The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Mamiya 7 with Adox CMS20 compared with ...

Aaron

New member
All conversations about shooting film seem to end up in conversations about scanning....

Does anybody print optically anymore? Surely if you want to get the best from the film experience you need to go into the darkroom! Think about it, no hours wasted with all that digital imaging entails.

Plus every print is at the highest resolution possible regardless of size.... can't ask for more than that surely!

Aaron.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Aaron, an optical print does not assure the highest quality compared with a scan. There are many sources to why the film and paper planes are not optimized for focus. And resolution is always lost in a print even when perfect. And depending on size, you can have a contrast problem. And the size of the print will limit the resolving power. Having run my own color and B&W darkroom, there certainly is no speed advantage.

But on the other hand, the emphasis on precision here is a little extreme. And the fact that there has only been the discussion of the film resolution which is most like going to be lost when going to a print--either optically or digitally.
 
Last edited:

Aaron

New member
Aaron, an optical print does not assure the highest quality compared with a scan. There are many sources to why the film and paper planes are not optimized for focus. And resolution is always lost in a print even when perfect. And depending on size, you can have a contrast problem. And the size of the print will limit the resolving power. Having run my own color and B&W darkroom, there certainly is no speed advantage.

But on the other hand, the emphasis on precision here is a little silly. And the fact that there has only been the discussion of the film resolution which is most like going to be lost when going to a print--either optically or digitally.
Yes I agree with all of the above, good technique will certainly shorten the problem list...but I am really talking about the experience of shooting film or working analogue.

If the intention is to produce the sharpest and most technically precise image possible then why shoot film in the first place- surely thats best pursued digitally?

I always think of shooting film and then scanning is kind of like drinking a good wine through a plastic straw.
 

EH21

Member
I'm shooting a lot of film these days and have been experimenting with the two workflows of analog print vs scan and digitally print. So far it seems I am doing better by scanning and printing, but with a few images the analog results seem superior but only because of tonality and never because I was able to produce more detail. That could be due to my lack of analog printing skills however. Certainly I feel I have much more local control of the image in the digital route than in the analog route and I feel I can probably get more detail through scanning and post work.

I don't scan with a scanner but instead shoot my negs (6x6, 6x7 and 4x5) on a light table with my CF 528 multishot back. This seems to be working rather well for me, and better than scans from the epsons, however I haven't compared to the the higher end drum scans. Has anyone made any comparisons between drum scanners and high quality digital capture?

At least for now, I don't think shooting film and printing digitally is 'drinking a good wine through a straw' at all. Film has some wonderful qualities besides resolution. The advantage is that once I have the negative, I can go either way analog print or digital. Another advantage is the larger format size has a different look. I see no point to shoot 35mm - its only there for MF and larger.

Another couple advantages of film... no batteries, ability to shoot higher ISO, better art value.
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
Yes I agree with all of the above, good technique will certainly shorten the problem list...but I am really talking about the experience of shooting film or working analogue.

If the intention is to produce the sharpest and most technically precise image possible then why shoot film in the first place- surely thats best pursued digitally?

I always think of shooting film and then scanning is kind of like drinking a good wine through a plastic straw.
There are definite differences between an optical print and digital print of the same film. One is not "better" than the other--that is simply a preference. There is certainly more control in digital, but optical prints have a unique signature. Skill is required to do both well.

I am rather neutral on process. Whatever you decide to do, you need to work in that process for its strength and not to imitate another process.
 

timparkin

Member
Plus every print is at the highest resolution possible regardless of size.... can't ask for more than that surely!

Aaron.
Not necessarily!! I've just scanned the film on my low end Howtek drum scanner and the 4000dpi result outresolves and IQ180 on an ALPA body with Rodenstock lens..

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/mamiya7-cms20-vs-iq180.jpg

The IQ180 looks very clean though but does show a lot of artefacts.

I'll be scanning this on an 8,000 dpi scanner soon which I expect to do substantially better.
 

Aaron

New member
Not necessarily!! I've just scanned the film on my low end Howtek drum scanner and the 4000dpi result outresolves and IQ180 on an ALPA body with Rodenstock lens..

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/mamiya7-cms20-vs-iq180.jpg

The IQ180 looks very clean though but does show a lot of artefacts.

I'll be scanning this on an 8,000 dpi scanner soon which I expect to do substantially better.
Hi Tim,
I was referring to printing from a negative via the traditional method!
While i know its a simplification to say so, I meant that an enlargement from a darkroom printed neg is always at the max resolution as your always using all the information with projection.

Assuming your enlarger has a good lens, is focused, your neg & paper are flat, Enlarger and base board aligned, and a million other analogue possibilities but the theory is sound :facesmack:
 

timparkin

Member
Hi Tim,
I was referring to printing from a negative via the traditional method!
While i know its a simplification to say so, I meant that an enlargement from a darkroom printed neg is always at the max resolution as your always using all the information with projection.

Assuming your enlarger has a good lens, is focused, your neg & paper are flat, Enlarger and base board aligned, and a million other analogue possibilities but the theory is sound :facesmack:
Yes I realise that and agree but I'm also pointing out that scanning shouldn't be dismissed if it produced the results above..
 

Aaron

New member
Yes I realise that and agree but I'm also pointing out that scanning shouldn't be dismissed if it produced the results above..
Yes, there's no question that its an impressive result.

How much do you attribute it to the Mamiya 7 optics though? If the results are more due to the Adox CMS20 then its a little less fair of a comparison to the IQ180 (it being a colour array).

How close would the results be if using the Mamiya 7 with a fine grain colour neg?
 

DDudenbostel

Active member
Agreed up to a point - With LF and a desktop I can get more resolution than the IQ180 with black and white so there is the main advantage. However with drum scanners available for a couple of thousand dollars and not being beyond the skills of anyone who might want to operate an MFDB ....

If you don't mind waiting around for a bit, scanners come up at ridiculous prices. I recently saw a serviced Fuji Lanovia with all software go for less than £100. They do take up space but boy are they worth it (the Lanovia is a good 5000dpi desktop PMT scanner)



It's fussy for sure but with distilled water and care in handling it shouldn't cause a problem. I'll let you know once I've done some more though



I don't really know the answer to that one - I'll have a dig out of the compartive shots on other cameras and see what they give. But yes, expose for the shadows seems very wise.



No comparison really - it has probably twice the usable clean resolution.

Tim
I have a Lanovia Quattro and its a killer scanner. The LQ is not a PMT scanner, it uses a CCD. I've owned three different Fuji scanners over the last decade, 2750, 5000 and the Quattro. You rarely find the Quattro or 5000 but do find the 2750 from time to time. The 2750 is a stripped down version of the 5000 and scans a max of 2750 dpi where the 5000 is 5000 dpi like the LQ. The 5000 has a slightly better dynamic range than the 2750. The LQ is 5000 dpi and super fast. The 5000 and LQ have 4 apo lenses for optimum scans. It XY axis scanning so every point on the 13x18 inch platter is optimum. The LQ makes amazing scans.

The problem is finding one with software for your os, dongle with unlock codes and setup and calibration negs. Most do not have these items and will not work. There is no 3rd party software and without the negs and dongle with unlock codes you can not use it. Fuji has no parts and they are impossible to find. These were made by Crossfield.

I bought mine from Fuji originally so I have xp and os x and os9 dongles, pc and both Mac OSX and 9 software. Also spare bulbs, engineering manuals, instruction books plus spare camera CCD, 2 lenses, servo, belt and a few boards that came out of a 2750 that I think will work. Also a spare glass for the platter.

I may put it up for sale on the large format forum this week so keep your eyes open but it won't go for 100£.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Yes, there's no question that its an impressive result.

How much do you attribute it to the Mamiya 7 optics though? If the results are more due to the Adox CMS20 then its a little less fair of a comparison to the IQ180 (it being a colour array).

How close would the results be if using the Mamiya 7 with a fine grain colour neg?
Obviously, the results are very much due to the CMS20. There's nothing like it available in colour, not even close.
 

timparkin

Member
Yes, there's no question that its an impressive result.

How much do you attribute it to the Mamiya 7 optics though? If the results are more due to the Adox CMS20 then its a little less fair of a comparison to the IQ180 (it being a colour array).

How close would the results be if using the Mamiya 7 with a fine grain colour neg?
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/portra400at8000dpi-vs-AdoxCMS20-4000dpi.jpg

Colour neg resolves only about 100 lppm compared with Adox CMS 20's 200+ lppm and the contrast and grain difference is massive.

The best resolving film I've tried myself is Velvia 50 but I've been told Velvia 100F is even finer grained (again - referencing Henning Serger's info)

Tim
 

georgl

New member
Is SPUR developer more difficult to obtain outside Germany than Adox? I've had excellent results with Kodak Imagelink HQ and now want to switch to Agfa Copex + Spur Dynamicspeed 64 (Spur DSX) - it is meant to offer great DR and 64ASA!

Everything beyond 100lppm is hardly usable in real-world situations IMHO - no matter which sensor or film used, DoF alone will be critical when not shooting test charts....
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
For those in the US film and developer are available here: Freestyle Photo. I've placed an order - we'll see how it is working with them.

Next I'll need to dig into the storage area in our barn to find developing tanks, beakers, thermometers, etc. I'll be scanning on my Flexcolor which has a native resolution of 3200. Of course it doesn't do as good a job of grain and dust suppression as the Howtech.

this is going to be fun.
 

Professional

Active member
For those in the US film and developer are available here: Freestyle Photo. I've placed an order - we'll see how it is working with them.

Next I'll need to dig into the storage area in our barn to find developing tanks, beakers, thermometers, etc. I'll be scanning on my Flexcolor which has a native resolution of 3200. Of course it doesn't do as good a job of grain and dust suppression as the Howtech.

this is going to be fun.
I ordered films from there ages ago, they are great, also B&H, i am planning to order more film from them soon again as usual, next month i hope.

Good luck!
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
I'll be scanning on my Flexcolor which has a native resolution of 3200. Of course it doesn't do as good a job of grain and dust suppression as the Howtech.
On the Flextight I found the best way to scan B&W is to scan as RGB, then pick the channel with the best focus... The film as loaded is curved but the imager is flat (with a separate line for each channel).

I never got much grain from T-Max 100 in XTOL, and very little grain from Delta 100 in Microdol-X on a 6x7 neg. So I doubt using a microfilm in a special developer has a whole lot of benefit at a mere 3200 dpi. The Mamiya 7 is already excellent with just about any 100 speed film at that level of detail and anything else just adds to the PITA factor.
 

timparkin

Member
Is SPUR developer more difficult to obtain outside Germany than Adox? I've had excellent results with Kodak Imagelink HQ and now want to switch to Agfa Copex + Spur Dynamicspeed 64 (Spur DSX) - it is meant to offer great DR and 64ASA!

Everything beyond 100lppm is hardly usable in real-world situations IMHO - no matter which sensor or film used, DoF alone will be critical when not shooting test charts....
True - but system resolution is increased by the quality of each element in the chain so a 200lpm capable film will still increase the perceived resolution/contrast of even an 80lpm lens on 60lpm scanner
 
Top