MF Pics!

[Csae]

So i finally got my negatives back.

These are pretty boring, but i took them to test the shutter, aperture, film advancing and light seals.

at 2.8 the dof is so unbelievably tiny, works out better for 4 and up, but you can pick like 3.71 since its just a slider. Anyways they arent Fancy, but these are my first 6x6 shots :D

http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs49/f/2009/166/f/2/Tipping_Fountain_by_SaintCase.jpg
Scanned at 1200dpi, sharpened, and removed dust and stuff.

http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs48/i/2009/166/c/c/MF_Comparison_by_SaintCase.jpg
Scanned at 4800dpi, saved at 90%, so somewhere over 300megabytes. 30x30inches at 300dpi. Crazy. Didnt bother applying alot of sharpening not crazy about the picture, but used it to compare to the 13megapixels my 5D offers me. Its an interesting comparison.

So the owner's yard was an interesting shoot for sure heh.


I found no problem with the negatives and am gonna pick up the camera tomorow (or as soon as possible:). ) I'll post some pics of it when i get a chance. I did remember how annoying it is to handle curled negatives though, i got my prints all over these.

[Rhys]

Hmm... 30x30 inches at 300dpi would give you 9000x9000 pixels or 81 megapixels. That's pretty good!

[Mark_48]

Were these shot with the Mamiya C33 you were looking at? I couldn't read the EXIF file in the image :D And did you scan the negs on a flatbed scanner?

Nice rich colors in the second shot. Was it slide film you shot it on, Fuji maybe?

[Csae]

Yes, these were shot with the Mamiya C33 and with a 80mm 2.8 i think.


They were scanned with a canon 8800f

First, is a Ilford Delta iso100, 2nd is a Fuji Velvia iso100 positive

As far as exif goes, i wrote down the f/ss, First shot was about 125 - 2.8, 2nd shot was about 1/30th - 2.8

Filesizes get huge fast, I scanned the 2nd one, at 4800dpi color48bit output to 90%, and it was some 530megs which was pretty unmanageable for my computer. ( I guess i won't be offereing these pictures on a cd anytime soon, maybe a bluray lol. )

I havent attempted a print just yet, but i have 1 picture in the set of tests that i took with both my 5D and the C33 that i was planning on printing to see the differences.

Took me some time to get the scanner working right though, for the first install i set the install to auto, ended up with a bunch of extra programs i didnt want and the scanner failed to recognize 120 film and would only allow scanning of 35, so i removed everything, downloaded just the driver from canon and that worked splendidly.

I'll post some more of the pictures, including pictures of the camera when i get a chance, im gonna go pick it up now :)

Downsides? Hella-slow, expensive. If i see that im using it constantly, i might invest in a small darkroom just to develop the negatives.

[Mark_48]

If you do decide trying processing your own 120 BW get yourself a film reel something like this one http://www.freestylephoto.biz/55043-Arista-Premium-Plastic-Developing-Reel
Loading the old stainless steel reels can be a pain since 120 film tends to curl and sometimes doesn't lay into the grooves easily as it's wound onto it. With the plastic reel above the film is started at the outside and "walked" onto the reel. Clipping the film end corners to an angle will help it move easier in the track. With either one try to get hold of an outdated roll of film and practice loading a reel in daylight before you attempt it in total darkness or a changing bag.

[Csae]

Yeah that definitely looks alot better then what i was using for my 35. God i hated that part, at least 120 film is shorter and wont curl as much.

If anything i might do my own negatives just to save the time to going to the store and back.

My place is a huge mess because im getting ready to move, so i won't have any proper pictures of the camera for a while, but in the meantime i was working out how to carry it, even though it came in its own vintage hard carrying case with key and whatnot, that thing is huge and heavy, so i was hoping to fit in my slingshot, and i did :D

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/7100/slingshot.jpg

[Rhys]

I started with plastic reels then moved onto stainless steel as plastic had to be bone dry to feed properly. I was developing several rolls a day so I couldn't guarantee the 2nd or later reels would be dry. Thus I went to stainless and as long as it was wiped dry, it was fine.

[Csae]

Wasn't there bigger cylinders that would feed multiple rolls for developing ?

I remember seeing them though i wouldnt remember the exact adjustements needed for the chemicals, but they would seem alot more efficient.

[Rhys]

Yes. There were tanks that could take 1,2,3,4,5,6 reels at a time. Most people stopped at tanks that took 2. When you're developing more than that at a time, it's such a big operation that a dip processor is in order.

The chemical formula stays the same. It's printed on the packets as are the time/temperature tables. The only thing... if you use a 600ml tank then you must fill it or risk parts of the film being underdeveloped.

[Mark_48]

Rhys,
Do you still have any MF gear stashed in a closet or have you sold any you may have had? I don't use mine a whole lot, but I can't bring myself to part with it. I have had the itch recently to do some B&W, which probably was brought on by some of the postings here.

[Rhys]

Lol. I still have my MF cameras and enlarger. I really had to scrimp to buy my MF kit and because I had to suffer to buy it, I'm not parting with it just yet. I don't envisage film as continuing to be manufactured for more than another 20 or so years but there's always the thought that I can still use it.

In fact I have 110, 126, 35mm and medium format kit. I doubt 126 cartridges are made any more. They were neat - a 35mm roll in a cartridge.

[Csae]

I dont think they'll stop making MF format anytime soon, definitely longer then 20 years.

Especially considering they are still making 35mm, and thats lost soo much more ground to digital then MF.