Returning to film! Who uses what film and how do you scan it?

[Asher Kelman]

We have not totally left film behind. I'm returning to film because I don't want to spend every increasing sums of money for high resolution digital cameras which will be outdated in 18 months or so.

My old scanners were pretty good for making digital files for my Canon Dgital Projector. For printing I need a new scanner. Some people swear by the ~$700 Epson flatbed scanners. There's a new Microtek coming out, the M1 but I know nothing about it.

Of course one could go with a used high end scanner but that's between $2000-$3000 or else $4500 upwards.

So what film size do you use, what scanner and then what size prints max do you scan for?

Thanks,

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

An admission!

I'm returning to film for detail rich subjects to be printed large.

I cannot afford to go chasing after expensive digital backs that will be devalued in 18 months by the next and latest offering then.

With film and scanning at 1800 to 5000 ppi, one leaps over digital and can be in a stable position to do the very best work for many years to come.

I plan to use my 5D as a light meter and composing tool!

Anyway, that explains my interest in scanners so I'm wondering what orther DSLR users are doinf with film these days?

Asher

[Bev Sampson]

An admission!
I cannot afford to go chasing after expensive digital backs that will be devalued in 18 months by the next and latest offering then.

With film and scanning at 1800 to 5000 ppi, one leaps over digital and can be in a stable position to do the very best work for many years to come.

Asher

Isn't that the truth. Did you do much scanning in the past? It's not a picnic either and almost impossible to remove all dust from negatives. After scanning, I spent a lot of time removing dust from my images in PS. I sort of chuckle when I read about folks maticulously cleaning their digital sensors that at the worst don't even come close to the dust that is apparent in scanning. Anyway, at the time I used a Hassablad and a Minolta top of the line film camera (I think 5900) and a Nikon Coolscan 8000. I wouldn't mind selling the Coolscan as I no longer use it. Since I now only do digital, I am not familiar with current best scanners. I do, however, think the quality of film exceeds digital in smoothness and skintone.

[Asher Kelman]

Isn't that the truth. Did you do much scanning in the past? It's not a picnic either and almost impossible to remove all dust from negatives. After scanning, I spent a lot of time removing dust from my images in PS.

The larger one makes the negative, the least spotting is needed. I'm thinking of getting a HEPA air filter for loading film and filtering the water in the developer.

Still, the number of pictures taken with LF is going to be 1/50th at least of what I'll be taking with my digital cameras. So all in all, the LF pictures will be more carefully planned and should be worth the extra effort.

My idea is to use film in places where I'd need to stitch since stitching is not fast. Also film is better for landscape where the trees, birds, clouds and grass move! Also for photographing an entire orchestra, I can get detail in all the faces at a very low cost!

Anyway, at the time I used a Hassablad and a Minolta top of the line film camera (I think 5900) and a Nikon Coolscan 8000. I wouldn't mind selling the Coolscan as I no longer use it. Since I now only do digital, I am not familiar with current best scanners. I do, however, think the quality of film exceeds digital in smoothness and skintone.

Why do we hang on to so many things?

Asher

[Bev Sampson]

The larger one makes the negative, the least spotting is needed. Why do we hang on to so many things?

Asher

Asher, I don't know. I do know that I hold on to cameras and camera equipment thinking that I might need it and only decide that I don't when it is almost obsolete. I have a closet full of outdated photographic equipment. Perhaps I will donate a lot of it to charity. But maybe they don't want it either. Lessons learned.

Bev

[Asher Kelman]

Well Bev,

I gave away my wet darkroom to a school. Now I don't dare ask what happened to it all now that digital is so popular! Here's soming about keeping gear. I have been toying with selling my Bronica SQ 6x6 camera. Nothing mechanical but exceedingly sharp lenses. Now that I'm getting set up for LF again, this camera will again see a life! After all, once I have great film processing and scanning capability, 6x6 rollfilm is just an easy extra low cost step.

I will not cut down on digital. Far from it. For events there is nothing to match digital and immediacy. However, I now can see that the very nature of LF adds much more contemplative work in addition to getting unmatched resolution for dertail-rich scenes.

Do you have scenes/expensive product to photograph where LF especially with selective plane of focus, will do much better?

Asher

[Will Thompson]

Asher, Most of my scaning is done with a Bearcat 210.

[Asher Kelman]

Will, you should be getting a real scanner! at themoment you are limited to Polaroid prints. However you have all those LF cameras up to 11X14, almost enough for a store! Why you don't get a scanner and be liberated from expensive Polaroid, I don't know!

Asher

[Jack_Flesher]

An admission!

I'm returning to film for detail rich subjects to be printed large.



Welcome back to film Asher! As you know, I love digital, but still shoot film with large format cameras. Properly captured and drum scanned at 3600 LPI, a 4x5 sheet can be printed natively at 40x50" and look SUPERB, and NOTHING beats viewing an 8x10 tranny on a light table!

My current stock of favorite emulsions are: Astia (best latitude for tranny), E100G (best overall color and saturation in tranny), Fuji 160 Pro (wonderfully smooth, rich colored negative emulsion) and good old T-Max 400 for B&W. (Though Acros is handy in Quick-Load form).


Best,

[Asher Kelman]

Well Jack,

Your work inspires me on my new quest! I may not fully go back to a wet darkroom, that is beyond an auto processor. I want to print mostly by injet and do some contact prints and also Platinum and stained processes.

We should all investigate the possibilites in film, especially if we a wish to render detail-rich full-toned nature. Stitching moving trees is not optimal!

This is far cheaper than digital!

Asher

[Jack_Flesher]

This is far cheaper than digital!



Indeed, scanned 4x5 is far cheaper per shot than most any MF hig-resolution capture back *for the typical artist or hobbyist*. However, for the working pro, MF capture gets pretty cheap pretty quick. I once calculated the break even point for 8x10 would only be about 700 frames per year over a three year period. Fortunately it runs closer to 1800 frames per year with 4x5, and drum-scanned 4x5 can easily equal the best current MF digital capture from a resolution standpoint. But a working pro may shoot 1800 frames in a normal WEEK, so even setting all the cost issues aside, the workflow of digital MF capture makes a lot more sense for any working pro.


Cheers,

[Asher Kelman]

I am saying that for many of us the DSLR is the camera for most of our work! It's no cost to take more pictures and try new possibilities. For events, the DSLR is perfect. However, for large groups film is the way to go when one does not have a very good digital back.

Even getting an old Pentax 6x7 or a Fuji 6x9 or a venerable 4x5 Crown Graphic from eBay, will trounce all DSLR's. For the photographer who cannot justify a new digital back and lenses, film is an absolute bargain. If the photographer is serious, manual settings need to be known anyway. So using film just needs a light meter. The DSLR serves as lightmenter too!

So Jack, how do you scan your images and do you do multiple scans for shadows and bright areas and combine?

Asher

[Jack_Flesher]

So Jack, how do you scan your images and do you do multiple scans for shadows and bright areas and combine?


I scan them in one pass on an older Epson 4990 flatbed --- and I've printed 4x5's scanned that way to 16x20 and they look pretty darn good. However, when I get a good one and want a "real" file to work with, I pay for a professional drum scan.

Cheers,

Jack

[Kathy Rappaport]

or not...

My old workhorse Elan 7E would be fun to play with again. But I am so spoiled by the chimping factor and the immediate gratification of digital.

[Asher Kelman]

Kathy,

In your portrait studio, an old wooden 4x5 camera on a stand would look great! Moreover, if you took on e or two ppictures a week you will be blown over. I first warm them up with 35 mm. Now if the mode is very good and you are on a roll, take one or two 4x5 exposures. With experience, you will be bang on and then the next wedding with 20 people, you'll use the camera horizontal and nail the whole group in one perfect shot from which you'll be able to sell lots of wonderful prints.

Besides, it's fun!

Asher

[Kathy Rappaport]

Asher,

I am mortgaging my first born to open the Studio with lights, furnishings and props not to mention the gear I have already acquired. Surely any other new aspect will cause my husband to send me to the Sanitarium and take away my credit cards. I convinced him that I will need another 5D (or 6d) when it comes out next or even a MkIII. If I go Large/Medium format then I will need to do only accounting and give up the Studio idea to pay for it all - leaving me no time for photography! Maybe in a few years.

[Asher Kelman]

Kathy,

We'll work it out! I'm sure that Will Thompson, the majot owner and repair station for LF cameras, will look after you! After all, the three of us were the first to splurge on the 50 1.2, so we must have something in common!

A used 4x5 is less than $400!

I'll be getting a scanner and developing is cheap. Remember, one group shot will easily pay for the whole camera! When I get my camara we'll have film and Polaroid days! So how's that?

Asher

[Kathy Rappaport]

I did some 4x5 work back in 1971 wher we did our own developing. I actually have a room that could be a darkroom in the studio. I was thinking of making it a dressing room and adding a makeup table. Enlargers and the like can be found on Craigs list for almost nothing now. But that really isn't part of the plan.

I expect to be operational at Decmeber's end. I plan on having a grand opening in February-ish
We can have a real grand opening with an OPF Playdate before hand.

[Nicolas Claris]

In your portrait studio, an old wooden 4x5 camera on a stand would look great!

That would make Kathy's studio like a museum! LoL! not a very modern and contemporary decoration…

Kathy, you're right, keep on going forward!

It's amazing for me to see how the "past" can survive, I'm far from a teenager (tant pis!) but I always look for the future, it HAS to be better! even if we're wrong sometimes, progress always stays "work in progress"…
This has nothing to do with LF or MF IQ, but with the suggested decoration…
However, remember that film chemistry developping products aren't good for the planet too…

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Nicolas,

Here's the reality. Kathy can do most of her work perfectly well with a DSLR. It so happens that in weddings, the one challenge is the large family group. For this to be always done with the same DSLR as the tight wedding shots seems a limited point of view. A Fuji 6x9 or similar film camera can provide a perfect way to get above the competition for little cost. Nothing will readily match the detail and color from such a simple setup!

The 4x5 is just another option. If it looks fine, then it's great decoration too!

I did see a 4x5 with a gyro on it with your name on it too, LOL! I hate to ask how much it costs!!!

Asher

[Nicolas Claris]

Hi Nicolas,

Here's the reality. Kathy can do most of her work perfectly well with a DSLR. It so happens that in weddings, the one challenge is the large family group. For this to be always done with the same DSLR as the tight wedding shots seems a limited point of view. A Fuji 6x9 or similar film camera can provide a perfect way to get above the competition for little cost. Nothing will readily match the detail and color from such a simple setup!

The 4x5 is just another option. If it looks fine, then it's great decoration too!

I did see a 4x5 with a gyro on it with your name on it too, LOL! I hate to ask how much it costs!!!

Asher

Asher
Here's another reality, digital back can achieve has film does (at least MF afaik).

Backs are :
expensive ?
If lot of photogs do buy digital backs, prices will go down…

and renewed oftenly?
getting better!

remember that film chemistry developping products aren't good for the planet too…

It will happen to MF and LF backs the same as it did happen to DSLRs - just a question of time.
For the sake of photography.
Look forward!

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Nicolas,

I'm not sure that film chemistry has to be bad for the planit. Chemicals can be recycled. The MFR of digital backs must give out a lot of greenhouse gases so someone will have to do the math. The film cameras are already made. My new one will be of wood which as you know is a carbon sink! The film uses silver which we can recover.

For sure Digital backs are too expensive for photographers with a small business. The DSLR does most of the work perfectly well. Using other wise unused film cameras for a small percentage of work is not retrogressive, it actually is likey to be more protective and helps slow using our resources of rare metals to make backs which will all be out of date in 18 months!

Asher

[Nicolas Claris]

I'm not sure that film chemistry has to be bad for the planit. Chemicals can be recycled.

Huho… but who really does? maybe the large labs, but what about thousands of home black rooms?

I'm affraid you're roaring for the past ;-)

[Ray West]

Hi Nicolas,

I'm affraid you're roaring for the past ;-)

But that is what photography is - all of it. I know of no camera which can today take a picture, of tomorrow. Most of our concerns are wrt storage, so that in future we can look back on today. Your sail boats - why not nuclear powered ships? The past is familiar, comfortable, and generally speaking the bugs are ironed out, or at least known.

Best wishes,

Ray

[Asher Kelman]

Huho… but who really does? maybe the large labs, but what about thousands of home black rooms?

I'm affraid you're roaring for the past ;-)
Yes Nicolas,

We need to be responsible. We drive cars that spew out Carbon Dioxide that we do not balance by each planting 200 or so trees! We use cleaners that pollute the water no doubt. All the things we purchase cause an environmental insult. So we must all change our ways, for sure!

The culture of film photographers is to have a concern for protecting the earth. Just a quick search in LF Forum gives 49 threads concerned with this issue. If you can conserve driving your car and account for the pollution caused by making your 70-200 and 500 mm lenses then I can take measures to trap and make safe chemicals from development.

Anyway, most film guys in the USA process in labs that are effectively regulated for waste disposal!

I doubt in fact, all in all if using a wooden camera or forgotten already manufactured film camera adds significant damage.

Being against film is more a religion than a necessity!

What will we do next; say we should not allow oil paintings or spray-painting cars?

Asher

[Nicolas Claris]

Ray:
I guess we're completely off topic.
However, I can also be a Jesuit… We're taking photography of today for tomorrow…
Anyway you know I was talking about the gear, not about photography… you're answer were beside the subject!

The past is familiar, comfortable, and generally speaking the bugs are ironed out, or at least known.

A photographer cannot feel comfortable… because photography is not an exact science!


Asher:

I'm not against film! film is the past… and as far as for my car, I don't care if it will get rusty one day… in case of spray-painting maybe banned…

[Jack_Flesher]

Why does a post about film on a photography forum need to degrade into a political-correctness debate?

[Asher Kelman]

Here it is in a nutshell. Yes, most photographers will use digtal cameras forall or almost all their work. Why because it does the job so well and economically so that there is little more needed that getting the right subject in the right light from the right perspective and exposing the image correctly for your eathetic purpose. Not Sure? Well try something and look at the LCD screen or a 30" monitor.

All this has no bearing on the value of film in itself for its own qualities and for the special features for certain artistic renderings.

Polaroids (can be floated off perhaps to fine papers) Cyanotypes, Platinum or Gold Printing and much more have different looks and provide valuable choices for the creative photographer. We'd like to at least have some small representation and capability here.

Look at this picture

http://www.matthewblaisphotography.com/media/rosielg.jpg

Copyright © 2007 Matthew Blais. "Rosie" 9.5 x 8.5 Silver Gelatin Photograph Lith Developer


http://www.matthewblaisphotography.com/rosie.html

This picture is unique to the analog film method used here. Would you say that we should discard this medium? Of course not. Neither is it our purpose to push film as the panacea for people's work. In most cases, it will not be relevent nor worthwhile.

However, in certain cases, the photographer who has been exposed to this different way of working, adds something to their armamentorium, even when they satay totally in the digital realm.

Let's not go back to the past. None of us can re do Ansel Adam's Moonrise as good as or better than he did and there's no point.

I just ask for help in displaying film so that we will attract enough active work to enjoy another creative part of OPF. My part is to recruit a few film guys and I myself am buying a new LF camera and will try to contribute to this effort. My work with my digital cameras will not decrease in any way as I have already more shoots booked than previously and most are with my 1DII or the 5D. I hope you can give me your support on my new journey with the extra camera bag!

Asher

[Ron Morse]

Asher, I know of a few people using the V700 epson. They all love it and say it very easy to use.

I still play with my 35mm EOS 3 and love this camera. I only have an epson 2450 scanner but get by for my modest needs.

[Serge Berrut]

Hi all,

I moved to digital about 6-7 years ago, and at the same time stopped shooting, once the appeal of the technology worn off. One day, by chance I came across large format pictures made by Peter Watson. I then realised that the soul of a picture was not in the camera, but behind it. I even did not know that was a world beside the expensive and heavy studio sinar large format camera. I bought a used Tachihara about 18 months ago, learnt than film was still being used, shot my first image, and my god!!! it worked... Unfortunately, the 2nd, 3rd, 4rd were all blacks or white (but not black and white), because, I forgot to close the shutter, remove the dark slide, etc. A true amateur!

Since I worked mostly in remote place, taken the View camera with me was not an option. I got a used Hasselblad with 3 lenses, 2 backs and here I go....

I am no longer losing my digital pictures in computer crashes, unfortunate deletes, etc. (thanks to Time Machine too!), but mainly because I shoot Velvia 100, Ilford FP4 and HP5, Tmax. I scan them on a V700, print with a 9500 and enjoy every step of the process..

I will go back to Switzerland soon, after 12 years abroad and I intend to develop my negatives. Next step: does someone know how to manufacture films?

I looooove fiiiiiiilm!

[Michael_Stones]

I bought a used Tachihara about 18 months ago, learnt than film was still being used, shot my first image, and my god!!! it worked... Unfortunately, the 2nd, 3rd, 4rd were all blacks or white (but not black and white), because, I forgot to close the shutter, remove the dark slide, etc. A true amateur!

I looooove fiiiiiiilm!

I did something similar on my first shoot with a used Horseman SW after years of using SLR cameras. Although there was no instruction manual, figuring out how to load 120 film, remove the dark slide, and focus inside a hyperfocal range were not too difficult. Then followed a happy half hour composing and taking pictures of a bay scene. With the roll finished, I took out the film, put the dark slide back in, but couldn't find the lens cap. My wife, now in gales of laughter, pointed to the lens from which I'd forgotten to remove it. A true amateur, too!

Digital may be the future of photography, but I suspect that film shooters have more fun.

[Erie Patsellis]

Asher,
I straddle both worlds, digital with a Fuji S2 (and the Wife's Canon S2IS for quick shots) and a Phase One scan back for the 4x5. For the product work that is 95% of my work, it's perfect, 9mp, with half competent upsampling will do a double truck easily, full page with no upsample. sharp as can be, without any need for PS tweaking, view camera movements, and huge photosites on the sensor, so high $ "digital" lenses aren't needed, in fact my Componons get most used for the scan back.

For scanning MF & LF film, I personally use a Umax Powerlook III that I've had for nearly a decade, works fine wet mounting, and for larger work, I have a Linotype Opal Ultra that will scan to 11x17. For 35mm, CVS or wally world.

erie

[Frank Doorhof]

I use a digital back for my MF cameras, 645AFD/II (soon III) and the RZ67 ProII when I shoot film and with the RZ67 I do this alot now (just got the camera) I scan with the V700 from Epson with a betterscanning tranny.

Quality is very good and seeing it's price I think it's a super solution for many.

[Asher Kelman]

I use a digital back for my MF cameras, 645AFD/II (soon III) and the RZ67 ProII when I shoot film and with the RZ67 I do this alot now (just got the camera) I scan with the V700 from Epson with a betterscanning tranny.

Quality is very good and seeing it's price I think it's a super solution for many.
Tell us about the "betterScanning tranny" is this an oil mountain holder?

Asher

[Frank Doorhof]

It's the standard tranny for the V700 so no wetmount.
Actually it's a quite simple device but very very good.

[Ian L. Sitren]

This is just my workflow as I explained it on my blog a few posts back...

I am asked all the time about what I use for scanning film and processing because I am using much more film lately and love the results. Certainly for many assignments, digital is the choice and small format or medium format digital is a main part of my work too. But let me explain what I do for film...

Film after shot is dropped off or sent via Fedex to "The Icon" photo lab in Los Angeles. Icon is a top pro lab serving a great deal of the ad and commercial business in L.A. and more. According to my instructions, Icon processes the film and then roll scans the entire rolls to the size I request. Typically I have been using 10 megs per image. By the way, I am mostly shooting medium format 645 and some 35mm. The scans are then uploaded to my Icon hosted light-box called an Icon Box. From there I can view and download, as well as organize, rank, make notes and order other services from those images. Client viewing can also be set up and retouch notes can go back and forth. It is a very versatile system.

At that point if I need any larger scans I will then order drum scans at typically 50 megs. That is a size that will cover every commercial request I get, easily, as well as very large prints. Most of my individual prints are done by myself on a Canon ipf5000 large format printer.

Now that is my workflow for commercial ad work and such. Other services I use, for example, are Buckeye Color Labs for larger quantity printing or orders of event type photos. And I use PhotoShelter for viewing and delivery of digital imaging.

If you have any questions, please fell free to send me a note to SecondFocus@mac.com.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Ian,

That's so decent of you to put this down for us. Yes, I must explore Icon. I'm still thinking of doing B&W film myself, using tray development for 8x10 and dunking for 4x5 since I have the tanks and holders that I did not give away.

Asher

[Ian L. Sitren]

Doing my own processing seems like it would be a luxury. I have to send it out or it would just never get done.

http://homepage.mac.com/secondfocus/.Pictures/BW145960_1_062.jpg

[David A. Goldfarb]

When I used to shoot performers' headshots, I'd always send the work out to a lab, because the processing was always standard, but personal work (which is most of what I do these days) I process myself (and, yeah, sometimes I get way behind).

If you can control the light and calibrate your system around what the lab produces, you've still got plenty of control over the image without doing your own processing. If you need developer controls for available light situations, you can still manipulate contrast through exposure and development by telling the lab to push or pull. If you wanted to use a certain developer for a particular effect, there are custom B&W labs that will do that as well.

[Ian L. Sitren]

I just thought it was time to post another...

http://homepage.mac.com/secondfocus/.Pictures/Sasha-curl%20copy.jpg

[Mike Shimwell]

Sorry to raise this topic that is already covered in some detail here, but before I leap in too deep there are a couple of questions it qould be really helpful if anyone can answer authoritatively:)

- Is it possible to scan MF (6 by 7) and LF (5 by 4) using a scanner such as the epson v700 or 750 to a standard that will allow me to produce 'richer' single frame prints than from a 5D or 1Ds3?

- How does this hold up when I want to put 35mm film in the scanner - i.e. how would HP5 or FP4 look using usch a scanner.

- How would the 35mm results change if I used a dedicated film scanner such as the lower end Nikon (LS V?)

Any other thoughts on multi format scanning and possible print sizes.

Thanks

Mike.

[Andrew Rodney]

Yes.
It depends.
A dedicated film scanner for small originals is preferable.

[Tim Mimpriss]

I seem to have caught the bug too. Just found a Mamiya 7II with 80mm lens. Out came the spotmeter and monopod: fewer exposures, more care. Waiting to see the results of the first film. Since I have no MF scanner at present, I sent it to the local D&P store, but I shall process the next film myself.

Now for a scanner.

Tim

[Serge Berrut]

That is great. I am sure you will enjoy.
Myself I am doing my shots as follows:
60% LF 4x5in
15% landscape 617
20% MF
and...5% Nikon D300
No kidding!

[Mike Shimwell]

Yes.
It depends.
A dedicated film scanner for small originals is preferable.


Thanks Andrew,

What does it depend on i.e. 35mm film in v700/750?

Mike

[Asher Kelman]

The V 750 is the pro version. Here's a video of its use for batch scanning 35mm slides, for example. http://www.photo-i.co.uk/scanning/batch.html

There's also a review in the scanner itself on the same website.

Asher

[Mike Shimwell]

Thanks Asher

Mike

[doug anderson]

I was in a camera store the other day and the guy behind the counter told me that major corporations were no longer even making film cameras.

This is a major disappointment, because I'd hoped to sell/trade in mine for digital equipment.

Anybody know where I can get rid of film cameras?

Nikon FM2, Nikon F5, Mamiya 645, Mamiya 6/7, Contax G1 and G2.

Assorted lenses, also.

[Ian L. Sitren]

I was in a camera store the other day and the guy behind the counter told me that major corporations were no longer even making film cameras.


That is so very not true.

And there is this story today...

"Travel + Leisure, loves film. All their regular contributors shoot film..."

http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/07/22/panel-on-stock-photography/

[Ian L. Sitren]

An interesting blog post on National Geographic...

http://ngm.typepad.com/editors_pick/2008/05/film-is-dead-lo.html

A behind the scenes video from New York Magazine...

http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2008/08/video_the_new_york_fall_fashio.html

[Ian L. Sitren]

Mamiya 645AFDII, 80mm AF lens, Tr-X 400 pushed one stop. This was roll scanned by the lab at processing.

http://modelmayhm-7.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/080905/19/48c1bc19724ee.jpg

[Asher Kelman]

That's impressive! such a soft and warm looking fellow but those muscles are amazing ly defined. So is he posing with the muscles isometrically contracted? Or do those muscles look like that just with guy standing around?

Properly drum-scanned, that would have many more shades in the blacks and dark grays.

Asher

[Ian L. Sitren]

That will certainly be one from that shoot that will get drum scanned.

The entire shoot was done on medium format with Tri-X. Sean, the bodybuilder, is a veteran of many shoots including with me and was really surprised about film this time. I shot seven rolls of 220 and Sean told me he is used to most photographers shooting 2000 - 4000 frames in a day, digital of course.

And bodybuilders have an autonomic response that tightens their muscles whenever a camera is pointed in their direction. They can't help it.

[Erie Patsellis]

For me, at least in the hobby side of my photography, processing and scanning MF in house works well for me, as well as for some of my architectural work as well. Using my Powerlook III, I can consistently get scans that look like:
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/epatsellis/Scan-080831-0007.jpg
just as a test scan, I need to wet scan it this weekend.

[Ian L. Sitren]

Erie,

That is great!

[Erie Patsellis]

I forgot to mention, the film was processed in my Wing Lynch (that sit's in my kitchen). After being charged almost $15 a roll to have 120 C41 film processed and proofed, I bought the W-L Pro6 ($150), chemistry (less than $100, bleach gets regenerated and reused, bringing per roll cost to about $1.50 a roll) and in about 3-4 weeks, it paid for itself.

I can also do quick proofs at the studio, we have a Frontier 370 and a SP2000 scanner, all I can say is that 6"x7" proofs sure do look nice, not to mention printing a 8"x10" proof sheet of the entire roll for reference. All at a cost of about .34 per 8x10 unit, including paper and chemistry, or under $1.50 per roll for proofs and index sheet, for a total cost of about $3 a roll. My studio partner is even considering doing some of his portrait work on MF film, as he really liked the feel of film with some subjects.

It will be nice to finally be able to shoot 4x5 and 8x10 color negative film again, and not have to worry about shipping exposed film, etc. Not to mention the creative cross processing abilities, etc. Here's my first attempt at xprocessing E100GX, exposed at an EI of 100:
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/epatsellis/2.jpg

[Asher Kelman]

This picture shows the flower at its transition to becoming a set of seeds ready to be dispersed. I'm not sure of the identity of the flowers. Is the center just the remnants of the stigmas and stamens. They look like miniature flowers still! I like the fact that you have chosen this stage as mostly we look past anything not with perfect full blooms.

It will be nice to finally be able to shoot 4x5 and 8x10 color negative film again, and not have to worry about shipping exposed film, etc. Not to mention the creative cross processing abilities, etc. Here's my first attempt at xprocessing E100GX, exposed at an EI of 100:
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/epatsellis/2.jpg
Erie,

where are you located? I'd love to see your home built LF cameras! I'm also intrigued by your sink processing system. Is it very temp dependent? Are you ready to risk LF film?

Asher

[Erie Patsellis]

Not sink processor, a full automated system: http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/epatsellis/Allerton%20Park/IMG_0367.jpg

[Ian L. Sitren]

Tri-X 400, Mamiya 645 AFDII, 80mm AF lens

http://modelmayhm-7.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/080924/00/48d9c07586836.jpg