fotohuis Posted October 19, 2014 Share #21 Posted October 19, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is a pity to scan a Mamiya 6 (or 7) negative. Printing via an enlarger with iso 25-100 films will give you at least the same or a better image made with any digital camera system. About resolution: Any regular iso 25 B&W film can give you 170lp/mm x56mm. Different media so trying to make a good analysis is impossible. Just look at some nice pictures made with these cameras and enjoy! Both cameras and lenses are at a very high technical level. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 Hi fotohuis, Take a look here Medium Format 6x6 vs MM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted October 20, 2014 Share #22 Posted October 20, 2014 ISO 25 - what's that? (Nicht ernst!) In follow-up to both KM-25 and fotohuis - I've made my first wet-darkroom prints in a decade, and in "ultimate pixel-peeper" mode - rescanning silver and inkjet prints at high magnification, just for the heck of it - I would say that the silver prints, in practical as opposed to theoretical resolution, reach about 400 lines per inch, whereas pigment inkjets top out around 300-360 lines per inch (and may be as low as 240 lpi using the "fast" photo settings.) (Note I am talking image resolution, not ink dots per inch). This is mostly irrelevant in large prints, where the original capture resolution (format, film, sensor, lens, technique) will be the limiting factor, not the print resolution. But in smaller prints (<= 8x10 or A4), silver will hold a little more of whatever you captured. Possibly even beyond what the unaided human eye can resolve. But I have a pet theory that the total visual system (including the brain's ability to process what it sees) can perceive the difference between "more detail than the eye can see" and "just enough detail for the eye to see." It can tell, subliminally, when there is "more" there - even if it can't actually resolve the "more." 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 22, 2014 Share #23 Posted October 22, 2014 Beauty is not measured by resolution. And please, if you're gonna scan a 120 neg instead of printing in a darkroom, I think you are wasting money, time, quality, energy, beauty and knowledge. It makes no sense! Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/230694-medium-format-6x6-vs-mm/?do=findComment&comment=2693017'>More sharing options...
plasticman Posted October 22, 2014 Share #24 Posted October 22, 2014 And please, if you're gonna scan a 120 neg instead of printing in a darkroom, I think you are wasting money, time, quality, energy, beauty and knowledge. It makes no sense! That sort of fundamentalist nonsense is as bad as all the digital trolling that goes on around here. When I scan my 120 negatives, they look totally different to anything I can do with a digital camera. Anyone else as tired as I am by half the Internet telling the other half they are doing it* wrong? Sheesh. *insert any subject known to humanity here 10 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 22, 2014 Share #25 Posted October 22, 2014 Beauty is not measured by resolution. And please, if you're gonna scan a 120 neg instead of printing in a darkroom, I think you are wasting money, time, quality, energy, beauty and knowledge. It makes no sense! And yet you feel able to illustrate your point with a digitised image posted at low resolution on the internet. I think you just ticked the 'bullshit' box. Steve 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr237 Posted October 22, 2014 Share #26 Posted October 22, 2014 And yet you feel able to illustrate your point with a digitised image posted at low resolution on the internet. I think you just ticked the 'bullshit' box. There's no need for sarcasm or insults. Let's treat each other with respect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 22, 2014 Share #27 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) There's no need for sarcasm or insults. Let's treat each other with respect. I think you will find that I've just been told I'm wasting my time, energy, and knowledge in an unprovoked attack. Sarcasm is getting off lightly. Edit, sorry forgot, I have no 'sense' either. Steve Edited October 22, 2014 by 250swb Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 22, 2014 Share #28 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) And yet you feel able to illustrate your point with a digitised image posted at low resolution on the internet. I think you just ticked the 'bullshit' box. Steve Yes, this is the iphone at its best. Lets face it, film is so much better then digital that even a shitty iphone image of a Film FB print looks better then a high-rez digital image. Edited October 22, 2014 by NB23 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 22, 2014 Share #29 Posted October 22, 2014 That sort of fundamentalist nonsense is as bad as all the digital trolling that goes on around here. When I scan my 120 negatives, they look totally different to anything I can do with a digital camera. Anyone else as tired as I am by half the Internet telling the other half they are doing it* wrong? Sheesh. *insert any subject known to humanity here Are you trying to tell me that your scanned negs look better then real prints? So yes, you are wasting a lot of efforts, money, time, knowledge and some more on scanning. Go the real way or cut yourself a treat and go digital. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 22, 2014 Share #30 Posted October 22, 2014 Guys, go with the real thing (film) the real way (darkroom). No scan bs. You'll LOVE it even MORE. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted October 22, 2014 Share #31 Posted October 22, 2014 Beauty is not measured by resolution. Wellll…. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'd agree that this image is not what I'd expect from the MM. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 22, 2014 Share #32 Posted October 22, 2014 Wellll…. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'd agree that this image is not what I'd expect from the MM. NB23 (Nenad Bojic, AKA: Bronco Man) is just trolling. . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 23, 2014 Share #33 Posted October 23, 2014 NB23 (Nenad Bojic, AKA: Bronco Man) is just trolling.. LOL That is so 2007. Trolling? Is that a camera? I am not Bronco Man. That was OJ Simpson. I'm more something like Darkroom man, if you will. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted October 23, 2014 Share #34 Posted October 23, 2014 I'd love it if there was a digital Rolleiflex TLR with a full 6x6 sensor. Or even better, a compact digital back for existing Rolleiflex TLRs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 23, 2014 Share #35 Posted October 23, 2014 I am not Bronco Man. Have you forgotten what you wrote? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 23, 2014 Share #36 Posted October 23, 2014 Have you forgotten what you wrote? I is absolutely no care. Maybe is one of my stoudents? Maybe is your grandmother? Who is know? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 23, 2014 Share #37 Posted October 23, 2014 I is absolutely no care. Maybe is one of my stoudents? Maybe is your grandmother? Who is know? If you find that you cannot remember writing your posts the morning after, then you have chosen the right profession. . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 23, 2014 Share #38 Posted October 23, 2014 If you find that you cannot remember writing your posts the morning after, then you have chosen the right profession.. You think calling me a troll will make me stop being honest with myself and make me stop posting what I honestly think? As i said, calling someone a troll is so 2007. I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. And I salute your cleverness. Indeed, my name, the one in my passport, is not NB23. Not even Broncoman. Geez, I am now unmasked. What am I gonna tell my wife? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 23, 2014 Share #39 Posted October 23, 2014 What am I gonna tell my wife? Be honest, far better to show her who you are on the Internet than hide it. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted October 25, 2014 Share #40 Posted October 25, 2014 I is absolutely no care. Maybe is one of my stoudents? Maybe is your grandmother? Who is know? If you "is absolutely no care" about what you write here, you'll forgive us if we is also absolutely no care and put you on our ignore lists. I'm surprised the moderators haven't banished you long ago. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.