Canon 5D or Hassy

[ed9119]

can consider a Mamiya, Rollei or a Fuji MF rangefinder 645, 6x6 or 690 (now THAT is serious real estate....690)....... more affordable

 

[Xtol19]

if u take away the printing portion, the digital camera will still be easier and faster than shooting with film and u can't really escape from doing PP nowadays. scanning is more or less the norm rather than the rarity.

Faster I agree, easier I disagee.

The easiest thing in the world is to hand over the roll to a lab and ask them to take care of everything, incl printing and scanning if you so desire.

 

[flipfreak]

Faster I agree, easier I disagee.

The easiest thing in the world is to hand over the roll to a lab and ask them to take care of everything, incl printing and scanning if you so desire.

honestly, the kind of scanning we get from the lab here is quite pathetic. tats why i ended up buying my own scanner.

 

[Xtol19]

honestly, the kind of scanning we get from the lab here is quite pathetic. tats why i ended up buying my own scanner.

Honestly, scanning is expensive and a waste of money. Which is why what the OP said is the best way to go-- scan selected frames himself, and if really desired, then send out somewhere for hi-res scanning. But to scan low-res thumbnails for web posting is not difficult, even a lab can do that.

PP is not a "must" if you know how to use filters and how to compose. Generations of photographers published great landscape pictures using film before Photoshop or scanners was even invented. For colour landscapes, you need to use the right film and the right filters, and know the right exposure to get the best colour saturation. Once you got that right, you give it to a pro lab to print and you'll get beautiful results.

For B&W, you also need to use the right filters, know the right development and do the right burning and dodging in the darkroom. But if you don't have a darkroom, then too bad-- you'll have to spend time scanning B&W and touching up dust spots, etc. before printing with dedicated black and white inks.

 

[flipfreak]

Honestly, scanning is expensive and a waste of money. Which is why what the OP said is the best way to go-- scan selected frames himself, and if really desired, then send out somewhere for hi-res scanning. But to scan low-res thumbnails for web posting is not difficult, even a lab can do that.

this itself is more work than shooting on digital already.

 

[Xtol19]

this itself is more work than shooting on digital already.

It's his choice isn't it. To me scanning is a waste of time, as mentioned. If I want digital, I shoot digital. If I shoot film, it's because I want the film and I don't need digital.

To shoot film and still try to get the whole workflow digital just seems so "neither here nor there" to me.

 

[alvin]

My dilemma exactly. I spent three hours taking 12 shots on Sunday with the Seagull during which time my daughter clocked up almost a hundred frames on 350D... The ability to "point and shoot" is nice to have, especially in candid situations but I want better quality with Landscape and Portrait shots.

Seriously, if you are able to take your time and really compose your stuff, forget MF..... go for a 4x6 (or larger) view camera. Probably do-able with your budget, and the quality will be immense. Plus you get camera movements! Woo!

Alvin

 

[Stoned]

You may also want to consider Bronica, you can really get a nice set-up for a song(well as mf systems come) nowadays. Not as legendary as Hassy systems but still great to use nonetheless.

 

[flipfreak]

It's his choice isn't it. To me scanning is a waste of time, as mentioned. If I want digital, I shoot digital. If I shoot film, it's because I want the film and I don't need digital.

To shoot film and still try to get the whole workflow digital just seems so "neither here nor there" to me.

thats ur view on this matter i guess. :bsmilie: