chrisso
Established
.........before I take the plunge.
$3000 for an RD-1, or $3000+++ for a really good scanner?
I still want to use my M6 and I love the pictures from my Mamiya 7II, but I don't own a decent scanner. My local scan place (incidentally a major centre for professional photographers) charges $40 per scan and they look soft to me.
I have two main reasons for wanting an RD-1.
1) To utilise my 4 x Leica lenses more often.
2) To try and capture the pictures I want to take more often.
I'm only a 'some time' photographer and I've missed great pictures by setting the exposure incorrectly (even when bracketing), or by panicking and attaching the lens hood incorrectly and finding a black stripe across the neg.
I enjoy making prints and framing them for my home. I'm really pleased with some prints I made after a friend scanned my slides on an Imacon. A couple of prints I made from the scans at the shop are soft, or grainey. Online examples of RD-1 images look great and I'm hoping 9 x 12 prints would remain sharp.
Any thoughts?
$3000 for an RD-1, or $3000+++ for a really good scanner?
I still want to use my M6 and I love the pictures from my Mamiya 7II, but I don't own a decent scanner. My local scan place (incidentally a major centre for professional photographers) charges $40 per scan and they look soft to me.
I have two main reasons for wanting an RD-1.
1) To utilise my 4 x Leica lenses more often.
2) To try and capture the pictures I want to take more often.
I'm only a 'some time' photographer and I've missed great pictures by setting the exposure incorrectly (even when bracketing), or by panicking and attaching the lens hood incorrectly and finding a black stripe across the neg.
I enjoy making prints and framing them for my home. I'm really pleased with some prints I made after a friend scanned my slides on an Imacon. A couple of prints I made from the scans at the shop are soft, or grainey. Online examples of RD-1 images look great and I'm hoping 9 x 12 prints would remain sharp.
Any thoughts?
R
RML
Guest
IF I had the money I'd spend it on the RD-1 instead of on a scanner. Besides, you can have very good neg scanners for MUCH less than $3000; more like $3-500.
chrisso
Established
Yeah, I saw some nice, crisp scans done on a fairly cheap Epson.
The friend who has done some scans for me say's the ONLY scanner is the Imacon. Let's not get into that argument, maybe we can just call him a snob.....although he is quite a leading photographer 'round here.
My worry is that the professional scans I've had done all look fuzzy compared to my friends, even though I pay for the highest resolution digital scan (before the drum scan service.....which is insanely expensive).
The deciding factor will probably be that I might take more pictures I'm happy with using the RD-1, rather than wasting a roll of film in a difficult lighting situation.
Then there is the argument about the savings made on film stock.
The friend who has done some scans for me say's the ONLY scanner is the Imacon. Let's not get into that argument, maybe we can just call him a snob.....although he is quite a leading photographer 'round here.
My worry is that the professional scans I've had done all look fuzzy compared to my friends, even though I pay for the highest resolution digital scan (before the drum scan service.....which is insanely expensive).
The deciding factor will probably be that I might take more pictures I'm happy with using the RD-1, rather than wasting a roll of film in a difficult lighting situation.
Then there is the argument about the savings made on film stock.
The professional scans most likely have not been adjusted in anyway. A processor will leave the post process work to the photographer, they are your images after all. You may just need to spend some time with Photo Shop.
Stick with the film and if you want enlargements have it done from the negative.
If you are scanning images to be viewed on a computer monitor anything over 72dpi is waisted, so get a nice film scanner, perhaps if you want to scan 120 film it will run you up to $1,200, but at that price you will have a great unit.
Stick with the film and if you want enlargements have it done from the negative.
If you are scanning images to be viewed on a computer monitor anything over 72dpi is waisted, so get a nice film scanner, perhaps if you want to scan 120 film it will run you up to $1,200, but at that price you will have a great unit.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Jorge had a Minolta Multi pro scanner (35mm up to 6x9MF film scanner) for 1600$ or something around that. New in a shop it costs almost double of that.
THEN you really can put the Mamiya in good use
If you buy the RD-1 you better sell your mamiya now - you will do it anyway, i wouyld say. Now they still go for a good price.
THEN you really can put the Mamiya in good use
If you buy the RD-1 you better sell your mamiya now - you will do it anyway, i wouyld say. Now they still go for a good price.
peter_n
Veteran
chrisso, to paraphrase Brian are you emotionally attached to using the M6? I mean I would understand it completely. I would spend the money on a good film scanner so that I could continue using the Leica.
In fact I just did that - I bought a 3200 res. Minolta (don't use MF). Now I have the best of both worlds - a great film camera that will create large print enlargements better than any digital cam, plus I can make very high quality scans for the internet when I want. And the scanner cost a heck of a lot less than $3K!
I would spend the money on a good film scanner so that I could continue using the Leica. In fact I just did that - I bought a 3200 res. Minolta (don't use MF). Now I have the best of both worlds - a great film camera that will create large print enlargements better than any digital cam, plus I can make very high quality scans for the internet when I want. And the scanner cost a heck of a lot less than $3K!
oftheherd
Veteran
peter_n said:... Now I have the best of both worlds - a great film camera that will create large print enlargements better than any digital cam, plus I can make very high quality scans for the internet when I want. And the scanner cost a heck of a lot less than $3K!
I believe film is still better than digital, I guess because I want to. Popular Photo & Imaging, in their Jan 05 issue, show an example that seems to disprove that. While I understand PP&I is a for profit business, I generally trust their content. On this one, sorry, I just can't buy it and think the "results" must have been "cooked" in some way. That even at 35mm. Of course, MF and LF probably won't be touched for at least five years, if then.
chrisso
Established
Well I must admit that I'm not totally convinced digital has the beating of film. To nip a long argument in the bud, let's just say those who still use film, prefer it.......because they prefer it.
Rover, I'm afraid what you said was wrong.
I'm talking about fuzziness, lack of sharpness, not colour balance or any other post processing. *
When I zoom in on raw Imacon scans from my M6, the picture's are still basically sharp, but on the raw pro scans they look blurred (almost pixelated).
My first idea was to shoot film whenever I want to and have the odd image scanned by a shop, but I now think the pro scans are a waste of my money.
I guess the most sensible suggestion is to sell the M6 - in favour of an RD-1.
I do have a sentimental attachment to the camera however.....and I'd still have all the lenses, so selling the M6 body might not change my dilemma too much anyway.
* I know about sharpening plug-ins, but you can't sharpen information that just isn't there. That's the scenario with the pro scans I've been getting.
Rover, I'm afraid what you said was wrong.
I'm talking about fuzziness, lack of sharpness, not colour balance or any other post processing. *
When I zoom in on raw Imacon scans from my M6, the picture's are still basically sharp, but on the raw pro scans they look blurred (almost pixelated).
My first idea was to shoot film whenever I want to and have the odd image scanned by a shop, but I now think the pro scans are a waste of my money.
I guess the most sensible suggestion is to sell the M6 - in favour of an RD-1.
I do have a sentimental attachment to the camera however.....and I'd still have all the lenses, so selling the M6 body might not change my dilemma too much anyway.
* I know about sharpening plug-ins, but you can't sharpen information that just isn't there. That's the scenario with the pro scans I've been getting.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
As much as I like the RD-1 , I am personally staying with film as I have too much already invested in film cameras. I bought a Minolta 5400 a year ago to enjoy the best of both worlds and have been happy. I have an Olympus C5050 that does a good job but is not used too often. I am also a " sometime photographer" so what I saved by buying my 35mm scanner goes a long way to processing negs. In the end it is a personal choice .
Bob
Bob
S
Scarpia
Guest
I finally finished a roll of 120 with my ancient and somewhat broken RolleiMagic. It went to Kodak processing and the resulting prints (from 4.5x6 negs) looked like they were taken by a $3.99 supermarket generic one time user. Intending to buy a scanner that would handle 120 anyway, I went out and bought the new Canon 9950 flatbed scanner. Only B&H had them in stock here in NYC and I paid $369.99 which is $30.00 under list. I scanned a few shots at the maximum 4800 ppi or is it dpi, and the results were superb. The film was Fuji Superia. I could see prior to the purchase that the negs were sharp, but kodak scanned them very obviously at low res. This is their premium service. At least TriState charged me only $10.50 including tax which is reasonable for 120 development and printing. Turns out that 120 processing which is very hard to find outside of pro labs is done by a portrait shop around the corner from where I live at $3.50 a roll and 63 cents a print. I will be doing the prints myself henceforth with scanner and Epson printer so I hope they don't mind the limited business I give them as I do most of my shooting in 35mm. I will be trotting out my C-3 and Autocord, however Both of these are older than most RFF members but they work.
The only limitation of the Canon 9950 is limited software that comes with it (PS Elements 2) I haven't tried it with 35mm negs as I have the Dual Scan IV and love it.
Kurt M.
The only limitation of the Canon 9950 is limited software that comes with it (PS Elements 2) I haven't tried it with 35mm negs as I have the Dual Scan IV and love it.
Kurt M.
chrisso
Established
Nikon Bob said:
That's why I thought the RD-1 was a neat solution.
I could carry a few Leica lenses and shoot film & digi on the same day, using M6 and RD-1 bodies.
It's probably the Mamiya that's messing with my head.
I love the feel of it and I love the negs.
Would an RD-1 print look as good?
Like you say.....it's a personal choice at the end of the day.
EsaS
Member
My thoughts, worth anything?
I have still my film cameras (M2, Nikon SLR, XA, Kiev, some others). I use my digital SLR for most of my pics. I still like very much using film, for occasional B&W pictures, for slides (you cannot compare anything digital so far with a projected slide, for reasonable cost), for "archival use" if some day my digital files fail (I take reasonable precautions).
I bought a film scanner (in my case 35 mm) and love to go thru old film archives (40 year old pics have new value in them).
In your case MF-camera makes things a little more complicated, but I would not sell M6 unless necessary for financing other purchases. It is a great backup to RD-1 or why not digital M after some years. And regarding quality: MF is certainly giving more details than RD-1 and so is most propably M6 and a reasonable scanner but digital files are "cleaner" which makes evaluation somewhat complicated.
Cheers Esa
I have still my film cameras (M2, Nikon SLR, XA, Kiev, some others). I use my digital SLR for most of my pics. I still like very much using film, for occasional B&W pictures, for slides (you cannot compare anything digital so far with a projected slide, for reasonable cost), for "archival use" if some day my digital files fail (I take reasonable precautions).
I bought a film scanner (in my case 35 mm) and love to go thru old film archives (40 year old pics have new value in them).
In your case MF-camera makes things a little more complicated, but I would not sell M6 unless necessary for financing other purchases. It is a great backup to RD-1 or why not digital M after some years. And regarding quality: MF is certainly giving more details than RD-1 and so is most propably M6 and a reasonable scanner but digital files are "cleaner" which makes evaluation somewhat complicated.
Cheers Esa
EsaS
Member
Crisso
You mostly summed my thoughts while I typed them
Cheers Esa
You mostly summed my thoughts while I typed them
Cheers Esa
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
One other small point on using Leica film lenses on the RD-1 is the crop factor. I am sure you are aware of this but in case you are not I am mentioning it. I don't know what it is for the RD-1 but generally it is around 1.5 so a 20mm is an turned into a 30mm on a digital. Just something else to think about. If The RD-1 is like the Oly C5050
you have in camera sharpening settings to play with so no matter how the image is captured , direct to a CCD or via a scan, there are sharpening issues among others that have to be sorted out.
Bob
you have in camera sharpening settings to play with so no matter how the image is captured , direct to a CCD or via a scan, there are sharpening issues among others that have to be sorted out.
Bob
chrisso
Established
Nikon Bob said:
Yep. I'm looking for sharper files in the raw though.
I think M6 or Mamiya 7II to Imacon is a fairly sharp combo (if there ain't no operator error
).I'm willing to compromise on a mid-level digi camera like the RD-1, but not on $40 scans from a pro lab.
peter_n
Veteran
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!chrisso said:
It's all personal perception. Some people swear that a digital print looks "better" than a film print. To me a digital print look cold, dead. I much prefer the look of a film print. I was really interested in the RD-1 when it was announced, and since then I've spent a fair amount of time comparing the output of digital/film. Without getting into that debate I'll just say that I prefer the wet printed from film look, and that led me into buying the film scanner last week.chrisso said:
You'll get a lot of different responses to this question but try to make your own comparisons if you can. Then you'll be sure that your decision is right for you. I don't blame you for objecting to the $40 scans that really aren't good enough, I've had the same experience myself. I'm hoping the Minolta scanner I just got will fix that.
S
Scarpia
Guest
But Peter isn't a print from a scanned negative a digital print?
Kurt M.
Kurt M.
peter_n
Veteran
Yes it is Kurt. But I'm not going to be printing from my scans. They're just for web pages. The ones I really like I'll get printed by a lab.
I'm also looking into building a (wet) darkroom.
I'm also looking into building a (wet) darkroom.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Chrisso
Have you post processed your $40 scans in Photo Shop using for example USM etc.?
If you have and they are still soft I am with you and would not tolerate it either. If there is grain in the neg a scan will show that too. Anyway, I am sure you will be happy with your new RD-1. If you go that route be sure and let us know if it solved your problems. BTW I get decent 8.5 X 11 prints from the 5 meg Oly so you should be able to get pleasing results from the RD-1
Bob
Have you post processed your $40 scans in Photo Shop using for example USM etc.?
If you have and they are still soft I am with you and would not tolerate it either. If there is grain in the neg a scan will show that too. Anyway, I am sure you will be happy with your new RD-1. If you go that route be sure and let us know if it solved your problems. BTW I get decent 8.5 X 11 prints from the 5 meg Oly so you should be able to get pleasing results from the RD-1
Bob
chrisso
Established
Yes.Nikon Bob said:
However, I'm talking about the bought scan looking a bit fuzzy in the raw, compared to the look I'm used to in my own work.
If I zoom in on a raw scan in Photoshop, the scans done on an Imacon by my friend are pretty damn sharp.
I was presuming the pro lab would use Imacon, but their scans are poor IMO.
I haven't tested the same frame in both Imacon and shop method, but I have scanned images from the same roll of film.
One of the things I'm good at is focussing. I use a tripod, a cable release and I take my time. So it really looks like bad scanning to me.....and at $40 a frame.
A few rolls of film and I'd have paid for an RD-1!