Graflex.org

[45PSS]

[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2005-12-26 18:38 ]

[djon]

Both are Nikon links that beat thes same old digital/film horse, but they forget economic reality, the reason film is already vanishing from camera store inventories.

One link raises a critical additional point: The pollution connected with film manufacture and film processing.

Pollution has long been well-handled by many or most top tier professional laboratories...the water comes out cleaner than it goes in sometimes. But amateurs and funky, struggling labs are another matter. Terrible chemistry goes down the drain, both when dumped and in the wash.

Nikon's announcement of a film camera isn't meaningful...the F6 will be bought by plenty of professional photographers because many have no problem adding the latest Nikon body to their collection...what's a few thousand dollars to someone who bills several hundred thousand and writes off expenses?

And your birdwatching plastic surgeon will have no reluctance either,though he probably prefers digital already.

In any case, Mamiya's new medium format will force major changes from Nikon engineers because it's got 22mp and looks handier than the current bloated/Hummer-sized professional digital and film cameras.

Mamiya review:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/events/PHOTOKINA-2004/news/mamiya/ZD_en.html

And then theres Epson's Voigtlander-based digital Leica alternative...though only 6mp will have no problem producing better 13X19s for $5 (paper and pigment) than you can reliably get from any laboratory from any film for $50. And, of course, list price is going to be cheaper than new Leica film cameras.

Epson review:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0411/04112601luminouslanscaperd1.asp

Mamiya's new medium format 22mp back will mount nicely on the back of my Century, in several years when it's cheap on EBay due to higher resolution versions.

There is a concensus in some quarters that 22MP is approaching a maximum level of technology...that means that the technology go far beyond that. And the reality has always been that technology starts expensive and quickly becomes cheap as dirt.

[troublemaker]

Thanks for the cross fire discussion. I am following along and have not abandoned the post.
There is a rather strong argument being laid down form an economical platform. It is not simply supply and demand but that is a big factor. The environmental and chemical issue is exactly why I do not wish to bring another set of chemicals into my space for color printing and am trying to get some of my film scanned for lightjet printing for a landscape show. Problem is the Velvia film is scanning with a noticeable purple tint and the lab and a friend can not seem to correct the blues for a realistic sky that looks fine on the slide film when viewd on the light box. I sent a 6x9 to the conventional lab for a 16x24 and while it has a nice vintage glow, the colors are correct. I sense a rough transition, and I am curious as heck if a digital back will reproduce the glow I work with in these old Optars and Ektars I have familiarized myself with. The scan and lightjet print I got back was overenhanced, and except for a bright spot on a mountian horizon, they killed the vintage glow that offers my images an interesting depth effect. It is slight, but it is cool.
Anyway,
thanks everyone thus far... food for thought,
Stpehen

[45PSS]

[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2005-12-26 18:39 ]

[djon]

Stephen, this may lead to more strife, but in my opinion Eastman Kodak's finest hour is right now, with C-prints from internegatives.

But since you probably won't find a good-enough lab for C-prints OR for digital, you may be stuck with doing your own work.

But digital makes that easy.

Consider obtaining an Epson 2200 printer and whatever film scanner seems hottest at the moment...beautiful prints up to 13X19...reports suggest that the flatbed Epson 3200 (which I have) was as good as the finest drum scanners for most photographers purposes, and that the latest Epson is even better...it may be that the latest Canon scanner is a rival, or it may not, but I don't think there are other rivals.

[troublemaker]

There should be no strife here. It seems to be a friendly and helpful environment for the most part, and everyone should be entitled to thier opinions. Besides, they will retain them respected or not.
I just got back something called an "ultra chrome" that was reasonably priced; BUT, there are scan lines very apparent in the image. the type of print was misrepresented to me. That company offers C-prints, and I will see about sending these back. On the other hand, some of the best landscape imagery I have seen in color has resulted form the drum-scan to lightjet system. If that lab can correct the colors to my liking, bingo. The company offering these moderately priced thngs have been butchering my images in a number of different ways. I will see what they will do for me and then ditch 'em for now. However, that is what I get for trying to save a couple bucks.
Oh, a friend of mine just got a rather large printer, a couple thousand bucks I believe, but he can not figure out how to scan, and has the same color correction problems as the pro-lab with my velvia slides.
Anyway, I will keep firing away with my Centuries and Crown until there is nothing to attach to the back of it, and as suggested above, it really is just a light box, and if properly alligned, or misalligned, it is just an adjustable dark box supporting the lens and light sensitive device of choice. It is up to the artist/photgrapher to make that choice for a while yet as to what best reveals what the medium is to relate. I do not really wan tto smear emulsions on plates anymore than I want to buy electronic gizmos. One point was missed along the way here. Photo chemicals are nasty stuff, but so are computer gagets, bad for the eyes also. We may literally pick our poison for a bit longer... then they (whoever they are) will find some new thing for us to test out on ourselves

[45PSS]

[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2005-12-26 18:39 ]

[djon]

troublemakr's made a very good point about mutual interests, getting along etc.

1) seeming scan lines are bad work by the lab (no quality control)...probably having to do with badly maintained printer rather than the scan. That isn't a problem you'd have at home
with (for example) current $300 flatbed scanners from Canon or Epson, which do better
work technically than most "drum scanners." Top quality "drum scanners" cost around $70K and don't do markedly better work than $300 home scanners...the same performance/economics are true with your computer, Vs the IBM 360s of 30 years ago.
2) Ultrachrome is the Epson inkjet dye...there's no color photo technology that is as permanent or as accurate ("Gicelee" is not better, it's just a marketing scam), given current systems...the Epson 2200 printer is the ultimate for sizes up to 13X19, costs around $700, making it far cheaper, corrected for inflation, than a Beseler MCRX or Omega D2V was twenty years ago.

[djon]

What I'm saying is this:

Labs have stopped employing people who see themselves as professionals. Lab owners started their careers as excellent technicians in years past.

Story: I began my own Epson scanning and printing a year ago after a niece's wedding was botched by two "custom" labs in a row (and I's sworn I'd never shoot weddings again!). $400 in lab work, down the drain.

The two labs were not capable of good traditional work from 35mm (I know, I know) and were even worse when they tried again digitally (now their primary approach because pros rarely shoot film anymore).

I bought scanner, printer, and paper and reprinted the wedding myself. I wasn't ecstatic with my results, but they were better than either lab's...I'm much more skilled now, a year later, and will reprint for Christmas.

If you are confident that your negative or transparency is good, and the lab doesn't deliver a good print, it MEANS they don't care for your business.

Take it personally: Today's technology, operated by well-intended people, produces good prints even from barely OK negatives.

You may want to bite the bullet and look into your own scanner and printer.

The best currently are either Canon or Epson scanners and the Epson 2200 printer (or its amazingly cheap smaller version). Pros use the Epson scanner. The Canon is excellent, but not as archival or flexible, so it's not used by pros...but it's cheaper. Scanners and printers come with all the software you need, Photoshop Elements is superb and almost intuitive.

With no extra gizmos (no analyzer to "read" the monitor or print) a person skilled in traditional darkroom process will almost immediately make better prints by eye than he can buy.

Labs ain't what they uster be.

[djon]

whoops..

I meant, "pros use the Epson printer..."

There are good arguments for various scanners, though the Epson flatbed (mine's the 3200 but the newer model is even better) is fabulously good with negatives (sharper than a color enlarger, grain sharp).

[troublemaker]

Oh yes, I put it to the drum scan lab that it seems to me that they are not interested in my business. I sent everything back to them, to the owner and his wife actually and we will see what they say. This is a lab that does many a fine gallery print for landscape artists. perhaps it would make an entirely different impression were I already famous and familliar with the process.
Most of the wrok I have seen in galleries they have printed is from 35 slides and drum scanned sheet film transperencies, mosttly fuji color films like Velvia.
The scan lined prints went back to the partner shop who readily credited me back and was quite understanding. I also sent a notice to the lab regarding butchering my prints on many occasions and damaging my films in developing. Do they care? I doubt it. It is very obvious that there is little or no quality control coming out of most partner labs. I have had more film damaged by sloppy lab work than when learning to do it myself.
The problem I have with the digital world is that it will require me to not only purchase the equipment for scanning, I will have to invest in a whole new computer system as mine is pretty out of date. Of course, invest is the wrong term when someone purchasing something that is obsolete as soon as it is purchased... However, I am not fond of working with a lot of chemicals, though I enjoy developing my B&W films. I have been considerning however the benifit of having my own ability to scan and correct my own tranperencies. I am just way behind where computer imaging is concerned. That may be part of the problem with the digital lab is that I really do not know what to tell them beyond what I want my image to look like. But I am inclined as mentioned to believe they really do not care to do my work and so on. A friend of mine got the fast new mac computer and scan set up and also a 16 or 17" pritner, Epson I believe, and he isn't able to produce very good prints, not what I have seen. Hopefully he will figure it out, because I do not believe it is the equipment. He could not reproduce the blues in my slides from velvia 100f. Perhaps what you mention about having the correct profile is part of the problem.
In the mean time, I will probably have to have traditional prints made and there are many options still available. The format I am working with mostly is full framed 6x9. Would it be adviseable to work from an intra neg as a means to achieve the best sharpness for a 16x24" enlargment? In other words, should I have a 4x5 intra made?

Thanks for all the comments.
Stephen

[djon]

An internegative won't produce better sharpness than a scan, but it will produce superb color if it's done by a good-enough professional lab.

I don't think digital photographers/techs typically have "color eyes" as good as traditional color printers.

The talk of profiles and analyzers (eg MacBeth) reminds me of the color analyzers of portrait photogs who, being semi-skilled printers, used to struggle to produce decent traditional color prints...but almost never did top work work.

Genuine professional color printers, such as in major cities, could make a test print and color correct by eye, without color analyzers, in no more than two strip tests, ...the last, finest print will always be done by eye no matter what technology you use.

The brand of computer is irrelevant. Mac people are typically afraid of PCs and are frequently graphics-oriented (which discipline isn't particularly similar to photography), PC people are typically heavy internet-using businesspeople (like me). Macs have less virus grief but become obsolete much more frequently than PCs.

You simply need a very fast chipset and a lot of RAM, and you may want a pair of external hard drives (I use a pair of 120Meg Maxtor external drives) because the mere 4Meg-12Meg most PCs and Macs have internally is used up in no time...I use one big HD for my initial downloads and storage, the other for more organized storage and backups of the good stuff.

Drum scanning offers no visual advantage over the better current flatbeds from Epson and Canon if you're only printing to the 13X19 limit of the dominant Epson 2200. The nice thing is you don't pay for your own scans, while a good drum scan costs $40-50, which adds up fast Vs a $400 flatbed Epson.

You can always get that transparency drum scanned later if you lust to make a mural, and if you still believe it offers an advantage.

IMO the reason some photogs tout drum scanning is to pretend that their work is elevated by money above the work of photographers who do their own scans. As well, it's true that the super flatbeds weren't available until about 2003. 35mm photogs are still unaware of the quality of good flatbeds so they spend twice as much to get dedicated Nikon scanners that don't do better work and don't scan sheet film.

[troublemaker]

Well scanning will not do me any good if the colors can not be corrected without paying hefty correction artistic fees. This I really do not wish to do anyway as the film transperencies captured the colors the way they should be represented in my work. The scan lab over-enhanced and I detest the over done Mountain Light gallery crap that belongs on grocery store post cards and not hanging on walls, but as my girl friend keeps insisting, "There is no acounting for taste."
What I have are simple landscapes shot with single coated lenses like Angulons, Optaars and Triotptars etc... They are not quite as sharp as I would like, but definately nice. I think I am going to check with a couple labs tomorrow about the C-prints. I had thought drum scanning as a means to retain as much sharpness as possible for larger prints, but I do not intend to print larger than the mentioned 16x24, so maybe the intra neg is the way to go. This may turn out to be considerably less expensive for the first set of show prints, and I only intend to do four of the large size, the rest being 8x12 which is very reasonable and can be done nicely form the 6x9 film as my machine prints are very sharp and clear.
Thanks for the scanner info as some of this is very much learn as I go and can be pretty frustrating at times since I had never intended to try and actually produce high end work. Of course I have heard that flat beds will not do fine art quality work. I would imagin that a 4x5 flat scan on the canon would far surpass a high end 35mm slide scan? IT is the same emulsion is it not?
Anyhow, we got a bit off track. I just looked at some pro 4x5 architectural work done with both negs and trans film. Sooo nice. It is still going to be a while for someone to make digital equipment that can do this at a reasonable expense compared to the film I think. Though it was mentioned knowing of people using Centuries for cheap mounts for dig backs, aren't they phenominally expensive, and perhaps heavy? I haven't looked at the new Mimiya camera yet. Everyone I know who influences what I do still uses film and have no desire to make fine prints from a digital media for making thier exposures and or prints... Advertising and journalistic reporting seems to be a whole different thing, and understandably so.

[djon]

State of the art, buncha' bull:
http://www.sjphoto.com/Southwest/ebus.html

I did see an older slow-scanning medium format back, don't recall which one, sold on EBay recently for about $3500. I looked to see what else the buyer had bought recently, it included a Century. The back needed to work with a laptop, so there's another thousand. Combined with a digital printer it would still have been cheaper than a good traditional color darkroom plus Hassleblad.

Traditional prints cannot match trans ...you can demand (at a price) close color approximations of important areas (your skys perhaps), but color and contrast differences are inevitable. The very best traditional color prints involved masking, which ran into serious money and very few labs were capable.

If you're willing to pay, you can get extraordinarily fine scans and have them printed on Ektacolor paper...don't recall who does that but I've seen some staggeringly good examples, 40X60, in a gallery in Santa Fe.

Some art photogs used to tout Ciba prints, which was interesting because virtually none showed examples that would have closely matched the transparency...the contrast range was so different that most were just caricatures.

Ciba was very easy to print reasonably well with selected images if you had a practiced color-printing eye and were willing to play a little. I sometimes printed my own, tray developed using Dektol as the first developer, got better results than with the Ciba chem. I've got one of those 20 year old prints right here, still beautiful...grape vines on a hill in Napa Valley in the Fall.

[glennfromwy]

Troublemaker, have you tried A & I for your C prints and digital? They are a very good source for high quality work. (aandi.com)

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"