Transition/dual-use digital/film for 500cm/903swc later Hseries

[hawaiiankava]

Dear legacy users of equipment from the 500/900 V series cameras (this includes me of course),

Has anyone experience or thoughts about transitioning to digital and its impact on your effectiveness, creative style and workflow? Wishlists?

I'm having my legacy equipment fixed up at this moment with Hasselblad USA, New Jersey, and have been thinking of sticking with film and buying a medium-end scanner like a Epson 750. I think there's no question that post-capture digital editing is the way to go. However, I'm wondering whether it's better to

1. buy a CFV-39 (or lower res back)
2. sell my legacy equipment - horrors - and head for the h3d/h4d system
3. keep the legacy system and scan film

The first two options represent a substantial expenditure, but at what tradeoffs - is (1) image quality compromised? (2) workflow vastly improved? (3) photographic experience (holding the camera, handling the back or lenses other equipment, ergonomics, overall aesthetic feel) improved?

The last option leaves me back to having less feedback, let alone the ability to be sure nothing technical got in the way (bad exposure), however, I feel it does not compromise my lens coverage. My eyes are habituated to the coverage of the 38mm, 80mm, 120mm and 180mm lenses. And I'll certainly miss the 38mm as I understand that Phocus does not compensate for the biogon. I wonder if software compensation is even technically possible to look for in another version of Phocus?

I suppose there may be different answers and maybe some the same for landscape, art object or product, candid/portraiture photography, architecture and fashion. I think financial considerations are important but certainly leave it to you the reader to comment as you choose.

Your comments are very much welcome!

Jonathan

 

[cs_foto]

what kind of use are you giving to the equipment? is it for hobby? or commercial work?

If you can afford a digital back get it, that's the only way to know if it is the right thing for you...

 

[michaelhcothran]

I thought the weakest link in your inquiry was your thoughts of buying the Epson 750 scanner. If you decide to shoot and scan film, you really need to do better justice to your mf film. You may not want to fork over the money needed for a Hasselblad Imacon scanner, but for a couple of grand you can be in the driver's seat of a new Nikon LS9000 ED dedicated film scanner. A much better choice in my humble opinion. It produces files as large as 400-500 mb's in 16 bit, and resolution between 8000-9000 pixels per side. Near enough for a 24x24" print @ 360 ppi.
Choosing between film and digital with a Hasselblad is difficult. Digital is so much more convenient, but film delivers more information per scan for printing. Compared to even an 8000x8000 pixel scan, my CFV produces 4080x4080 pixels - Roughly 1/4th the detail compared to the film scan. But is it ever fun to use.
Maybe do both. I do.

Michael H. Cothran

 

[hawaiiankava]

cs_foto and Michael, Thanks for your responses!

My photos are by & large commercial as it's for the business and the nonprofit,

[taken with D300, 10.5mm, though the repaired 903swc could work here similarly].

Although the post-capture product will definitely be digital (for webpages, occasional Sams Club enlargments up to poster size), I think the ease of workflow, including the camera handling (want to avoid a cluncky setup), focal length tradeoff (wide angle is reduced with cfv and swc is not Phocus-supported), and image quality matters.

To what extent one of the three options or some combination or other is effective?

Will anybody really be able to tell what typical web photo or Sams Club enlargement was taken by mf either thru scan or digital back vs. a 35mm dslr to have made it worthwhile to go back to mf? I will also have to look closely at the Nikon LS9000 ED. Or maybe I should just get the cfv and gain some direct experience, though the relatively large outlay does make me ask these questions, thanks!

Jonathan

 

[michaelhcothran]

cs_foto and Michael, Thanks for your responses!
Will anybody really be able to tell what typical web photo or Sams Club enlargement was taken by mf either thru scan or digital back vs. a 35mm dslr to have made it worthwhile to go back to mf?
Jonathan

Probably not. Especially tiny web images. But on the Sam's Club enlargement, it depends on the size. Just as in film days, the IQ differences become more apparent the larger the print gets. Not to mention, there's no real sense in having large files to begin with, only to throw away much of the information in order to downrez for web or small prints.
In your case, it would be my opinion to perhaps base your choice first on whether you want/need a square or rectangle image in your commercial endeavors. For money-making photography, fit the camera to the job - as we fondly say on this site - "different horses for different courses."
The V system can be square (Film or CFV16) or 4:3 image proportions with a CFV39. A DSLR will yield 2:3 proportional images. Investigate the proportions of the images you will be making for your clients. This will help determine the horse for your course. For personal shooting, well...it's personal then - choose what you like.

Michael H. Cothran

 

[stever]

Dear legacy ...

1. ...
2. ...
3. keep the legacy system and scan film

The first two options represent a substantial expenditure, but at what tradeoffs - is (1) image quality compromised? (2) workflow vastly improved? (3) photographic experience (holding the camera, handling the back or lenses other equipment, ergonomics, overall aesthetic feel) improved?

The last option leaves me back to having less feedback, let alone the ability to be sure nothing technical got in the way (bad exposure), however, I feel it does not compromise my lens coverage. My eyes are habituated to the coverage of the 38mm, 80mm, 120mm and 180mm lenses. And I'll certainly miss the 38mm as I understand that Phocus does not compensate for the biogon. I wonder if software compensation is even technically possible to look for in another version of Phocus?

I suppose there may be different answers and maybe some the same for landscape, art object or product, candid/portraiture photography, architecture and fashion. I think financial considerations are important but certainly leave it to you the reader to comment as you choose.

Your comments are very much welcome!

Jonathan

Option 3, you answered your own questions before you finished posting.

Steve

 

[macmx]

Even though I am selling my CFV, I think it is the way to go if you want digital. A film back is not a huge investment. Just pop an A12 on and you have the best analogue MF system in the world.

I am fully analogue now. I only scan for sending photos on email and posting on Flickr. I use the scans as a kind of digital contact sheet and choose which photos to print in the darkroom.

However I might consider getting a Leica M9 in the future, but I am not a professional and I think you guys have to consider many other things than advanced amateurs. If I were a pro, I would have to go with a digital system for the workflow (but I hate editing at the computer).

Mc

 

[cs_foto]

Will anybody really be able to tell what typical web photo or Sams Club enlargement was taken by mf either thru scan or digital back vs. a 35mm dslr to have made it worthwhile to go back to mf?

Jonathan

The answer is YES, and that person is YOU!

Now if you ask, anybody except yourself? maybe not, but does that matter? what matters is that you as a photographer, see the difference hence you feel more confortable (and push yourself to the limit) working with that kit instead of the other....

I think for commercial purposes a digital back is a wise addition. Phase one also makes amazing backs for the V system.

 

[fotografz]

Letters from the front : -)

Been there, done all of it.

In no particular order:

1) If you stay with a V system and film, don't blanch at the cost of a Hasselblad Imacon scanner. With care, such a scanner can be had for the price of a CFV/39. (I just sold my mint 949 for $10,000.) It makes scanning fun rather than a chore. With a D-Max of 4.9, it sees into the shadow areas like an Owl wearing night vision goggles ... all while holding the slightest highlight detail. It is the fastest scanner in the world. It scans so fast that you cannot prepare the next film before it is done with the previous one. The results are breathtaking.

2) A digital back like the CFV/39 is a revelation in workflow, and inspires experimentation because you see your creative thinking immediately. It is suited to use in various final sizes because the process is not labor intense ... processing, prepping and scanning film, to only use on the internet, is a waste of time.

3) Moving to a H system is strictly a personal choice. It is a different tactile experience. But, technically you loose nothing, and gain a great deal. Using the CF Adapter on a H camera, all C, CF, CFi and CFE lenses can be used if that is your optical preference. A H3D-II/39 digital back is the same IQ as a CFV/39 ... it is the same digital sensor. Low use H3D/39s with a 80mm lens sell for less than a new CFV/39 back alone. If you wish to use the back on a SW, then a H2F camera with a CF or CF-II back is the way to go.

What you gain: When using V lenses, focus confirmation is available in the H viewfinder; you have the option to use AF lenses; the HTS/1.5 provides highly mobile view-camera movements. Like all 645s, the H camera is ergonomically designed to shoot both landscape and portrait ... the V cameras are not.


Can you tell the difference between smaller formats when using an image smaller?

Yes. the dynamic range of a 16 bit Medium Format CCD digital camera is just one of the superior traits. Tonal gradations are better even in a 5"X7". And while resolution isn't everything, it does count when cropping.

No bad choices (except maybe the flatbed) ... they are all excellent tools when put to good use.

-Marc

 

[sperera]

if you have the money get a CFV-39 back + scanner and use your Legacy V system to shoot film AND digital by swapping backs and keep on using the Zeiss lenses!