RE: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format

["Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com>]

B.D.

I bought a Epson 1680 flatbad to go along with my Coolscan, so that I could
scan medium and large format. It's does a fine job on larger negatives.
Flatbeds get a bad rap when it comes to scanning negs. Maybe that was true
some time ago, but I can get better results from a larger neg and a flatbed
than I can with 35mm and a neg scanner. Maybe better isn't the right word,
because there are differences. Some things I like better about the flatbed,
and some things I like better about the neg scan. Each has it's pros and
cons. I even scan 35mm on the flatbed. It's more than adequate for any type
of web work. But it doesn't have the ppi capability for printing.

Sometimes it takes a little ingenuity to get maximum potential from a
flatbed. For instance, I converted an old glass Omega D neg carrier so that
I can use it with the Epson and keep the neg(s) perfectly flat (even though
the Epson supposedly has enough DOF to handle slight curvatures in larger
negs). It takes more effort to use the carrier, but in some cases it makes a
difference. A 4x5 scan at 1600 ppi on the Epson is huge and easily dwarfs
any 35mm 4000 ppi scan on a number of fronts. 

I opted not to spend big bucks on and MF neg scanner as there's always the
service bureau option for those occasions when I need something extra. Most
of the time I don't even scan at maximum res. Unlike Leica cameras, scanners
depreciate in value very quickly. The volume of high end scans I require
just didn't justify the cost of a $3K scanner. The Epson was $1K, and it
came with Monaco EZ Color, and some other software I wanted.

My point is that MF and LF scanning isn't all that expensive, and it has
advantages over 35mm. Don't get me wrong. I'm still a big advocate of 35mm.
But Mark is right in what he says about the Rollei TLR. I have two. I use
them quite often. 

I'll add one more thing. I've lurked on a dozen scanning digests, mainly to
glean info. Not so much anymore. I discovered that there are lots of
preconceived notions about scanning that get rehashed over and over. Some
are valid. Some aren't.  Technique is more important than equipment, in many
respects. I guess that's probably true of photography in general. The
biggest hurdle to scanning isn't cost. It's the time it takes to learn it
well. After hundreds, perhaps 1,000 plus hours, I feel like I've just
scratched the surface of digital. Digital is more complex than darkroom
work, IMO. In years past you only had to deal with some company
reformulating your paper once a decade. Now it seems like things change
weekly. You could almost devote an entire list to color channels alone. It
seems to be as nebulous as bokeh. 

Dave 

- -----Original Message-----
From: B. D. Colen [mailto:bdcolen@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 12:20 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format

Mark Rabiner wrote:

> 
> Consider a Rolleiflex 2.8 F or a new GX.
> Simplicity in itself unless your work around revolves around a 35mm
Focomat enlarger.

There's one real drawback, though, Mark - and that's the scanning issue
(forgetting for a moment the film cost, etc. etc. etc.. The Rollei TLR
is a fabulous camera. It is quieter than an M, unobtrusive,
anachronistic enough to really be ignored by most people, has great
optics, etc. etc. etc.....But if one prints digitally, then one needs a
120 scanner - which requires a substantial investment in addition to the
investment in the camera.

BTW - A few nights ago I was looking through a book I have which is a
collection of the photos from some World Photo something or other
competition - in 1964. At the back of the book there is a section giving
technical detail - film, exposure, lens, camera, etc., for all the
photos. And interestingly enough, the Rollei TLR is far and away the
most frequently named camera...by far. There's a smattering of Leicas, a
few other 35s, etc....but shot after shot after shot with Rolleis.....

Times change..

B. D.