A dabble in MF…

[JTC]

Hey all, I’ve agreed to buy Andrew’s Mamiya C220 TLR. Once upon a time, in a millenium far, far ago - well, ok, the late 90s to be fair - I had a Bronica ETRSi and then a Minolta Autocord, and then a Mamiya 7-ii, so I’m basically familiar with the MF film system, but that was a long time ago now. So this feels like a good time to pick one up and see where that takes me.

My wife also cut her professional teeth with a Rolleiflex of some description, so she may also have a play, but basically I suspect this will be my toy.

My rough plan is to develop my own B&W film, as I did in the past. We have most of the bits and aside from renewing chemicals and possibly buying a changing bag (as I no longer have a light-tight room) I suspect we have most of what we need.

The bigger challenge is scanning. Whilst we still have an enlarger up in the attic, I’d prefer to scan images somehow, at least so that I have a digital copy.

A question: I have two digital systems that I wonder about using, somehow. One is the Q2, which is 47MP and has an excellent macro and also manual focus capability, but is a 28mm lens. The other is the Fuji X series - XT2 and XH2 - which has relatively poor manual focus but a selection of lenses (I have 13/1.4 up to 90/2, plus a 100-400 zoom, but no macro lens). In the back of my mind, you used to be able to buy an attachment type thing that allowed you to take photographs of slides as a sort of slide duplicator, and perhaps something broadly similar might be available for taking high resolution images of the negative. Those duplicators were for 35mm but hopefully something suitable for 6x6 is available? Anyone know? I’d rather not have to budget for dev & scan packages, as the scanning adds a fair whack to the price, but that is a fall-back option, with a dedicated MF slide scanner being likely stupidly expensive and therefore not worth it for my occasional use.

My plan for the TLR is to slow down, big time. Use slow film, take my time, be in the moment and such; I remember MF being very much a ballad of composition and patience, compared to the wham-bam of 35mm. This appeals to me, and could be a fun extension of my photo hobby. Who knows, might - in time - get that enlarger setup and make prints, but we don’t really have the space for this right now… but never say never, right?

 

[Mr Perceptive]

JTC - The Fuji 90mm works ok-ish with extension tubes, but all of your lenses will suffer from field curvature, whereas this usually corrected out with a true macro lens.

For MF I have had decent results with an Epson V600 scanner, and this isn't expensive, when you start factoring in copy stands, negative holders, backlights, etc for using a camera to image the negatives.

 

[Gromit]

I very occasionally shoot MF (got a Yashica 635/500CM & Mamiya 645) the downside being that film has rocketed in price of late, although I still have a stash in the freezer at home.

For scanning it doesn't have to be expensive. I use an LED light board (about 20 quid) and a negative holder - JJC or some such then just a macro lens on whichever tripod-mounted camera I use to photograph the negative. It'll give potentially better results than a flatbed and using zoomed-in live view on the camera you can achieve nigh-on perfect focus.

These were shot on the 'Blad using HP5 at ISO 800, scanned on the light board using a Fuji X-H1 and Samyang 100 Macro.

Steep Hill by Boxertrixter, on Flickr

Lincoln Drill Hall by Boxertrixter, on Flickr

 

[NSJFan]

I would recommend going for something like an Epson V700 or V600. Combined with VueScan you can achieve excellent results.
This was taken on long expired Kodak Porta with a Bronica S2a:

 

[andrewd]

I use AG photolabs develop and scan service which costs £12.50 for 120 film. The files are transferred on the web a few days after sending the film in. I used to do my own film processing 30 years ago but it is not something I particularly enjoyed. So overall each click of the shutter costs me about £2. I only shoot a handful of MF films per year.

 

[JTC]

Thanks. To be fair, we have everything we need to do our own D&P of 120 B&W in our attic - trays, tanks, enlarger etc. - but the chemicals would need to be changed and we don't have a light-tight area any more (might have mentioned this above). So sending at least the initial films away makes sense. I suspect the cost aspects might make me much more choosy about what pictures I take, which is sort of the point of the 'slow down photography' mindset. Anyway, it's sitting here, teasing me for now, will likely be next weekend or an evening next week before I get her out for her 'maiden' voyage (in this custodianship, at least )

 

[mattjevans]

I managed to get hold of a Linhof Technika 23 (equivalent to the Master large format, but for 6x6-6x9). Incredible kit can’t wait to give it some proper use over summer.

 

[SteveG]

I must dig out some medium format B&W film and run that through my Pentax 645 as I hate to think how many years its been since it was last used. For scanning I've had acceptable results using the film scanning attachment with medium format slides and B&W film.

I definitely find that slowing down and taking your time means the hit ratio with medium format (and film in generally really) is better than with digital where there can be a tendency to just blast away.

 

[JTC]

A bit belated, as I've been away and various other non-photographic things have taken priority, but I have the first of the C220 films back. The very first film, an expired Pan-F, didn't work out so well - lots of blotchiness which you can see on the print of my dog, plus I had some loading issues. I'm not worried about the blotchiness, in some respects it's actually quite characterful, and I am hoping that I nail the loading a bit better, but otherwise pretty pleased with the results. Clearly my focusing isn't always 100% - I blame variofocals and the dark focusing screen - but mostly it's been within the realms of acceptability....








I am finding getting the right tonality in the scans a bit tricky, but the 7Artisans lens and my XT2 on the makeshift copy stand seem to do a decent job of 'scanning'. And, yes, I've enhanced these images a bit - you have to, really, to get a usable image - including some selective contrast etc. But then I'd do that with a lot of my digital images too.

 

[andrewd]

Those look great! Not that I can see any major issues with the focus, but I found that I always used the flip up magnifying glass to try and get it as accurate as possible. Film images will never be as bitingly sharp as a digital capture but have far more appeal to me.

Of course contrast edits are required this was always done in a traditional darkroom through choice of paper grade and exposure etc. Every lab that does a scan will make an interpretation of the contrast and exposure you want which you may or may not agree with.

It would probably shock the purists but I always use my iPad photos app to fine tune the processing of scanned film images after I receive them from the scanning lab. It is usually a mild contrast or exposure adjustment. I hardly ever touch the sharpness since the lab scanner does a good job at this.

 

[Puggie]

If you grab a set of macro bellows, something like these:

BPM Macro Extension Bellows For M42 Lenses | Film Photography | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for BPM Macro Extension Bellows For M42 Lenses | Film Photography at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.

www.ebay.co.uk

Fit a Fuji FX to m42 adapter on one end, a m42 to l39 threaded adapter on the other and use one of your enlarger lenses, you will have a nice copy lense with no curvature issues.

I run this an a led panel to backlight my negs, and it works surprisingly well.

 

[JTC]

I already bought a macro lens which - as far as I can see- is superb for this task. Andrew: focusing is definitely an art even with the pop up magnifier but that's me, not the lenses. I have gone a bit daft and have the 55/4.5, 80/2.8, 135/4.5 and 180/4.5. I still need to put a few more rolls through the 220 to be confident of my loading etc. but I can at least be certain that it can be focused and has no light leaks

 

[Cesare]

Were those all with PanF? I see some blotchy skies in the scans which look like reticulation. I've had that with PanF when i'm not totally on it with temperatures, and the exact developer can affect this. Assuming you sent these to a lab I don't expect that would be an issue, so i'm left with the old film stock being the likely cause.

The collapsed see wall or whatever it is is pretty dramatic, and would make a nice print

 

[JTC]

These ones were all Tri-X, new stock in-date, except the shot of my dog which was the expired Pan-F you sent me. All was processed in a lab, as although I have a spiral, tanks etc. at home, the opened bottle of Rodinal that's been in the attic since around 2005 cannot be trusted. So I will be investing in some fresh chemistry and developing my own once I get around to it. Any blotchy skies are more likely to be a combination of me playing with curves and local adjustments in software than a problem with the negs I would think. Which image in particular? The only one I see it on in the originals is on https://ibb.co/41MS95k and https://ibb.co/PYCfmHX, which were taken minutes apart and - from memory - might be the remnants of an early morning mist exacerbated by a graduated adjustment. Also, these were 'scanned' at around 16mp (i.e. 4000px square, give or take) and I wonder if some of this is algorithmic patternisation of the grain as it's downsized? It's been so long since I shot film, I'm not sure whether Tri-X grain should be visible on an image from a 6x6 negative at a 'view' size of 30x30cm (i.e. 5x)?

 

[Cesare]

The rule of thumb is that ISO400 on medium format looks like ISO100 on 35mm for the same image size.

https://imgbb.com/wKzdtfR was the one where the sky looks to be not grainy, but textured, hence my reticulation question. However, given it's a lab, it won't be that, so it'll be probably something to do with your 'scanning' workflow. Unless of course you've pushed it around a fair bit to bring out contrast, and then it's a post artefact

I'm going to stick some PanF through here and see what I get, same batch, so probably somewhat compromised!

 

[JTC]

I think that one is pushed a fair bit in post (blush). I did use a red filter, but I have also had to apply tonal curves to bring it all under control, and I suspect it's the local adjustments bringing things out. I'm away from the original now until late Thursday but I will see about doing a 'before' version and uploading, so we can be sure. Btw that particular shot you mention was on fresh Tri-X, expiry date mid 2025 I think.

 

[Cesare]

Yeah, it's a good shot that one.

 

[JTC]

On the subject of development, what modern chemistry would you recommend? Ideally something with good versatility and forgiving. Like Rodinal, but in the past I used ID11 as well. Priority would be grain control and good even negative development without drama, and medium/high accutance.

 

[PaulMB]

On the subject of development, what modern chemistry would you recommend? Ideally something with good versatility and forgiving. Like Rodinal, but in the past I used ID11 as well. Priority would be grain control and good even negative development without drama, and medium/high accutance.

ID11 and Rodinal are both great developers. Lately I've been using FX-39, which I like at the moment. There are really no developers that are "good" while others are "bad." Just choose one and use only that for a while, trying different dilutions, development times and agitation patterns to learn what it can do for you.
As for professional labs, this in itself is no guarantee of anything. They are human beings and not perfect.
One thing that this thread has got me thinking, is that if the negs are scanned, then put in a computer and "enhanced" for sharpness, contrast, etc., then printed digitally, why not shoot digital directly? Is it not a bit like doing traditional Japanese archery with telescopic sights linked to GPS plots of archer and target?
Of course, everyone is free to do as they like if it's fun.

 

[JTC]

ID11 and Rodinal are both great developers. Lately I've been using FX-39, which I like at the moment. There are really no developers that are "good" while others are "bad." Just choose one and use only that for a while, trying different dilutions, development times and agitation patterns to learn what it can do for you.
As for professional labs, this in itself is no guarantee of anything. They are human beings and not perfect.
One thing that this thread has got me thinking, is that if the negs are scanned, then put in a computer and "enhanced" for sharpness, contrast, etc., then printed digitally, why not shoot digital directly? Is it not a bit like doing traditional Japanese archery with telescopic sights linked to GPS plots of archer and target?
Of course, everyone is free to do as they like if it's fun.

Digital TLRs don't exist. For digital shooting, I have other options.