A Fuji GX 680III to be precise.
A Fuji GX 680III to be precise.
Last edited by GaryAyala; 22nd November 2014 at 19:14.
Uh Oh, serious trouble approaching, LOL.
Good luck, post some shots.
It's a beast, but a beautiful beast.
Congratulations - I believe we have a couple of others here who have been brave enough to try the 680. I remember being impressed by the shots taken by FredBGG on this page. Looking forward to seeing your results!
Thanks Gary & Chris. It is a beast.
Congratulations. It's a lovely beast with some fantastic lenses. I don't have nearly enough time to use mine, but I'm making progress
There is a Facebook group btw.:
Great place to ask for advice etc.
As a fellow user of big, heavy cameras my number one tip is to not give a f*ck, bring it with you even when it seems highly impractical.
Nice to see you getting a "real" camera, Gary. u4/3 is nice, but they ain't going to impress anyone. You turn up with this thing and people will just assume you know what you are doing. And the great thing about film is you don't have to prove it on the spot--you just tell them you need to develop it first.
Now we just need to get you a medium-format digital back for it...
Rock on. I have the whole system, 50 - 500 mm. Film has a look that can't be replicated. You just need a good chiropractor after a day in the field.
Last edited by GaryAyala; 27th November 2014 at 07:14.
My Snaps are Here1 Member(s) liked this post
I just had a look at your portfolio Gary, lovely stuff, you have a great eye. Can't wait to see what you create with that wonderful Fuji beast. If you haven't shot film for some time I think you'll be amazed by the quality of the latest films like the new Portra and T-Max, I know I was.
What will you be using to scan your negatives?
But, I am seriously exploring scanning, presently looking at Epsons, v700 - V850. I've seen some the results and while not as good as a drum scan, I think the Epson's are good for my needs (up to 16x20) and very cost effect for a home setup. I have a Plustek for 35mm.
If you can afford it, I'd probably look at the Plustek OpticFilm 120. I used to own the Epson V700 and wasn't too impressed to be honest.
What I like about the Epson is the cost is about equal to 43 rolls of custom lab processing and a medium scan. If figure that 43 rolls is about a year of shooting. The Plustek extends my break-even point to two years.
I'm not sure I'll like the camera that much.
Why were you unimpressed? What the difference between the two? Could the difference be easily corrected/compensated in PhotoShop? Up to a 16x20 is there a significant difference in quality?
PS- Happy Thanksgiving.
Gary, I have a V750. It works well. Film curl is a bit of a pain, but nothing that can't be cured with a flat heavy book. I did buy a third party medium-format holder. Knowing how to run the software is important and setting up the scan right. Then you make the final image in Photoshop. The scans can basically be printed to any size you want. I would not worry about this scanner not making good scans. Sure, there are better, just like there are better bank accounts than mine...
Here's a reviewer that, apart from writing a good review, goes through a lot of factors that influence the scan quality of a V700/750:
EPSON V700 review
The prices of the Nikon seem to have fallen lately, now hovering between $2,500 and 4,000, and they should. Good alternatives like the Plustek and the Braun have appeared at around $2,000 and nobody knows for how long parts will be available for the LS 9000.
A long time ago I decided that I wasn't looking at the same thing in comparing my Minolta Multi Pro (Nikon 9000 equiv.) scans with those from the Epson V700.
I always got the impression that while the Multi Pro was very sharp it was also scanning a layer of grain and not the depth of grain, unlike the V700. And while the V700 isn't as sharp, it does to my mind represent the film more accurately. This can cause confusion because some films do scan better than others anyway, but generally I like the 'deeper' scans of the V700 and just pay more attention to micro contrast and careful sharpening.
I'm happy to report that the Plustek 120 seems to be the best of both worlds, representing the grain beautifully and being much sharper than the V700 (even better than the Multi Pro).
I want to thank everybody for posting and helping me out. I have repeatedly read every post and researching my options. I have found all this information invaluable.
PS- Keeping 'em coming.
The price for the Nikon Coolscan ranges that high? It may be time for me to eschew film all together, get rid of the M6, and then sell the Coolscan 9000. Nah. Love film too much.
First attempt. While I am not very happy with the results, I realize that I am very low on the scanning learning curve.
Fujifilm 680III w/ Tri-X @ ASA 400 scanned with the Epson v850.
Yeah, that doesn't look right at all, way too contrasty and lacking in detail.
I think I need to play with exposure/development to get a neg that will behave well with SilverFast. I gotta get a spot meter.
Have you figured out if the problem is with the negative or with your scanning process? If not, have a pro lab scan it for you. That way you know where to start troubleshooting. It's pretty hard to mess up the exposure itself, especially with B&W film.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Any progress, Gary? I'm sure I'm not the only one looking forward to seeing what you can do with the 680!
I found Silverfast a pain to work with. I moved over to VueScan. That may or may not fix your issue, since picking the right profile and basic scanning settings is really important (I just found it easier with VueScan). Unfortunately, that's more software to buy and maintain.
Anyway, I think I landed on actually doing a color neg scan even on B&W film. I can't remember what specific settings, but what I always went for was a very flat scan that I could then "pump up" in PP. In other words, don't try to make your scan come out perfect -- leave that for the tools that are good for that purpose, like Photoshop, Nik Silver Efex, etc.
http://www.hakusancreation.com1 Member(s) liked this post
I use SilverFast with my Nikon 9000. I scan B&W negatives as transparencies, setting the clipping points outside the portion of the histogram that has any signal from the image area, so as to get a low-contrast, full-information scan with some room for maneuver on both ends. Inversion and all processing to taste are left for Photoshop. You should be able to do the same with Epson Scan, BTW.
I can't recall ever having a problem capturing the full density range of a B&W negative, though I suppose it's possible if one seriously overdevelops a film like TMY that picks up highlight density very rapidly with increased development. But Gary's picture was on TX, which is normally a very forgiving film.
1 Member(s) liked this post
I shoot Tmax and I have never had a problem getting the density range out of my V750 scanner. I just think Gary needs a little time figuring this out.