first wet printing of negatives I processed & med format thoughts

[jneilt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shot some photos of my kids on Delta 50, scanned them on the epson v500 I have at the office and was impressed with a couple of the scans. With the wife's approval I went to have 3 of the shots wet printed here locally.

 

After looking at my local printers work I decided the direction I wanted him to take. He printed the scans in 3x5 on a dedicated monochrome printer. I asked for Selenium tinting...

 

Just looked at the finals today before they go behind glass and was amazed at the range in his prints, the contrast and the detail, seriously, this is beyond anything that has came out of my M9. Both of my children are very blonde and the details in their hair are amazing.

 

So, after chatting with him for about an hour...I really, really have the 'want' for a medium format...ugh...more equipment.

 

So, what used Med Format kit is a good starting place...

[pico]

I shot some photos of my kids on Delta 50, scanned them on the epson v500 [...]

 

[...]I decided the direction I wanted him to take. He printed the scans in 3x5 on a dedicated monochrome printer. I asked for Selenium tinting...

 

[...]

 

So, after chatting with him for about an hour...I really, really have the 'want' for a medium format...ugh...more equipment.

 

So, what used Med Format kit is a good starting place...

 

An hour? What a waste of his time. Are you a time-sucker?

 

Do you know what method he used for make those prints? Digital, wet process? Were they really wet processed prints from a conventional (bulb and film enlarger)? And they were small which is no challenge at all. Why do you think you need medium format, and who is going to make the images, and how will they make them? And what has this to do with Leica 35mm, or are you trying to challenge the S2?

 

And, BTW, Selenium is not really a tone at all. It is an archival process.

 

So vague.

.

[jneilt]

An hour? What a waste of his time. Are you a time-sucker?

 

Do you know what method he used for make those prints? Digital, wet process? Were they really wet processed prints from a conventional (bulb and film enlarger)? And they were small which is no challenge at all. Why do you think you need medium format, and who is going to make the images, and how will they make them? And what has this to do with Leica 35mm, or are you trying to challenge the S2?

 

And, BTW, Selenium is not really a tone at all. It is an archival process.

 

So vague.

.

 

Thanks for shooting my post down...I appreciate your helpful input.

 

To answer your questions (so as not to stoop to your avoidance and be vague).

 

1. Yes, I am a time sucker. I sucked time from you and you did not even notice as you were whining about my post.

 

2. Yes, enlarger. The prints were first printed on 3x5 via digital for us to look at. The wet prints were 8x10s, sorry if that did not 'come through' to you in my first post.

 

I don't think I 'need' medium format, I don't want to challenge the S2, the shots were taken with an MP. I was just simply impressed with the results I had from my camera-alongside the countless posts of other people impressed by their cameras or film-and thought I might enjoy shooting and printing in MF. And, gasp, someone here with the wisdom, insight and never-ending knowledge such as yourself, could perhaps share some knowledge with another forum member.

 

Sorry to (not) ask too much from you.

[Leicanerd]

Congratulations on your successful first wet prints!

 

Obviously you are using Ilford Delta 100 @ 50 ASA. Are you doing the shooting without a tripod?

For MF, however, you should use 400 ASA films (eg, HP5+ @ 200 ASA) in order to get enough depth of field and still get sharp shots. Under these conditions, the negative size should be no smaller than 6x7. Otherwise, the picture quality is not better than the quality that you receive with the Leica @ 50 ASA.

Good luck and greetings

Ludwig

[too old to care]

After I sold my 5DII I purchased a new/used enlarger (23CII) and re-opened my darkroom. I also purchased a Hasselblad 501C to replace my old, but trusty Mamiya C330f that I have owned for decades. A couple of scans from the Hasselblad, compared to my wet prints from the 23CII, showed me how good wet processing can still be. Because of that, I have all but stopped scanning and wet print most everything I display. I now only scan to post on the internet.

 

That said, I would opt for a Hasselblad, not because they are better than Rollei's, Mamiya's, etc., but because they can now be had for a song. Using one is a joy.

 

Wayne

[Jeff S]

And, BTW, Selenium is not really a tone at all. It is an archival process.

 

It is, however, a toning process as well, which is why it's generally referred to as selenium toning. In my darkroom days I got more or less tone depending on the fibre based paper used, the dilution strength and the time to tone. Pure bromide papers don't pick up much tone, but others often picked up a subtle purple-ish tint. There isn't a selenium tone per se, if that's what you mean, but a color is imparted nonetheless, depending on the process and paper. Depending on the image, it can be a bonus in addition to the archival benefits.

 

Jeff

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A Hasselblad will give you amazing lenses and a beautiful system that can be fitted together in myriad ways, and where you can swap your film at any time (by using multiple backs). The scans I've done from Portra 160 and 400 are simply incredible - the tonality and smoothness is simply leagues above 35mm of any sort - and scanning at 4000dpi will give you a file that's the 'equivalent' of something like 80-90megapixels (this is an opportunity for some wise-acre to jump in and tell me that film 'doesn't have pixels' - but I hope you get the idea).

 

On the downside is that the camera + lens + back is pretty heavy and bulky, and the reversed ground-glass view can take some getting used to - I still turn the camera in the wrong direction when I haven't used it for a while.

 

If you're shooting wide open, you'll find that perfect eyesight is needed to totally nail focus on subjects that are close - the nose-tip will be in focus and the eyes slightly out-of-focus very easily - even when using the magnifier. When you get it right, the image can be inexpressibly beautiful. Stopped down the lenses are amazingly sharp, so landscapes really sing.

 

Other cameras to consider might be the Mamiya 6 - this will give you an experience that's familiar to a rangefinder shooter.

 

I even looked at a Pentax 645N ii a few days ago. It struck me that the camera has no 'romance' - it's a lump of plastic that takes 6 AA batteries to operate - but I was amazed at how good the view through the finder was (although it only covers 90% of the image area), and how close you can get to the subject. If it's images of your kids then the 645N would be a better bet than the rather slower-to-use Hassy.

 

PS: forgot to add - the Pentax can be had v cheap. Hasselblad prices are rising again - at least locally here in Sweden.

[earleygallery]

To be fair to Pico, your first post was a tad vague, I also thought you were talking about 3X5 prints which wouldn't really tell you very much.

 

MF will show a difference, even at smaller size prints, definately at 10X8 and above. I have a Bronica ETRS system which is 6X4.5 format. The benefit is, unless you specifically want to make square prints, that you don't 'waste' film on every shot.

 

I bought the Bronica to shoot weddings back at the time, and it performed very well. You need to use a prism finder of course (try shooting portrait format without one!) and Bronica also made a speed grip which makes the whole thing handle rather like a 35mm SLR. Unlike the Mamiya 645, the Bronica has removable backs like the Hasselblad.

 

If you want 6X6 then the Bronica SQA or B is worth looking at.

[pico]

Thanks for shooting my post down...I appreciate your helpful input.

 

Sometimes I am just an a**.

 

Back to medium format (MF) : I think you will enjoy it a great deal. Properly done, MF will give you more pleasant prints than 35mm even on 5x7" or 5x5" prints. I also go along with those who recommend an earlier Hasselblad. Regarding the finder, when appropriate, I use a Russian 90 degree prism. It was much less expensive at the time, and as accurate as Hasselblad's prism. If you do go for an earlier Hasselblad, you might do better with those with the 'M' (for 'modified') designation because one advantage is that you can change viewing screens without having to disassemble the screen frame. Go for it! They are amazingly affordable today.

[250swb]

The price of a second hand Hasselbald has long ago come off the bottom and is now pretty firmly in the medium to expensive category.

 

But they are good cameras with no shortage of lenses and accessories. But it is a big heavy camera to lug around, so I would like to recommend a Rolleicord V. A great lens, and lighter than a Rolleiflex, it is a simple reliable camera that you can even envisage carrying alongside a Leica, not instead of. If you wanted to push the boat out a 2.8F Rolleiflex is superb. If you want to go for an even bigger negative and spend more money a Plaubel Makina 67 takes some beating, but it is as heavy as a brick. On the lighter flimsy side, but not any cheaper than a Plaubel, a Voigtlander Bessa III likewise does 6x7 negs.

 

P.S. Re selenium toning, it was not just an archival process, nor just a subtle colour tint, but it was/is often used to intensify the blacks, giving the detail in the print a real 'pop'. So it was a multi functional toner, used as much for artistic expression as making the print archival.

 

Steve

[luigi bertolotti]

I join the advice to think seriously to a Rolleiflex TLR : I used a 3,5F for years (together with Leicas) and considering the format is really a camera one can carry around easy. Mechanically they can be some of the best cameras of any time, and given their intrinsic simplicity (no moving mirror, central shutter, no helicoids) robustness is 101%.

[jneilt]

Thank you all for the advice on MF (and even the corrections to what I said)...Photography is a secondary hobby of mine, and I am far from an expert...this forum has helped me a great deal. I tend to be leaning toward a Rollei or a Hasselblad, but need to do much much more reading prior to making the plunge.

 

Also, earlier, I said the film was Delta 50, it was Pan 50...

 

The Selenium was chosen to 'washout' the blacks, which it did.

 

Thanks again all!

[Jeff S]

The Selenium was chosen to 'washout' the blacks, which it did.

 

Quite odd, as the purpose (other than color shift) is to intensify the blacks as described here and elsewhere.

 

Jeff

[jneilt]

Quite odd, as the purpose (other than color shift) is to intensify the blacks as described here and elsewhere.

 

Jeff

 

Ok, wrong verb choice on my part. Basically the blacks popped to the point where some of the detail in them was removed. They are darker than the original exposure, almost to the point that the detail in them in the background does not exist.

[Messsucherkamera]

So, what used Med Format kit is a good starting place...

The main reasons to go with Hasselblad are the lenses and the 6x6 cm.format, if you like the square and it is a good fit for your particular style of photographing. The lenses are wonderful IMHO. The only drawback to the 'blad is the unholy racket they make when you release the shutter - not exactly the best camera for stealthy street photography. They are extremely sturdy cameras which is another plus.

 

The Rollei TLR 6x6 cameras that have Schneider glass produce great results from what I have seen but do not have interchangeable lenses, if memory serves me. The Mamiya C330 6x6 TLR does have interchangable lenses, though. The Rollei and Mamiya cameras seem to be the most affordable at present.

 

The Mamiya 7II is a nice camera - very quiet as it is a rangefinder with leaf shutter lenses. The Mamiya 6 is the 7II's predecessor and is 6x6 format rather than 6x7 like the 7II. I owned a 7II and lenses for it for awhile and liked using it although the 80mm lens was soft for some reason. I don't think the problem was rangefinder calibration as the 43 mm and 150 mm lenses produced nice sharp chromes and negs. The 7II camera body seemed frail - it is built mostly of plastic (or polycarbonate) and I was always concerned

about the durability of the camera. If you go with a Mamiya 6 or 7II, just bear inmind that

it does not have the durability of a Leica M camera and treat it accordingly.

 

The Pentax 67 is a good choice, too. I have not owned or used the 67 but have two close

friends who have used them for years and are happy with them. Pentax seems to have

done well in terms of lens quality with the 67 lenses. One friend has owned and used both

the original 67 and its replacement the 67 II. She was much happier with her original 67

body than she was with the 67 II which she upgraded to.

 

Another series of cameras worth considering are the Fuji rangefinders. There are several different models in 6x7, 6x8 and 6x9 cm. formats with different lenses so make sure you

do your due dilligence and research the Fuji cameras before purchasing. The lenses are

the strength of the Fuji MF rangefinders. I have a Hasselblad XPAN with lenses made by

Fuji. These lenses are contrasty, very sharp and have excellent color rendition. They are

very close to theZeiss T * lenses for the 500 series Hasselblad 6x6 cameras IMHO.

 

Hope this information helps...

[NB23]

Selenium... Although I use it almost religiously. I always scratch my head as to why I use it. I'm not sure it's needed.

Many people have reported a degradation of their prints over time even if it has been selenium toned.

Color shift? Marginal at best. Shifts slightly with some papers and doesn't shift at all with others.

 

Selenium toning is the closest thing to esoteric-ism in the photographic world, IMO.

[jpattison]

Selenium toning is the closest thing to esoteric-ism in the photographic world, IMO.

 

Surely, that's Gold Toning, isn't it?

 

John

[tobey bilek]

If you expect quality, then avoid all the cheap mf. My fav was always Hasselblad. Rollie tlr is decent but no interchangeable lenses drove me crazy.

 

You can always start with a Yashicamat and work your way up which is stupid.

 

To get tones you need to find a dedicated laser monochrome printer. They are rare and expensive service.

 

The best way is to use a pro lab, use their profiles, calibrate your quality monitor, and tell them to print with no color correction. The $100 Dell that came with your computer will not do.

 

I would try a pro lab like AiProLab.com and let them print your files. If your choice knows what they are doing and use the proper paper, a digital pic is quite nice. You will need to add a contrast curve to get it to get it to look more like film. Ai does as nice a job as I was ever able to get from film in my darkroom. Your local shmoe is not the best place to go.

[Broadside]

+1 for the Bronica etrsi 645 Very good camera and cheap as chips on the bay these days.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jpattison]

The Rollei 6008 series blows away the Hasselblad, as all functions are in a single package. The lenses are the same, but you get much easier film loading, centre weighted, spot and multispot metering in the body, not the finder etc. All for much less money.

A hassie with 80mm, 6x6 back, metering prism head + motor winder, second hand is about £1600. A 6008i pro with 80mm zeiss pqs lens (flash sync up to 1/1000sec) 45degree rotatable prism finder, 6x6 back built in motor drive for £850.

 

There was even an auto focus version...

 

Rolleiflex 6008AF

 

John