tenrocK photo wrote:
I'm back and read it all. I appreciate everyone's feedback. Please keep it coming.

I don't think I'll become a purist just for the sake of it, and a Manhattan studio is too small to hold all that is needed to develop color and BW. Heck I can't even fit a bathtub in here!
That said, large prints is definitely the goal with this setup.

If that is the goal, you may want to think about moving to a larger negative size in the future...  If you're shooting film for the look of the film stock (something I wholeheartedly endorse) that's one thing.  But for resolution, 645 is still kind of small.

I'm planning a new art series that will be printed BIG.  I'm thinking 4x5 may not be enough and am contemplating 8x10 or larger.

Marin Photography wrote:
Get a light meter.

Simple as this.

/thread

tenrocK photo wrote:
I'm back and read it all. I appreciate everyone's feedback. Please keep it coming.

I don't think I'll become a purist just for the sake of it, and a Manhattan studio is too small to hold all that is needed to develop color and BW. Heck I can't even fit a bathtub in here!
That said, large prints is definitely the goal with this setup.

I would skip the Mamiya 645 and go with a larger negative size.

645 which is actually even smaller than 645 is really the bottom end of MF.

I would recommend either the Mamiya RZ67 or the Fuji GX680.

While all the Mamiya/Phase One 645 cameras I have had were flakey the Mamiya RZ67 is a workhorse and the lenses are splendid.

The Fuji gx680 is even better, but quite a large camera. Very special camera with Tilt and shift with all it's lenses from 50mm to 500mm.

As far as Medium format Digital goes it is vastly over rated.
I used to own and use Phase One MFD and after testing the D800
I sold the MFD gear and by far prefer a combination of D800 and LARGE MF film..
6x8cm with the Fuji gx680.

There really is no reason today to be frustrated if you cannot afford digital MF.

Top of the line 35mm DSLR cameras offer better dynamic range and far superior erganomics.

IF you really want the look of medium format it is not about medium format digital with a sub 645 sensor.

The real look of medium format is with larger captures.

Here is a shot taken with the Fuji gx680




one more



Crop from same negative.



One more



I also like to do some harsh grainy processing combined with the look of the 180mm 3.2 Fuji gx680 lens. Very nice look IMO

gl-amour wrote:
I recommend saving your hair.
You can rent digital MF instead.

You can rent digital backs too.

tenrocK photo wrote:
I just came across an opportunity to purchase a MF film kit (Mamiya 645 Pro TL) and I took it.

I am a firm believer that digital technology is now on par in quality with film and is cheaper to operate, so that is what I learned how to shoot with.
With that being said, I can't afford to buy a digital MF kit, hence this latest purchase.

The plan is to use my D700 to read the scene and transfer the settings to the Mamiya. I know that I will force myself to slow down and watch each frame carefully before pressing the shutter, although I don't really spray and pray as it is.

Are there any misgivings or pitfalls to this approach?

Please help a film newb keep the remaining hair on his head

In the abstract, none, but you're individual process could work better or worse.

You should be able to rent a Polaroid back for that. That would allow you to test the process and see instant results.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

If that is the goal, you may want to think about moving to a larger negative size in the future...  If you're shooting film for the look of the film stock (something I wholeheartedly endorse) that's one thing.  But for resolution, 645 is still kind of small.

I'm planning a new art series that will be printed BIG.  I'm thinking 4x5 may not be enough and am contemplating 8x10 or larger.

Eventually yes, but baby steps first. For now, prints that are 20 on the long side will work for me, and I'll see if I can push that even larger later. Doing this while I learn something new and get a different look & feel should keep me interested until I move up.

Fred Greissing wrote:

I would skip the Mamiya 645 and go with a larger negative size.

645 which is actually even smaller than 645 is really the bottom end of MF.

I would recommend either the Mamiya RZ67 or the Fuji GX680.

While all the Mamiya/Phase One 645 cameras I have had were flakey the Mamiya RZ67 is a workhorse and the lenses are splendid.

The Fuji gx680 is even better, but quite a large camera. Very special camera with Tilt and shift with all it's lenses from 50mm to 500mm.

As far as Medium format Digital goes it is vastly over rated.
I used to own and use Phase One MFD and after testing the D800
I sold the MFD gear and by far prefer a combination of D800 and LARGE MF film..
6x8cm with the Fuji gx680.

There really is no reason today to be frustrated if you cannot afford digital MF.

Top of the line 35mm DSLR cameras offer better dynamic range and far superior erganomics.

IF you really want the look of medium format it is not about medium format digital with a sub 645 sensor.

The real look of medium format is with larger captures.

Here is a shot taken with the Fuji gx680




one more



Crop from same negative.



One more



I also like to do some harsh grainy processing combined with the look of the 180mm 3.2 Fuji gx680 lens. Very nice look IMO

Fred, I took a long hard look at the GX 680 but couldn't afford the few grands a decent system would require. It is definitely an option for the future though.

Thanks for your post.

MC Photo wrote:

You can rent digital backs too.

Indeed

tenrocK photo wrote:
Eventually yes, but baby steps first. For now, prints that are 20 on the long side will work for me, and I'll see if I can push that even larger later. Doing this while I learn something new and get a different look & feel should keep me interested until I move up.

You should be able to print larger.  I routinely printed 12x18 from my 6MP D70.

tenrocK photo wrote:
I just came across an opportunity to purchase a MF film kit (Mamiya 645 Pro TL) and I took it.

I am a firm believer that digital technology is now on par in quality with film and is cheaper to operate, so that is what I learned how to shoot with.
With that being said, I can't afford to buy a digital MF kit, hence this latest purchase.

The plan is to use my D700 to read the scene and transfer the settings to the Mamiya. I know that I will force myself to slow down and watch each frame carefully before pressing the shutter, although I don't really spray and pray as it is.

Are there any misgivings or pitfalls to this approach?

Please help a film newb keep the remaining hair on his head

Well, I have to point out that you ar comparing medium format to 35mm. You are also comparing a medium that has a lot more exposure latitude than digital. So, the medium format film is significantly superior to a full frame 35mm digital camera. For a better comparison MF digital to MF film.

Fred Greissing wrote:

I would skip the Mamiya 645 and go with a larger negative size.

These film newbie/returnee threads inevitably go this route of "645 is too small", ultimately resulting in someone (a poster above) talking about 8x10.

I respectfully disagree, given the OP's background and goals. Even though I also shoot larger negatives, I still believe 645 to be a great entry into either film or MF film. Despite arguments to the contrary, there is a significant area increase over 35mm negatives. But more important, in my opinion, is the belief that the ergonomics, handling, balance points of the OP's Pro TL or a Bronica ETR series with a prism finder are so much more in line with that of a DSLR, compared to an RB/RZ, Hassy or Fuji 680 series.

Are the latter exceptional camera and lens systems? Absolutely. But there are so many little impediments for the DSLR shooter transitioning to film for the first time (and they're not trivial when you've never dealt with them), that making the handling of the camera as seamless as possible to minimize one of those hurdles seems like a good idea to me.

645 offers an incredibly affordable system with fairly similar ergonomics and good-to-great glass yielding a decent sized negative. If the OP can't make a quality 16x20 print from a 645 system, it won't be because the negative was too small.

It's the gateway drug of MF!

AgX wrote:
645 offers an incredibly affordable system with fairly similar ergonomics and good-to-great glass yielding a decent sized negative. If the OP can't make a quality 16x20 print from a 645 system, it won't be because the negative was too small.

It's the gateway drug of MF!

It was for me as well, started with a Mamiya AFD and have since added an RZ67, and Fuji GW690. Nothing quite like the color tonality or depth of field from medium format film on 35mm sized digital or film.

Chouseki Lab wrote:

It was for me as well, started with a Mamiya AFD and have since added an RZ67, and Fuji GW690. Nothing quite like the color tonality or depth of field from medium format film on 35mm sized digital or film.

Chouski you miss quoted me by accident there.

I have owned 645 cameras. Contax, Pentax and Mamiya. I always ended up using my 6x7 or 6x8cm cameras or jumping up to 8x10.

Of the three 645s the Contax was my favorite, but I always prefered the results from the 6x7 and larger.

AgX wrote:
...inevitably go this route of "645 is too small"

I think instead that is very good that a lot of people said that on this way at least the 645 remain at a little more decent price ..., so don't said nothing otherwise there will be a further increase on the cost in this segment as well ...

Looknsee Photography wrote:
With all due respect, I disagree.  In the hands of a skilled practitioner, medium format film is capable of producing prints that are still orders of magnitude better than digital photography.  But, if the destination of your image is on the web or in medium quality magazines, digital is certainly easier, faster, cheaper, and more than adequate.

But if your destination is hanging prints on the wall, film is still king (and the bigger the negative the better).  And there is a catch:  you need to develop your own film and print your own prints; you need to learn & practice superior exposure & development controls (e.g. the Zone System, or "Beyond The Zone System").  If you intend to send out your film to a lab, you might as well stick to digital.

Finally, looking at a well crafted print hanging on the wall is a rare joy.  Digital is still a ways away from being able to create a print that rivals a good film & paper print.

Good luck.  Welcome to the club.

Nope..my digital work looks just fine next to my medium format hangin in Ilford's booths. 17x22" up to 30" on the long side. Only prints from my scanned 8x10 negs surpass the tonal range and details. And with my D800 the prints are even more amazing. But each to their own. Right now I'm in a show in Milan Photo Vogue put on and I have Prints from 8x10, 6x9CM, 6x6cm and my D800. One of the reviewers noted how nice it was to see someone shooting film and wanted to know if I would ever consider shooting digital. I just smiled.

To the OP...I used to call 645 "super 35mm". It's just not all that large in format. You want to see more tones and detail you need larger film. The results WILL be different from digital. Not better. Not worse. Just different.

tenrocK photo wrote:

Indeed

Renting digital backs to put on your own Mamiya 645 is not as simple as
one would expect.

The whole Mamiya Phase One MFD system is quite flakey wityh all sorts of compatability issues wityh different firmware versions etc

Best to rent a body with the back. Body rental is next to nothing compared to the back rental. Body and back matched buy the rental company is the best way to go.

Fred Greissing wrote:

Renting digital backs to put on your own Mamiya 645 is not as simple as
one would expect.

The whole Mamiya Phase One MFD system is quite flakey wityh all sorts of compatability issues wityh different firmware versions etc

Best to rent a body with the back. Body rental is next to nothing compared to the back rental. Body and back matched buy the rental company is the best way to go.

I'm just planning on shooting film with it anyway.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Chouski you miss quoted me by accident there.

Oops... sorry about that, wasn't quite awake all Friday.

tenrocK photo wrote:
I'm just planning on shooting film with it anyway.

There really is no need anymore to shoot medium Format Digital.

Here is a comparrison between the D800 and A HAsselblad 40MP camera.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum … 4261;image

These are cropped from this frame:

http://cdn.photigy.com/wp-content/uploa … -image.jpg

Isaiah Brink wrote:

Well, I have to point out that you ar comparing medium format to 35mm. You are also comparing a medium that has a lot more exposure latitude than digital. So, the medium format film is significantly superior to a full frame 35mm digital camera. For a better comparison MF digital to MF film.

Except I'm not comparing anything, I just want to learn a new (for me) format and technology.
If you want me to compare, I'm not so sure the Nikon D800 is very far behind MFF...

tenrocK photo wrote:

Eventually yes, but baby steps first. For now, prints that are 20 on the long side will work for me, and I'll see if I can push that even larger later. Doing this while I learn something new and get a different look & feel should keep me interested until I move up.

I've sold a bunch of prints that are 24 on the short side. One was a 16mp image shot at 12,800 and looked amazing. You don't have to shoot film to print large.

There are still plenty of reasons to shoot and print film though.

tenrocK photo wrote:

I'm just planning on shooting film with it anyway.

My point was only for the learning process. Rather than using a DSLR as a reference, use a digital back and shoot with exact camera until you've figured out what you need to know. Then switch to film.

MC Photo wrote:
I've sold a bunch of prints that are 24 on the short side. One was a 16mp image shot at 12,800 and looked amazing. You don't have to shoot film to print large.

There are still plenty of reasons to shoot and print film though.

The first series I ever shot with digital was a nightscape series. I had just bought a 12mp Nikon D2x and simply wanted to see what it could do at night.  After shooting four images, I was commissioned to complete a series of the work (30 images).  I was going to go back and shoot those initial four using LF film, but for kicks, decided to print one first to see how it would come out at the size they wanted (20x25).  I had shot on a tripod with cable release and very good glass and uprezzed the work using Genuine fractals.  They came out fantastic and I finished the rest of the series with the D2x.

25 out of 30 images sold.  I have since moved to MFD (despite Fred's examples, I prefer it). And would not hesitate to print big from a leaf back (or phase one back) assuming, again, the use of good technique (for those kinds of shots).  I still shoot LF film, just because I enjoy it, but if you take some time to refine the process, you can make beautiful prints from digital files.  As you and I have discussed, it's all about the narrative.

MC Photo wrote:

My point was only for the learning process. Rather than using a DSLR as a reference, use a digital back and shoot with exact camera until you've figured out what you need to know. Then switch to film.

You can get older digital backs (22mp) for a song today.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

You can get older digital backs (22mp) for a song today.

Hmmm.

You can still buy a 36MP state of the art DSLR with more resolution and far more dynamic range. FF 35mm sensor while a 22MP or 30MP medium format digital back will be a crop sensor on a medium format camera.

Then there is the issue of reliability and repair turnaround.

Hasselblad is still quite good as far as repairs, even on old V gear.

Phase One Leaf Mamiya takes for ever and is riddled with BS.

See theis thread:

6 months and BS just to get a firewire cirquit and a UV filter changed......
Just rediculous.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum … #msg582759

Fred Greissing wrote:

Hmmm.

You can still buy a 36MP state of the art DSLR with more resolution and far more dynamic range. FF 35mm sensor while a 22MP or 30MP medium format digital back will be a crop sensor on a medium format camera.

Then there is the issue of reliability and repair turnaround.

Hasselblad is still quite good as far as repairs, even on old V gear.

Phase One Leaf Mamiya takes for ever and is riddled with BS.

See theis thread:

6 months and BS just to get a firewire cirquit and a UV filter changed......
Just rediculous.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum … #msg582759

I work directly with Capture Integration.  Only ever had one issue (which wound up being on my end) and they overnighted an entire new system to me for a shoot, and by the time I returned, they had it all sorted out, fixed the problem (even though they didn't have to) and had my gear back waiting for me.

It is the best customer service I've ever received from any company, ever.  I have no problems with them or Mamiya/Leaf whatsoever.

To each their own.  If you prefer the D800, that's awesome, knock your socks off with it.  Maybe I'll pick one up.  But for most of what I do, I prefer the Leaf.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

The first series I ever shot with digital was a nightscape series. I had just bought a 12mp Nikon D2x and simply wanted to see what it could do at night.  After shooting four images, I was commissioned to complete a series of the work (30 images).  I was going to go back and shoot those initial four using LF film, but for kicks, decided to print one first to see how it would come out at the size they wanted (20x25).  I had shot on a tripod with cable release and very good glass and uprezzed the work using Genuine fractals.  They came out fantastic and I finished the rest of the series with the D2x.

25 out of 30 images sold.  I have since moved to MFD (despite Fred's examples, I prefer it). And would not hesitate to print big from a leaf back (or phase one back) assuming, again, the use of good technique (for those kinds of shots).  I still shoot LF film, just because I enjoy it, but if you take some time to refine the process, you can make beautiful prints from digital files.  As you and I have discussed, it's all about the narrative.

Those examples are one of the reasons why I like MF and large format. I don't have to worry about distortion issues if I shoot a model in a wide angle scene with landscape.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

You can get older digital backs (22mp) for a song today.

How much is a song?

Legacys 7 wrote:
Those examples are one of the reasons why I like MF and large format. I don't have to worry about distortion issues if I shoot a model in a wide angle scene with landscape.

Well, obviously distortion issues are going to be relative to lens selection and distance to subject matter.  I liked the look for the series, otherwise I would have used a different tool. 

But yes, in general I agree with you.  I'm planning another series that will be shot relatively wide and I'm about 80% sure I'm going to be shooting it on 4x5 film (but I may go to 8x10 for it).

MC Photo wrote:
How much is a song?

Under $5K for a kit including body and lenses if you really shop.  For the back alone you can find some in the $3k range.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Well, obviously distortion issues are going to be relative to lens selection and distance to subject matter.  I liked the look for the series, otherwise I would have used a different tool. 

But yes, in general I agree with you.  I'm planning another series that will be shot relatively wide and I'm about 80% sure I'm going to be shooting it on 4x5 film (but I may go to 8x10 for it).

Of course lens will play a factor. But I'm talking about format size/perspective that helps where 35 mm for example with wide angle will give me distortion/barrell. That seems to be what some are forgetting when they state, "You don't need medium format anymore." That was/is my point.

Legacys 7 wrote:

Of course lens will play a factor. But I'm talking about format size/perspective that helps where 35 mm for example with wide angle will give me distortion/barrell. That seems to be what some are forgetting when they state, "You don't need medium format anymore." That was/is my point.

I agree wholeheartedly.  It's like saying that you can shoot all product photography with a DSLR.  Well, you *could* but a tech camera with a digital back is better (and more prevalent among those doing advertising product work). I think it's just that most folks here either don't have experience with other tools, or they had some in the past but have no need for the options they offer now.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly.  It's like saying that you can shoot all product photography with a DSLR.  Well, you *could* but a tech camera with a digital back is better (and more prevalent among those doing advertising product work). I think it's just that most folks here either don't have experience with other tools, or they had some in the past but have no need for the options they offer now.

I have shot and owned MFD as well as shot for many years with medium format and large format film.

Medium format Digital is not all it's made out to be. After testing the D800 I saw no need to keep the flakey Phase One MFD cameras. 35mm DSLR cameras have progressed so much while MFD is creeping along in survival mode.

Many photographers have dropped medium format digital and the huge drop in valure from new to used is an indication of this.

Here's a good example of a photographer that shoots fashion, product and automotive who has replaced his medium format with the Nikon D800.

http://www.harperphoto.com/

Hello,

For me I am pleased that I have sold my Leaf Aptus 75 and to get that monkey off my back. My studio is now 100% Nikon D800’s and I couldn’t be more happier.

To have to rely on a piece of equipment which in most cases has to be returned to it country of manufacturer for repair and then get charged the cost of a Nikon D800 for that repair and of course the time to repair it is quite frankly absurd.

Cheers

Simon

Also this comparisson by the owner of an IQ180 80MP digital back is quite revealing:

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-v … one-iq180/