Holders, price/performance/sanity

Jockos

Jockos

Well-known
Local time
7:07 PM
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
987
Location
Sweden
View My Gallery
Hi all!

A few years back, I decided to dip my toe into medium format, and I did so a cheap but nice TLR. It didn't end up all that well, since loading the camera was fiddly, loading the spirals was even worse and loading the scanner holders made me go half insane.
The film was Pan F, one of Ilfords few mistakes, and I swore never to shoot 120 again.

Fast forward to 2015, my sister just got married, everyone is drunk, and I happen upon my aunts husband (well, they´re not actually married, but whatever). He tells me he's got one of my grandfathers old cameras, and wants me to have it.

A few weeks ago, I started using it and last week the film was developed. Loading the camera went well, with more experience under the belt, loading the spirals was also manageable, but those damn Canon 9000f 120 holders...

Well, the camera was fun to use, although it lacked a rangefinder, so I bought a Super Ikonta. Since I was getting in to MF, I bought a Hasselblad as well........
:angel:


So now I'm looking for a replacement for the holders.
I'm considering price, performance (flatness) and above all - sanity. A piece of equipment that makes me loose my temper is not worth it.

Looked at betterscanning, and there's Negative solutions and Lomo has a holder as well. What say you?
 
I will throw Lomography Digitaliza holders out there, it's the best performance / price ratio. Just make sure you do a cardboard cutout to keep the placement consistent.
 
Rather than buying a bunch of cameras you're eventually going to sell Why not save up and buy a really top notch scanner. From time to time I see imacon 343 scanners for sale. Until you get into a drum scannER you won't find anything equal. You can scan on cheaper scanners and you'll never see what's in your negs but the 343 and higher models will extract the maximm out of them. Also there are no problems with flatness.

By the way what's wrong with pan F? I get exceptionally beautiful results with it. I've never had a problem with Pan F. Like any other film you can't evaluate it shooting a few rolls. It takes shooting and testing to get the most out of any film.

The best advice e my father ever gave me (photographic) was to pick one film and one developer and use that until you really know what it can do. Most people skip around to different developers and film constantly.
 
x-ray said:
Rather than buying a bunch of cameras you're eventually going to sell Why not save up and buy a really top notch scanner. From time to time I see imacon 343 scanners for sale. Until you get into a drum scannER you won't find anything equal. You can scan on cheaper scanners and you'll never see what's in your negs but the 343 and higher models will extract the maximm out of them. Also there are no problems with flatness.
Click to expand...
I had a good scanner, Nikon V to be exact, but found the difference in image quality to be less than the price difference. If I'm to print big, I'll drum scan it (it so I tell myself). Also I use my A7 from time to time for this task.
Also I make money on most cameras I sell, never made any money on scanners.

x-ray said:
By the way what's wrong with pan F? I get exceptionally beautiful results with it. I've never had a problem with Pan F. Like any other film you can't evaluate it shooting a few rolls. It takes shooting and testing to get the most out of any film.
Click to expand...
it's more expensive than better film, it has a lower sharpness than most 100 ISO films (!), can't hold latent images, and it curls like Kodak.
If you're to choose ANY Ilford film, Pan F just happen to be the worst - objectively.

x-ray said:
The best advice e my father ever gave me (photographic) was to pick one film and one developer and use that until you really know what it can do. Most people skip around to different developers and film constantly.
Click to expand...
My father likes cars and is completely indifferent to photography.
 
The nikon V is ok but not in the same class as the imacon.

I completely disagree regarding Pan F. You've just not spent enough time with it. Gradation / tonality is super, latent image keeping is no issue because I don't let my film set around for long periods. I usually run it within a day or so. Curling is a non issue. I wet print and use a glass carrier. Most films aren't that flat so I often use glass carriers.
 
skibeerr said:
Is whet printing out of the question?
IMO that's where medium format shines.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, yes.. My apt is 23m^2, I've done some contact printing, but it has to be on the floor, which is a killer for my knees..
If I get a larger place some day!
 
x-ray said:
I completely disagree regarding Pan F. You've just not spent enough time with it. Gradation / tonality is super, latent image keeping is no issue because I don't let my film set around for long periods. I usually run it within a day or so. Curling is a non issue. I wet print and use a glass carrier. Most films aren't that flat so I often use glass carriers.
Click to expand...
Good for you!
 
rolfe said:
You can buy a better scanner but if you stick with the 9000, then the betterscanning.com holders are your friend. They DO work.

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/canon8xxx.html

Rolfe
Click to expand...
I've tried to email them, but didn't get any response. Since they are so costly, I wanted to know about compatibility:

If I buy the 9000f holder, could I use the glass if I go for a Epson scanner next? The USB connector has been glitching for some time, I've been thinking about opening the device and re-solder, but it's only a matter of time until it has to go to scanner heaven.
 
Jockos said:
I've tried to email them, but didn't get any response. Since they are so costly, I wanted to know about compatibility:

If I buy the 9000f holder, could I use the glass if I go for a Epson scanner next? The USB connector has been glitching for some time, I've been thinking about opening the device and re-solder, but it's only a matter of time until it has to go to scanner heaven.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the glass is the same size, but only betterscanning.com can say for sure...

Rolfe
 
Definitely a vote for the betterscanning holders. I had them when I decided I wanted to scan MF at home on a V600 that I picked up for cheap. Hated flat bed scanning, I'll never do it again haha but the betterscanning holders did make it a bit easier than the plastic Epson ones. I will say though that if I ever decide I want to scan my own MF at home again it'll be with an Imacon. I think someone else mentioned the 343 as well. But yeah, the short answer is the betterscanning holders haha.
 
The glass is slightly longer and might make the gap a bit tight to insert your finger. You can go to a glass shop and have them cut 10 mm off though and you will be good to go.

Jockos, I believe I have replied to you. Please check your spam folder.

Doug
 
xvvvz said:
The glass is slightly longer and might make the gap a bit tight to insert your finger. You can go to a glass shop and have them cut 10 mm off though and you will be good to go.

Jockos, I believe I have replied to you. Please check your spam folder.

Doug
Click to expand...
Nothing there.. Sounds promising though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rogier
Does software make the difference?
Replies
6
Views
359
Jan makowski
J
ped
Batch scanner in 2025 - PrimeFilm 3600pro
2
Replies
20
Views
725
Godfrey
Godfrey
J
Intrepid enlarger?
Replies
1
Views
935
mdarnton
M
Rogier
Film holder Epson V850
Replies
4
Views
540
Rogier
Rogier
T
Negative carriers for Canon 9000F
Replies
8
Views
1K
p.giannakis
p.giannakis
Back
Top Bottom