Analog film photography and cameras

Do you actually get much stuff printed? Can get a lot of film devved and scanned at your place for £2k

Anyone know anything about dedicated negative scanners. I'm thinking of biting the bullet on a medium format scanner (Coolscan 9000 maybe?) and was wondering if anyone was in the know.

I used the 5000 with the film adapter for a couple of years. Solid mothers! Very very good if you can afford it. Takes a bit of setting up, but after that, they become effortless to use. With the adapter, it was brilliant at cropping each shot even though you're inserting a whole roll in there. You just had to specify. This is an example of how clean a shot it scans.

This was one of the first shots I scanned on it. shot on a Bronica ETRS. Can't remember which film. Minimal processing aside from random colour adjustments.
Took me some time to develop the film so it got quite dirty. The ICE dust removal was most impressive. If I remember right, I scanned this at 1000dpi.
Detail was spot on and it never compensated for darks and shadows. Meaning even though I threw some shittily exposed stuff at it. It always gave back a balanced image which gave you quite a good latitude to make your own adjustments.
If you can afford it and use it quite often, they're well worth it.

Do you actually get much stuff printed? Can get a lot of film devved and scanned at your place for £2k

Seen them go for a lot less than 2k.

£5 for dev
£12 for dev and scan + more for individual scans if I'm going to print. 20 rolls a year (if not more, cheaper dev = more money for film in the long run) comes out at £140 for scanning, in 5 years that's already £700 (and that's if labs keep prices fixed, which they haven't been).

I've previously used a coolscan 9000 and I reckon the results I got from that were better than the 35mm scans I get from the lab.

...I don't know what you care for Ken Rockwells opinion, but most likely he is "in the know" about this shit also.
See http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scanrex.htm (also scroll down for "older models").

I use a sort-of exotic, dedicated 35mm scanner ("QUATO Intelli Scan 5000") which is about £300 new.
It is pretty decent, but of course I wished it was better still. I know it's only 35mm, but it could be a bit better.
I would *really *love to have a scanner that I could feed whole uncut rolls of film -
instead of fiddling the strips of 4-6 into the thing every fucking time. It's like the most annoying part of analog photography for me.

Yeah, the 9000 seems to come out well recommended.
The problem with older scanners is their weird adapters and ports - too much of a pain in the arse.

..some really good shots.
I like "2" (with the sock),

haha, thanks! (that wasn't on film though, obviously, as that set was shot on my friends fuji x100)

My Olympus XA had some kind of winding fail and I got 7 or 8 exposures on one frame:

I was overexposing 1 stop anyway so I'm surprised anything is visible at all? Maybe it's also metering wrong...

I wasn't sure I'd be able to scan it either, the negative looks crazy.

Nice!

^^ great!
towards the end of my studenting days, when I was rather short of cash and time, I just kept reloading the same couple of films. I was just taking photos out of habit at the time, it was therapeutic. I've never really looked back at those films, they were a mess... I think now they would be full of nostalgic little snippets, I should dig them out.

^what I like most about it is a similar kind of thing I think, all the pictures were just snapshots when I was finishing a roll and now it's one condensed image of what I thought was interesting for a week or so. (I also like that I know what everything in there is except one shot I remember using while very drunk but not what it was, and now it's buried under everything else and I still can't tell...)

It's certainly a lot more interesting than the rest of the roll (which sucked) anyway, I'm done playing with fast film and low light, I never manage to get the image I want. These two did make good drunk faces tho:

Those are good drunk faces.

We were actually quite sober...

My XA3 isn't quite as sharp as Id like but its still nice

I'm going to put roll through my Electro 35 GTN next.

No macro!?

I don't think it can focus closer than 85cm

My XA3 isn't quite as sharp as Id like

..better film will be sharper though, don't you think?

True, i'm just a little disappointed that the close focus isn't that close I guess.

Speaking of which.. will pick up a roll of Portra from the lab today, the first since I don't know.
Very curious.. also shot a lot of that roll with new equipment, Nikon F90s (N90x) with - oh joy! - first AF zoom for an analog camera I ever had in my life (28-70 3.5-4.5 AF-D Nikkor).

Does anybody on here have experience with the new (post NC/VC-era) high ISO Portras (400 / 800) in 35mm?
Are they really usable, do they scan well?

Haven't used them myself, but a friend of mine had lovely results with them. Super small grain so a sharp lens will love it

I don't think it can focus closer than 85cm

Yea that's pretty much what its manual says -

Thanks for feedback, kboy..

My apologies, it's the XA4 that has the macro on it.

Got a finished roll of portra 160 on its way to ag-photo for hi rez scans. Never shot with this before so curious as to how it comes out...

I'm not sure of your definition of usable but Portra 400 always looks very sharp and smooth IMO. Best 400 I have seen.

I'm thinking about giving medium format a try and was wondering if anyone knows a good way to start.

I was thinking about getting myself a mamiya or something similar like a pentax 645 but was wondering if it was worth saving up a bit longer and going for a hasselblad

Buy a TLR - cheap and a great intro to Medium Format