Planning on getting my first medium format camera; need help with scanning!

[Scottboarding]

Like someone said above, I've been very pleased with my 120 "Better Scanning" holder. I do 6x9 easily with it.

This is my set up: http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/insert.html

Get both the holder and the Glass (ANR).

Thank you! $80 seems like a great deal, plus it's much cheaper than buying an entire new scanner! I bookmarked it and will buy it the same time I buy the Fuji.

 

[colker]

Completely, utterly, and unequivocally disagree with this statement.

Character comes from light, composition, and subject matter, not gear.

yes.:angel:

 

[jzagaja]

Because i only need to make one capture and i am done. without spending all the time and effort of repeated captures and stiching. Ever scan a 36 exp roll? With my 47mp digicam and es-2 copier I can do that in 10 minutes at 8000x5000.
I do this all the time.

Can you do above 100lpm?

 

[Godfrey]

That E1 has max rez of 2560 x 1920 which is good for 9x6 prints @ 300dpi i.e the standard for high quality . Unless u used uprez software 20x24 would be severely pixellated. I guess u could make exhibition prints that size if the subject matter was lego blocks.
...

Thanks for the snarky stupidity.

You obviously have never seen the prints (now hanging in my hallway), which won first and judges' choice awards in two separate exhibitions.

Jon Isaacs produced commercial exhibition prints that were twice that size for his exhibitions using the same camera. Go figure.

G

According to scientific analysis, it is said that bumblebees cannot fly. According to bumblebees, scientific analysis surely doesn't.

 

[Dave Jenkins]

I get excellent results scanning my 120 square format transparencies at 20x20 inches on my Epson 4990.

 

[giganova]

Are the "Better Scanning" holder worth it? What's the advantage? Flat negatives, correct? Are there any issues with having the negatives under glass (e.g., trapped dust)?

 

[Godfrey]

I get excellent results scanning my 120 square format transparencies at 20x20 inches on my Epson 4990.

I'm not exactly sure what you've said there.

Did you mean to say that your 120 square format transparencies, scanned with an Epson 4990, have been made into excellent quality 20x20 inch prints?

I can see that. My ancient Epson 2450 (max scanning ppi is 2400) will make an excellent 20x20 inch print. That's a 30 mpixel output file, surely big enough for even much larger prints than that. The 4990 has (by the specs at least) double that scanning resolution so should do an even better job!

G

 

[Huss]

Can you do above 100lpm?

Depends on the lens you use

 

[Huss]

Thanks for the snarky stupidity.

You obviously have never seen the prints (now hanging in my hallway), which won first and judges' choice awards in two separate exhibitions.

Jon Isaacs produced commercial exhibition prints that were twice that size for his exhibitions using the same camera. Go figure.

G

According to scientific analysis, it is said that bumblebees cannot fly. According to bumblebees, scientific analysis surely doesn't.

You must have magic super physics defying pixels in your camera.

I did not make up that chart. You can find something similar at any printer. Why dont u write to pro labs like northcoastphoto etc and tell them they are idiots?

Misinformation like this is not helpful. The chart is an excellent guide to those who want to know how large they can print as opposed to anecdotal stories.

 

[charjohncarter]

Are the "Better Scanning" holder worth it? What's the advantage? Flat negatives, correct? Are there any issues with having the negatives under glass (e.g., trapped dust)?

Dust trapped could be a problem, if you don't clean the glass and the negative. I do both before scanning each set of negatives or 6x9.

The completely flat negative under the glass is worth it, let least I think it is.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Are the "Better Scanning" holder worth it? What's the advantage? Flat negatives, correct? Are there any issues with having the negatives under glass (e.g., trapped dust)?

Epson V550, V600 120 film holders are little bit more difficult to have film into them comparing to 135 film holders. If film is curled.
I think it is anxiety most. If negative left in the book for several days it is totally flat and no problem.



Cheap (used to be 3$ per roll and crappy) Shanghai 100 film, in cheap Nettar 515 (uncoated lens). 70$ 645 folder.
Scanned with cheap Epson flatbed.

Main beauty of MF is in capabilities of cheap cameras and cheap scanners to deliver results better than Leica. In terms of quality on large prints.
I went on exhibition with Diana Arbus Mamiya C series taken, huge prints.
And by next hall GW taken photos with Leica and Canon lenses.
You could still get those Mamiya C cameras with lens for the cost of those Canon lenses Winogrand used.
I know one photog who takes street with Leica, but once he needs portrait work it is Rolleiflex.

 

[Godfrey]

You must have magic super physics defying pixels in your camera.

I did not make up that chart. You can find something similar at any printer. Why dont u write to pro labs like northcoastphoto etc and tell them they are idiots?

Misinformation like this is not helpful. The chart is an excellent guide to those who want to know how large they can print as opposed to anecdotal stories.

LOL! I once had a lab tell me that they could not make a 13x19" prints of a particular photo. I went home and printed it myself, went back and said, "I don't know why this is impossible, just reproduce what I have here.. I need thirty of them." They scratched their heads and tried. I ended up printing them all myself.

They are idiots. Dogmatic adherence to numbers and specs is stupid: it's no substitute for actual skill in getting things done.

G