Buying a Bronica ... HELP ...!!!

I think people seem to have mixed experiences with them depending on the branch from what I read my recommendation is more from the convenience point of view as I haven't used anyone but moi for processing in years did use snappysnaps in the 90's a couple of times and they were way better then than Ceta a supposed pro lab
 
skysh4rk said:
I think that's an interesting point. That said, I'd say it's even more valuable to use a good lab early on, because otherwise there are just too many variables in play between new equipment, exposure, development, scanning, etc. If the images don't come out the way that you'd hoped, how do you identify what went wrong.

.
Click to expand...
If someone else does your processing you might never know what went wrong, was it a duff scan, were their chemicals spent, was it a Friday afternoon job, was your camera knackered, have you been chronically underexposing but the skill of the scanner operator saved you and could you be doing a better job.

However I think I'm now just arguing the toss to avoid tiling :)

Just for avoidance of doubt that's the royal you not anyone in particular and I'm just using sloppy English.
 
steveo_mcg said:
If someone else does your processing you might never know what went wrong, was it a duff scan, were their chemicals spent, was it a Friday afternoon job, was your camera knackered, have you been chronically underexposing but the skill of the scanner operator saved you and could you be doing a better job.
Click to expand...

UKFL provide you with feedback so you'll know when you've underexposed, overexposed, or have been saved by the scanner operator. In fact, their feedback has saved me on a couple of different occasions and helped me to identify problems with my equipment.

Also—at least in my case—having someone else do the processing removes the biggest variable from the equation: me.
 
skysh4rk said:
UKFL provide you with feedback so you'll know when you've underexposed, overexposed, or have been saved by the scanner operator. In fact, their feedback has saved me on a couple of different occasions and helped me to identify problems with my equipment.

Also—at least in my case—having someone else do the processing removes the biggest variable from the equation: me.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, I'm probably venturing out of knowledge area now, I've used very few processors and usually on for slide where it's quite obvious if one has messed up!
 
steveo_mcg said:
Fair enough, I'm probably venturing out of knowledge area now, I've used very few processors and usually on for slide where it's quite obvious if one has messed up!
Click to expand...

To be clear, I'm not saying that no one should scan their photographs themselves, but that home scanning shouldn't be presented as the only option.
 
My local lab charges £5 per sheet to process 5x4 film (same price for black and white and colour); I haven't seen a scanning charge on their web site and I haven't asked (they don't list 5x4 at all on the web site) but I have found £9.70 per scan elsewhere. So, yes, I do have another option to doing it myself. And, to be honest, on the odd occasions I use colour, I've let them process it; and a couple of times when I've come back from holiday with a lot of films, I've used them to clear my backlog. But 120 only. It doesn't take many sheets of 5x4 processing to cover a 5x4 daylight tank; and not many scans to cover costs there either.

I'll agree that you can get a tremendous difference between scans from the same negative. Here's two from the same 5x4 FP4 negative. The first is one that I can't (with limited Photoshop skills) make even half way decent - there just isn't enough tonal information.

View attachment 31413

View attachment 31414
 
h'mm Confused with your images as if you put the 1st image in photoshop and massively increase the contrast it looks similar to the 2nd image....maybe I need a new pair of glasses if you don't agree ;)
 
Similar, but with two differences that matter to me. One is the blocked shadows under the tree centre left and the other is obvious if you look at the histogram after boosting the contrast - you've lost half of the tones, and it's getting close to posterisation. But not to take this more off topic, just view the results as the variation that's possible with scanning the same negative on the same scanner, and other comments as indicating my deficiencies using Photoshop :D
 
StephenM said:
Similar, but with two differences that matter to me. One is the blocked shadows under the tree centre left and the other is obvious if you look at the histogram after boosting the contrast - you've lost half of the tones, and it's getting close to posterisation. But not to take this more off topic, just view the results as the variation that's possible with scanning the same negative on the same scanner, and other comments as indicating my deficiencies using Photoshop :D
Click to expand...


Well flatbeds are not the best to use for getting detail out of shadows. Photoshop shadow can help but the image can turn into a digital monstrosity if used too much. Also try the gamma correction slider and see what you think.
 
Last edited:
Not a problem I've encountered, to be honest. I've never missed shadow detail - in fact, I've got detail from negatives that are so thin that until I scanned them I thought that they were clear unexposed film. My point was simply that the best quality print will come from the best quality scan - just as in a darkroom a badly developed negative is not going to make the best possible print that the exposure and film could have given if properly processed. And the examples were intended to show nothing more than the variation that's possible with scanner settings.

Given that this is off topic, that's my final point (I hope :D).
 
Yv said:
So in effect, if you use all that film, scanning yourself would save you enough to buy a very good scanner, that would then continue to earn its keep long after Iceland is but a happy memory?
Click to expand...

Not wanting to continue with the off topic nature of this thread but I did want to respond. :)

Yes, it would buy a very good scanner indeed and the fact I already have the V550 means that is IRO £350 that I could use for something else in my life. However. I do like the idea of getting back a finished product and, as RJ has already mentioned, someone like UK Film Lab seem to have a very good, personable service. I have swapped a few mails with them before sending the rolls away this time and the feedback they give is valuable. I like how they seem to actually care about the work you send them and their customers. Also with regards to the cost of their scans, their small size is comparable to medium size of other labs. They will also work with you where you can tell them your preferences, for example, if their standard scans and editing lacks contrast for your personal taste, you can have a custom profile so when they scan and edit your images, they will do it to taste. :)
 
skysh4rk said:
Many film shooters buy scanners to digitise their negatives or transparencies. I personally think scanners are generally a poor investment and don't necessarily recommend buying one, but to each his own.
Click to expand...
Exactly, each to his own. There are a tremendous number of hybrid film photographers out there home developing and scanning film - particularly b/w. For people that like to capture on film, but share digitally, it is the perfect relationship. Being able to cut costs allows me to use much more film. My photography may not be as technically perfect, as it would be if I was to pay someone else to process and scan it, but it's mine, flawed for being home scanned, but mine.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
Exactly, each to his own. There are a tremendous number of hybrid film photographers out there home developing and scanning film - particularly b/w. For people that like to capture on film, but share digitally, it is the perfect relationship. Being able to cut costs allows me to use much more film. My photography may not be as technically perfect, as it would be if I was to pay someone else to process and scan it, but it's mine, flawed for being home scanned, but mine.
Click to expand...
^^^WHS^^^
 
XA2inmypocket said:
My photography may not be as technically perfect, as it would be if I was to pay someone else to process and scan it, but it's mine, flawed for being home scanned, but mine.
Click to expand...

I don't think that my photographs are any less mine because I've paid someone else to scan them. I also don't think having someone else process or scan your photographs is necessarily about achieving technical perfection either.
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
I don't think that my photographs are any less mine because I've paid someone else to scan them.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I'm honestly a big fan of your photography RJ. I'm just defending my initial suggestion that a film scanner is a good investment. Perhaps I should have amended it to "if you are addicted to digital online sharing, or alternatively process your own film don't want the expense, finance, and bother of building your own dark room for printing". Then a film scanner is essential. Not for creating high quality prints perhaps, but for digitilising to share online, and to produce ... acceptable prints, when required without access to a dark room.

The great boom in hybrid film photography really is a meeting of two worlds - film and digital. There are some cracking scanners around for less than £200. It is so easy for anyone - certainly including young photography students, to buy cheap old film cameras, a film changing bag, and a paterson tank. All they need is a scanner (or a digital camera, light source, and a bit of ingenuity) - and boom, the Flickr and Facebook groups are full of images initially caught on film. It's still got a growing cool value. Their mate's DSLR images start to look boring and mainstream. The V500/V550 sort of scanner has contributed to this phenomena - the student in their room with a film changing bag and a scanner.

Sure people can foul up the scan, and do so. I probably do so. To be honest - that's the same with any digitalised images - everyone that we view online. So apologies.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
if you are addicted to digital online sharing... then a film scanner is essential
Click to expand...

But it's not essential to have your own scanner is what I am saying, even to participate in the digital world. I'm not scanning my negatives.
 
That's a nice comprehensive set you've got. It'll give your shoulder a good work-out!
 
Stephen L said:
That's a nice comprehensive set you've got. It'll give your shoulder a good work-out!
Click to expand...

Not too bad for weight as that lot plus one extra lens in a canvas camera bag ........comes to about 6lbs
 
excalibur2 said:
Not too bad for weight as that lot plus one extra lens in a canvas camera bag ........comes to about 6lbs
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yes. It is a nice set up. The guy I bought it from used it for wedding shoots, but it will have a much easier life with me. Took the body with the 75mm lens out for its first outing today and shot 15 mono images. Just got to get them developed now, so I'll post the results when I get them. I don't think it's likely I'll ever take it all out together and I'm pleasantly surprised how easy to handle it is.

Great fun though and had the desired effect, which was to make me really think about every shot before pressing the shutter button. I just hope I can carry that lesson forward to times when I use my digital gear instead of rattling off loads of shots without really thinking what I'm doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top