i'm a fool
I can't rock in my living room
They'd like to make me eat their boots
When they see me in ties and suits
But they're too dumb to understand
That punk's for boys and pop's for men
And i am glad the best is yet to come
I'm glad those punk rock days are gone

Reminds me of when I finally got tired of hitting people in the head with a nightstick. Even that fun gets old eventually.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[fgianni]

But scanning on the 4990 isn't doing it - I've tried lots of approaches.

Have you tried getting rid of the crappy sftware that comes with the scanner and using Vuescan (very cheap)?

I am getting very nice scan from MF film with my old Epson 3200 and Vuescan, Silverfast simply did not cut the mustard.

 

[pmu]

Dear Mr.Gid,

just to let you know -- scanning is not the way to go when dealing with film... If the goal is to produce prints, traditional darkroom printing produces superior results when compared to scanning from negatives...IMHO.

 

[Gid]

A dedicated film scanner DOES do the trick Minolta 5400, Fuji Sensia

Now, that is nice.

 

[Gid]

Have you tried getting rid of the crappy sftware that comes with the scanner and using Vuescan (very cheap)?

I am getting very nice scan from MF film with my old Epson 3200 and Vuescan, Silverfast simply did not cut the mustard.

I'm happier with the MF scans I'm getting and if I keep the Bronnie I'll have a look at Vuescan. To be fair, I ran some XP2 through the Bronnie and the results were much better than HP5+ that I'd developed at home, so my lack of experience may have something to with it. However, the 4 rolls of 35mm Delta Pro 400 I dev'd yesterday produced some very nice looking negs, but the scans from the first roll were disappointing and so dusty even though I thought they were nice and clean.

Maybe I'll just change the title to My 35mm days are over 😉

 

[Gid]

Dear Mr.Gid,

just to let you know -- scanning is not the way to go when dealing with film... If the goal is to produce prints, traditional darkroom printing produces superior results when compared to scanning from negatives...IMHO.

I don't doubt it, but I have no space for a darkroom and then there is the time issue.

 

[Gid]

Reminds me of when I finally got tired of hitting people in the head with a nightstick. Even that fun gets old eventually.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Bill,

The trouble is that at the moment I'm hitting myself on the head 🙂 - and still no sense.

 

[Les Lammers]

I'm happier with the MF scans I'm getting and if I keep the Bronnie I'll have a look at Vuescan. To be fair, I ran some XP2 through the Bronnie and the results were much better than HP5+ that I'd developed at home, so my lack of experience may have something to with it. However, the 4 rolls of 35mm Delta Pro 400 I dev'd yesterday produced some very nice looking negs, but the scans from the first roll were disappointing and so dusty even though I thought they were nice and clean.

Maybe I'll just change the title to My 35mm days are over 😉

The film was scanned in at 4800 DPI on my Epson 4990

The 4900 will not do a good job with 35mm scans for printing. It is ok for the web.

 

[jaapv]

Dear Mr.Gid,

just to let you know -- scanning is not the way to go when dealing with film... If the goal is to produce prints, traditional darkroom printing produces superior results when compared to scanning from negatives...IMHO.

*Adding:* for Black and White; virtually nobody does colour (negative). In that case scanning or digital and post-processing returns full control to the photg. Plus Kodak (amongst others) will do beautiful chemical prints from your digital files.

 

[jonasv]

The film was scanned in at 4800 DPI on my Epson 4990

The 4900 will not do a good job with 35mm scans for printing. It is ok for the web.

I use the cheaper 4490... my 35mm scanned images get printed full-page in a mag and the quality is great. Don't underestimate these scanners!