Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: sperera on February 24, 2009, 11:04:43 am
-
Hi there....I've noticed manufacturers like Kodak bringing us Kodak Ektar to be released soon on 120 format, the continuation of classic films like my personal favourite Kodak T-Max 100....is this cos there's still loads of people shooting film or even going back to film or shooting film alongside digital cos they feel film is still the king????? I'd love to know how many of you feel like this......
-
Not in the automotive or architectural photography business. Jim
-
I don't think I've met a single pro still shooting firm in the past year or so. On my recent Antarctic trip, out of 77 pros and advanced amateurs there was one person with a film camera, and it was a Fuji 617. He was also shooting with a DSLR and a medium format system with a back.
Film is still obviously being used by some, but the scale has become tiny. The largest pro dealer in Toronto now has one small freezer with film when they used to have a fridge unit that covered an entire 30 foot long wall.
Michael
-
Not in the automotive or architectural photography business. Jim
i think in germany architecture is still the last professional niche where more than a marginal percentage is working with film ( i estimate between 30 - 40% still with film - most of these with 4x5" ). reason is that in the past the available system costs have been extremely high, meanwhile the solutions have been in many ways beyond the old 4x5" film workflow, esp. in terms of how to view and compose the motifs on ground glass .
both things together ( costs and miss of features ) leaded to the situation that many photographers decided to wait either till prices come down a little bit and/or till the systems become more "architecture- photographic" like. now with the new cameras as the artec, the linhof techno ( and maybe the new arca ) as well as with the new 23mm rodenstock shift lens, the camera/ lens base seems to be more adequate for our needs, although still extremely pricey,- although sensor prices for 22/33/39 mp sensors are much cheaper now than one year before.... but the crisis frightens many pros about the closer future, few people wants to spent high amounts of money now or make new leasing contracts, if they have not already filled books for longer times.
but i hardly doubt that many arch. photographers will go back to film after they once have done their feet in digital.
btw.:
the new 17/24mm canon shift lenses will be a winner in my field, at least if they will be half as good as they should be ....
-
Certainly film isn't being used as much as it once was and I don't think that people are "going back", BUT there are still quite a few professionals shooting film still in NYC. Danielle Levitt, Jeff Reidel, Christian Lantry, Andrew Hetherington, Simon Emmett to name a few. (Probably not shooting film exclusively but still). Look around at higher end magazines such as GQ, ESPN, Rolling Stone...etc.
I'm sure it depends on where you are in the world. I know it's a pain in the ass finding someone to develop film now if you live in Seattle.
-
What the heck is film. Seriously for me it has been at least 10 years since i ran film through a body. I actually have no clue what is even being sold. Scary
-
70% film. Everything from 35mm to 4x5. I use digital when I'm shooting someone elses comp or cosmetics/beauty.
I process all of my B&W and soon my own color. I bought a Kreonite C-41 machine (roller transporter) and a Colex 31" print processor.
Labs in NYC are plentiful.
-
well, its just that I had a look around Kodak's site and i was amazed a new Kodak Ektar is being launched for 120 format.....i just thought, in my ignorance of course, that Kodak etc werent making new films.....so it was a surprise to say the least.
I also thought, well, if they're making new films there must be a demand or a push to create demand......hence the question......
.......so perhaps Kodak is thinking.....mmmmmmmmmm.....ok....the guys that know are after absolute quality.....so bring out new films to encourage them to take out their old Hasselblads etc and shot film again cos to rival the quality you can get with film on a great drum scanner would cost you six figures today....buying a top end digital medium format camera...........to echo what another poster was saying about the recession.....
I myself have a Scanmate 5000 drum scanner which i used to scan film like the amazing Fuji Provia coming off Haselblad with Zeiss lenses.....i still today havent seen that 'thing' that gave me compared to what i see with digital.....so with labs still offering developing etc perhaps its still a good idea to shoot film at least alongside digital.....
example.....you're a pro and you've set up THE shot.....you do it with your digital camera and then you also shoot with the film camera....why not? i think this would be appealing to people who have 12 mp Nikons and Canons who can now get hold of a medium format kit for $2000 or even less.....do you know what im getting at?
-
i agree but thats not the question....the question is....is there a movement back to film or not....you obviously shoot Hasselblad film so is that my answer??? nice shots you have by the way....
-
I'm sure it depends on where you are in the world.
The last meeting I had on Madison Avenue, the AD asked somewhat sheepishly, if I would mind shooting digital for a large project. I replied, no no problem most of my current work is digital and he was surprised, actually almost shocked that I didn't find that an issue. In fact, if truth be told I think I probably dropped a half step in his eyes by not proclaiming that film is the best solution, though keep in mind this is New York and also keep in mind that perception is much stronger than reality, in fact in the major cities of photography perception is reality.
Had I insisted that I shoot the project with film, I believe it would have been accepted.
As far as what is film, well it's still around and many of the "names" in this business prefer it, or better put prefer working with their old RZ's, pentax 6x7's, view cameras etc. It kind of falls under the heading if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You can make digital "look" like film, but we all know the backend post processing of digital is much more intensive than film capture, even to get to a continuous solid base.
Now in other, smaller markets, film has disappeared, or at least film labs have virtually disappeared, though if truth be told, a lot of us that have spent huge volumes of money and time learning digital would go back to some kind of film workflow if possible. Or at least for certain projects, because regardless of the strides that digital capture has made, it is still somewhat amazing that to get to the polaroid stage it takes a technician, computer, monitor, generators and all kinds of jury rigged flags just to view the image.
Also most busy photographers are electronic upgrade weary. Obviously Annie is not sitting up at night testing her Canon images in C-1 vs. CS4, vs. DPP (actually I doubt seriously if she would know what those are), but most of us that have invested, worked at digital and do most of the backend managing of our images, long for the days of drop it off and ship it.
I know I would love to pick up any camera I chose and just use it, without thinking or even concerning myself what proprietary processor goes with what proprietary capture device and why can't I have a frame size larger than 645 and why is their only one "digital film back" that will shoot a almost full 645 frame?
Also we know that this upgrade process will never end. Larger images, newer software, bigger computers to run the newer software, bigger hard drives to store the bigger images, then once it's all sorted out it starts over again to buy equipment that only means we will take the 200mb files and downsize them to 34mb.
So what's film? Well it depends on where your standing, but I wish more now than ever that the digital process had never started. In New York you can shoot film, here in Cooter, Mo., we shoot digital.
Regardless, film is not dead and if there was any serious investment dollars left in the world, it might make a comeback.
I expect any day to open up PDN and see a photo of 8,000 photographers standing on the Hudson dropping their electronic cameras in the river, with the headline that says, Photographers say enough is enough, we want to make photographs, not work on computers.
-
thanks for taking the time to write such a considered answer that I can certainly relate to in many ways.....
i am obviously sitting back an taking stock of what im doing and where i want to go with all this....
i was torturing myself over whether to spend tons of money on a medium format digital camera (albeit used) or not and then assessing the related workflow issues.....with Hasselblad you have Phocus and then Photoshop if need be, with Nikon you have Capture NX2, Capture One, Lightroom or whatever you prefer and then Photoshop again if need be......all of which is time-consuming and laborious in itself.....
..........my life was easier when i had the film processed and i scanned it in myself (i have a drum scanner as i said with 5000 real dpi) to open in Photoshop.....that was it.....
-
Hi there....I've noticed manufacturers like Kodak bringing us Kodak Ektar to be released soon on 120 format, the continuation of classic films like my personal favourite Kodak T-Max 100....is this cos there's still loads of people shooting film or even going back to film or shooting film alongside digital cos they feel film is still the king????? I'd love to know how many of you feel like this......
And at the same time Kodak is bringing you the AFi-II 10 and Aptus-II 10 as they (we) believe there's room (and business) for both mediums.
Yair
-
Unrelated
-
So what's film? Well it depends on where your standing, but I wish more now than ever that the digital process had never started. In New York you can shoot film, here in Cooter, Mo., we shoot digital.
Regardless, film is not dead and if there was any serious investment dollars left in the world, it might make a comeback.
I expect any day to open up PDN and see a photo of 8,000 photographers standing on the Hudson dropping their electronic cameras in the river, with the headline that says, Photographers say enough is enough, we want to make photographs, not work on computers.
[/quote]
Hey, Cooter
I never thought that the day - well, night for me - would come when I would find myself agreeing 100% with you. As with you and Cooter, Mo., my situation in Mallorca, Spain precludes the use of E6 materials.
Ironically, I still have my Nikon film camera but it sits in an aluminium box and glares at me when its digital cousin - can´t be brothers - gets taken out for walkies. The same happens with the CanoScan and you can imagine what the freezer says about all that stock still living inside it. Somehow, having to pay for film and processing by myself (hard getting used to being one´s own client) certainly would concentrate the mind on what is and is not worth shooting. But, if you can´t get it processed... come to think of it, I would also have liked to play with some model of Leica M.
Rob C
-
Photographers say enough is enough, we want to make photographs, not work on computers.
Amen to that
-
Commercial it's not even a question, all digital from my perspective. I think editorial is a different ball game, a lot of editorial is still shot on film - esp. some of the more known shooters - it's part of their look and we all know point a film camera into the sun for the blown out look of sun over the shoulder is WAY easier w/ film then digi - takes a little more post to make it look good....IMHO
-
Hi,
No, no more film. But my Pentax 67 equipment is still around. I did actually shoot three rolls of Velvia 120 2008, mostly because I have a fisheye for the Pentax. I just did some comparison shooting between my A900 and he Pentax but the slides have not been developed yet. The T-Max 100 was my choice for B/W, Velvia for slides.
Best regards
Erik
Hi there....I've noticed manufacturers like Kodak bringing us Kodak Ektar to be released soon on 120 format, the continuation of classic films like my personal favourite Kodak T-Max 100....is this cos there's still loads of people shooting film or even going back to film or shooting film alongside digital cos they feel film is still the king????? I'd love to know how many of you feel like this......
-
And at the same time Kodak is bringing you the AFi-II 10 and Aptus-II 10 as they (we) believe there's room (and business) for both mediums.
Yair
Yair,
Your right, but you left out a big workflow advantage of the AFI-which is you get a retouched image straight out of the camera.
[attachment=11724:leaf.jpg]
-
Photographers say enough is enough, we want to make photographs, not work on computers.
On that basis, I'd rather work on a computer than in a darkroom. If you wanted to 'make photographs' as you mean it, you had to have a darkroom, now you have a workstation. Or, as before, you outsourced to a lab, and now to a digital tech (or whatever).
Same old, same old...shooting has not changed. Shooting is what I call 'making photographs', the rest is just detail.
-
Film is still pretty big in Japan, I would say that a majority of serious landscape shooters still use film on medium format bodies.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Yair,
Your right, but you left out a big workflow advantage of the AFI-which is you get a retouched image straight out of the camera.
[attachment=11724:leaf.jpg]
I think you left out is that the genie is out of the bag regarding post production.. that is here to stay with film or digital, can you imagine
sending your film selects straight from your light table to your client.. I can't.. those days are gone for me, not when I know what 30 min of work on a shot can do in post.. and there is no time savings working from a raw capture or a scanned transparency. For me it is the difference of lighting with a variety of lights, scrims, gobos, etc.. or just using a big bank and a fill card.. we all know which is less work.
I shot a roll of 120 last week for the hell of it..unless I get a full time tech and a glass holder for my scanner, or get them all scanned off site.. I think I will keep the digital back on the camera.. I seen no real benefit anymore in film.
-
You can make digital "look" like film, but we all know the backend post processing of digital is much more intensive than film capture, even to get to a continuous solid base.
Obviously Annie is not sitting up at night testing her Canon images in C-1 vs. CS4, vs. DPP (actually I doubt seriously if she would know what those are), but most of us that have invested, worked at digital and do most of the backend managing of our images, long for the days of drop it off and ship it.
I expect any day to open up PDN and see a photo of 8,000 photographers standing on the Hudson dropping their electronic cameras in the river, with the headline that says, Photographers say enough is enough, we want to make photographs, not work on computers.
I hear this complaint about digital a lot, and I don't quite understand it. Allow me to explain...
"[In 1973] When I shot in black and white, the printer who processed my film, Chong Lee, saved me. He would inspect my film under a red light in the darkroom and push it until he saw something." - Annie Leibovitz, "At Work"
So, does digital actual add more post-production? It seems to me that as far as accomplishing any given post-production task, digital is faster. I can go through every slider in ACR/LR and do a reasonably good job just in the same time that it would take me to fix my first test strip in the darkroom. I'm not a pro, however, so my perception of digital reducing the amount of effort that goes into post is based on the fact that I have to handle every single task involved in making every single print, film or digital, no matter what (I guess I don't HAVE to work like that but it is my preference... but I digress). And in that kind of a workingflow, I've found digital requires far less time spent in post to achieve a result of similar quality.
My question then is, why do I so often hear the pros bemoaning the amount of post that digital requires? Is it just a shift in expectations, where photographers are now responsible for their own post-production? That is, would Annie be fixing her own underexposures if she was starting out in digital today instead of having a Chong Lee to do that for her? Do the wide-open possibilities of a RAW file mean you can no longer trust anyone else to develop it for you? Or is it something else I just don't know about?
-
Film is still pretty big in Japan, I would say that a majority of serious landscape shooters still use film on medium format bodies.
Regards,
Bernard
that's intriguing. any thoughts as to why?
-
Many photographers never take part in internet discussions. A lot of them are using film. We don't hear them, but that doesn't mean they're not shooting. It's so easy deceiving yourself reading the digital talk only.
Yes making business based decision on internet photographic chat forums can be a very very very very bad idea.
In the end, shoot what you prefere and what your clients demand. If that is a 35mm DSLR with a 1.6x crop, then shoot that. If its a Phase/Sinar/Leaf/Hasselblad medium format file the client needs, then shoot that. And if it's a scanned negative (or for that matter, raw negative that the client wants then shoot that. If you never look at a film camera again OR digital camera again it really doesnt matter to the next person. His reality will be different from yours so just shoot away with whatever you use and be happy.
There are even people shooting with point & shoot cameras
For me personally i prefere to shoot film. Not because it's faster (duh , not because it's easier (duh again , not because it's better, but rather because i really do enjoy it. I still shoot a lot of commercial work digital since quite often the demand is speed and instant feedback to the client. But i do get the odd client who wants me to shoot film and instead of spending a hour trying to mimick a special film, i just load that and shoot it instead.
Keep on shooting guys =)
/Henrik
-
....I think the answer to all this is how you are now thinking before taking your 'money' shots....
are you making THE picture 'in' the camera as one did when shooting film or are we being sloppy and not even thinking just looking at the screen on the back knowing we can fix it all in the computer
I think there is a direct link between this and shooting film or digital......I say its a shame new photographers born to this digital age cant get in a darkroom and develop their own shots cos that will teach them to think more with the camera in your hand and improve technique rather than wasting time thinking about which RAW convertor is best, is my Mac fast enough, damn I need bigger hard drives to store all these images, damn I need a bigger compact flash card cos 8GB isnt enough as I'm doing these days...
In summary I'm gonna start shooting film again alongside digital because I like apples and I also like pears!
-
well, its just that I had a look around Kodak's site and i was amazed a new Kodak Ektar is being launched for 120 format.....i just thought, in my ignorance of course, that Kodak etc werent making new films.....so it was a surprise to say the least.
I also thought, well, if they're making new films there must be a demand or a push to create demand......hence the question......
.......so perhaps Kodak is thinking.....mmmmmmmmmm.....ok....the guys that know are after absolute quality.....so bring out new films to encourage them to take out their old Hasselblads etc and shot film again cos to rival the quality you can get with film on a great drum scanner would cost you six figures today....buying a top end digital medium format camera...........to echo what another poster was saying about the recession.....
I myself have a Scanmate 5000 drum scanner which i used to scan film like the amazing Fuji Provia coming off Haselblad with Zeiss lenses.....i still today havent seen that 'thing' that gave me compared to what i see with digital.....so with labs still offering developing etc perhaps its still a good idea to shoot film at least alongside digital.....
example.....you're a pro and you've set up THE shot.....you do it with your digital camera and then you also shoot with the film camera....why not? i think this would be appealing to people who have 12 mp Nikons and Canons who can now get hold of a medium format kit for $2000 or even less.....do you know what im getting at?
You wouldn't know it from their showing at Focus on Imaging this week, Kodak did not have a film in site, just printers. I expected to see some large prints from there new emulsion. That's Kodak marketing for you, if they tried to shoot themselves in the foot they most likely would blow their chins off.
The Fuji stand had some boxes of film tucked away, but no prints showing what it can do. Ilford had some B&W prints up from film, but that was it as far as I could see for film.
Actually there was a lack of output on show from anyone except companies selling printers, all the selling of digi backs/cameras is from a LCD TV these days, it would be nice to see some finished results on display and not just work in progress images on a screen.
There are some good deals on MF backs, I was quit tempted on a Leaf setup, the more I thought about the handling of the system the less it suited my area of photography, it made my old Pentax 67 look lightweight.
Linhof had their usual good showing and that has a leaning towards film based photography.
Kevin.
-
As advanced amateur, personally I use both film and digital. I simply cannot give film up and have added also 4x5 and 617 to my 6x7 Mamiya 7 for film, a.k.a. FUJI VELVIA 50 . For digital I use Leaf Aptus digital back. DLSRs simply do not match quality to my eye, but... apart from pixel peeping perhaps that is also because Leaf has been said to be more to have the look of... ehh ... FILM of digital. Nope, it does not look like film, but somehow I still like it .
In the end;- film and digital are two different medias. It is pointless to end up with film vs. digital. Some prefer one or the other, or... ehh both? It should be said that both have values, depending on end image, but also work flow and importantly the capture.
It should be noted that this forum is much focused on digital, and as such it is interesting to read of the many who still use and enjoy FILM . In many ways film was and is easier... the problem nowadays is more on level that we need to make it digital . Perhaps we are simply all oversold on digital... that what made that... silly... . That said... once we press the shutter with film, the end result is more or less fixed. Digital in comparison require more effort to get there...
Anders
-
I seem to keep ordering film. My digital prints outsell my film 2 to 1, so why haven't I moved away from film? Not sure, I suppose I'm just a glutton for scanning! I shoot MF, 35mm film & 35mm digital. I have given up on color slide film, though. Perhaps I'll try the new Kodak Ektar and see what it's all about.
-
I hear this complaint about digital a lot, and I don't quite understand it. Allow me to explain...
"[In 1973] When I shot in black and white, the printer who processed my film, Chong Lee, saved me. He would inspect my film under a red light in the darkroom and push it until he saw something." - Annie Leibovitz, "At Work" ........................................
....................................... the amount of post that digital requires? Is it just a shift in expectations, where photographers are now responsible for their own post-production? That is, would Annie be fixing her own underexposures if she was starting out in digital today instead of having a Chong Lee to do that for her? Do the wide-open possibilities of a RAW file mean you can no longer trust anyone else to develop it for you? Or is it something else I just don't know about?
Yes on all accounts.
Chong, a great lab, printer, film manufacturer, had decades of experience working within a given style and tool set. Also Kodak, Fuji, Agfa had a century of experience color engineering the look of film. Now with digital it's a roll your own look and all of the cameras react differently in different conditions, especially with ambient color.
Line up three cameras and shoot the same scene (especially with continuous light on location) and even at the same settings it's more than just shooting 3 different films, it's the way they react across the board.
Some do well in backlight, some high key, others low key, but few digital cameras are consistent across a wide range of lighting. The see all color of digital backs are great at shooting fruit, but put them in shaded ambient light and if a orange dodge challenger drives past the scene three blocks away they will pick up the orange color. I'm slightly exaggerating, but they are very, very sensitive.
Consequently it's very difficult to get the look you desire to translate to a third party digital lab or processor, especially in the initial view where we batch process in numbers.
Now Chong is replaced by the retoucher and they can hit the color and look you desire, problem is they can't do it on 1,000 images per day for the first view in web and on contact sheets. Well actually they can but the cost will be prohibitive.
A long days shooting on multiple locations, multiple lighting can take huge hours to batch process, up to 20 hours per shoot day and some things digital just doesn't do well, like that backlight flare that is so golden and smooth on film. On digital it is either blown out, under exposed, or the transitions are so abrupt it takes layers and layers to get the look film gave out of the can. A simple flare can take 4 hours in post with digital, I know because we just shot something with that look and if I had a dozen rolls of film that one would have been shot sans digital.
Sure you can just click balance on a grey card, but if you care about the initial view, your going to have to tweak each session, sometimes each image. On something as simple as shooting on white with multiple subjects, multiple skin tones you would think one click and you'd be there, but it's far from like that with digital, especially the digital backs as they are uber sensitive.
And the initial view is what sets the tone for the shoot. Some skin tones in digital are just brutal. Some are orange, some are golden perfect, others are just grey and colorless and each one requires a lot of correction, usually localized, not global. Sit down and do this with 4 cameras and you'll see such a wide variety of differences that you'd think you changed the light source.
Then there is just the way we are required, or better put "can" work with digital that we never really did with film. Shooting two people walking in a Moscow train staiton can now be 11 images rather than 1.
You shoot the subjects in the perfect spot and in the same perspective shoot the train that is parked 50' back then in the same perspective shoot the roof that is 200' forward, the lamps, the signage, the background people. Yes you could, or we use to do this with film but the shooting time do do something liket this with film is 4 times as long as digital. Problem is the post time to rough comp, manage the retouching, match the colors, get to a final can be 5 rounds of 4 hours per image in retouching. We do it because we can, though there is no cheating mother nature. For every minute you save in shooting you can have 10 times that amount of time in post.
In complicated retouching, someone has to manage it. Usually the AD plays a roll, obviously they have the final approval but since the photograher shot it, knows all the pieces, has the basic vision of how, where everything should fit it is usually the photographer than manages the reoutching, whether the do it themselves to finish or even outsource it the managment of a complicated image can be as time intensive as doing it yourself. In fact sometimes it's just faster to do it yourself.
Still, the toothpaste is out of the tube, so there is no going back. For commercial work and a lot of eidorial, there is no way to meet deadlines, and transfer these back and forth retouching instructions in analog. It can be done, but in analog the fedex time would be a month, vs. digitla where it's hours instead of days.
Regardless of the above the thing we are missing with film is the overmanagement of digital. We have lost the "pleasent surprise". Those images you see, you try and nobody knows whats going on between you and the subject. With digital it's all there in it's 30" glory along with the input and review. Everytime I shoot a project I wonder how Guy Bourdin would have shot digital. Would he have shot to a 30" monitor, look at those legs against a yellow wall and said, hmmm, I think the shoes need 10% more magenta and I'd like to see the shadow 4 more degrees to the left? I doubt it, but on some projects that is now how we work, so the "pleasent surprise" is missing.
Even if your are non tethered and shooting only for yourself you see it then, you correc it then and somwhere in this translation spontanity can get lost.
Maybe that's why I enjoy the Leica. It always looks different on the back vs. what I see in the camera, so there is those pleasent little surprises. Also if you tether the leica in thier software the preivew is like 3" tall, which is kind of perfect when you really think about it.
So the above is the long answer.
The short answer is digital requires a lot more post work than film.
But as other's have mentoned this forum is based on digital capture and is in it's own little world. Outside of web there are many photographers that still view digital as a strange and not so pleasent experience and would never shoot anything of importance on anything but film.
-
edit
-
Commercially I don't as my clients don't ask for it...but I can and that is very important.
But all my fine art work is still shot on film...either velvia or tri-x and I've been shooting on 35mm rangefinder fp4 also...vey nice.
Marc
-
Yes on all accounts. ....
......
The short answer is digital requires a lot more post work than film.
But as other's have mentoned this forum is based on digital capture and is in it's own little world. Outside of web there are many photographers that still view digital as a strange and not so pleasent experience and would never shoot anything of importance on anything but film.
I think the biggest hurdle to get my head around that I would have to take responsibility (more work) for the post .. everything after exposure..
Lets face it, as james said "the toothpaste is out of the tube" a lot of it.. the world of digital is not little anymore, the commercial world of film has shrunk and is shrinking still. Film is now a little world..but wait, bruce weber or inez will do some series with a lost case of agfachrome1000, get half a glossymag to themselves...followed by a big chelsea show and then others will want to emulate the "look" .. it is all about fashion and just as in fashion, there will be those that draw from the past..and how can you do a late70's sarah moon look without film? either shoot the same stock or have a lot of post done.. so those with the the big budgets will work seamlessly with both to their hearts desire and many will be playing me-too, catching-up.
-
Hard to answer this one clearly - it keeps coming back as an issue.
First, there is a sea change in the artistic side of the equation, based on the technology shift. Too often we focus on the ability to have our darkroom at our desk, and the fact that we can do extensive manipulations that were once the purview of only the most skilled printers. I'm not sure how much it has changed things - still seems to take a lot of time to get an "A" print, especially if one is picky. But the work flow has most definitely shifted.
Second, in the old days you picked camera, lens, and changed films for effect (yes, lens too, but for the moment, lets just look at the film part). Now, the back and camera are, for the sake of discussion, fixed. You don't change backs for different effects - you change temp, ISO, etc., but the quality of the processing now is specific to each back, and some of the flexibility is now shifted away from the simpler user-choice in which film to get, to the more complex issue of working a piece of technology.
While the backs provide very clean and clear results, without the quirks of film, something of the "art" of film seems lost. On the other hand, the ability to experiment in one's shooting, without real cost, is a remarkable change. And this alone changes our shooting approaches.
Finally, the results: without going totally nuts on this, the risk/reward curves for these two different methods are quite different. You can get an 80% quality result in digital work flow very quickly, but it may take much longer to get the last 10-20%. On the other hand, in analog (film) work, to get the first bits of quality take a long time (mastering the darkroom), but perhaps the end results come quicker - if you spend years learning how to get an 80% quality print, perhaps the last 10-20% is within reach.
This is of course a very subjective and risky subject, but I'd hope we can agree there are quite significantly different curves (representing time:quality) for these different approaches. A crude graph is provided, just to spark conversation.
One last note - I was looking through contact sheets of my dad's photos from the 1950's - and its really a pleasure to know that the negs can be scanned and printed fresh some 55 years later. I wonder what our kids will think of our work: will only the final print matter, because they won't be able to access the files?
Geoff
[attachment=11733:Film_vs._Digital.pdf]
-
that's intriguing. any thoughts as to why?
Contrary to common western perception, computers have not embedded themsleves in every aspect of life in most Asian countries to nearly the extent that they have in Europe and North America. Part of that is simply due to the difficulty of interfacing pictographic languages with alphabetic character based keyboards.
I used to have long discussions with Japanese associates about this when I lived in Tokyo. There is a real dissapointment among some Asian people that computer-based communications might eventually kill off some of their cherished cultural traditions, such as calligraphy. Until recently, people from Japan and China could at least have a limited ability to understand signs and so forth that were written with Chinese characters, even if they spoke entirely different languages. It bothers some to imagine a world where their languages are moved more to alphabetic processes, and thus pushed into becoming less universally "Asian."
So although folks have and use computers in those countries, they don't rely on them for everything. Using film cameras might make a lot more sense, if you aren't comfortable with computers. And owing to the fact that most Japanese people are concentrated in a few large cities, it's still quick and economical to handle film processing there.
-
Thanks for all of the great perspectives here. This is a fun thread to read.
Some of the responses here make me wonder if the camera companies should be focused more on jpeg/tiff output, in order to avoid RAW converter time all together. I know that Lionel Deluy shoots mostly jpeg, believe it or not.
-
Would you really expect anything other from a bunch of gearheads onboard the "Good Ship Camera Porn"?
True, except it would have been nearly impossible to shoot film on this trip. I took about 7,500 frames. Discounting for panos and digital "overshooting", I still would have wanted to take at least 4500 of those had I carried film. In 220, that's a massive physical quantity of film. Film which, I hasten to add, would either have been fried to a crisp by luggage x-rays, or fried to a more tender crisp in carry-on. However, to carry-on that quantity of film would have meant that valuable lenses would have ended up in the checked luggage......
I managed to get some 4x5 BW sheet film hand-checked out the way to London last year, but coming out of Heathrow with exposed sheets in a box, I was screwed. They had to go through the scanner and were seriously base-fogged.
As the 5d2 review I will hopefully get up soon will say, we now take the ability to shoot for granted in light that a decade ago would have been nigh-impossible to work in from a moving vessel.
I don't actually like working on computers much at all, which is why I've always been half-hearted about digital, but the practical advantages of having 600 frames of any-ISO film on a solid state postage stamp have real traction.
Moreover, I choke at the cost of digital gear, but 200+ rolls of film, processed, is no light touch, either.
I loved the darkroom (B&W), and miss it dearly, but the realities of modern living make having a darkroom impossible for most people as well.
I have shot film a couple of times in the last year, but only because I missed working with my favourite cameras (M6, Mam 6 and Fuji 69).
Now if only someone would make a digital camera that I actually liked using.........
- N.
-
Sorry to hear about your fogged film. I must admit I am paranoid about x-ray damage. Having said that, and despite multiple passes including Heathrow I've yet to experience a problem. I take it that you put your film in carry-on rather than checked luggage?
Hi Keith
My first calendar for Tennent´s Lager was shot in Mallorca. On the way back home, the party was allowed through control, but I was held back because I was reluctant to allow Kodachrome 64 Pro through the X-Ray machine, despite the usual assurances that it was film-safe. It claimed so on a label stuck on the side of the damn thing, giving the operators all the amo they needed. I resisted, saying I knew better, and the tension grew - at least for me - until some more security folks arrived to see what was going down. The film bag was then taken off me, shoved into the machine and that was that.
I can confirm that X-Ray has the effect of turning tanned skin greenish.
I swore I would never visit their benighted isle again. That was 1979. Ironic, then, that two years later I went there to live and am still kicking around the place, if a little more slowly.
Rob C
-
The last meeting I had on Madison Avenue, the AD asked somewhat sheepishly, if I would mind shooting digital for a large project. I replied, no no problem most of my current work is digital and he was surprised, actually almost shocked that I didn't find that an issue. In fact, if truth be told I think I probably dropped a half step in his eyes by not proclaiming that film is the best solution, though keep in mind this is New York and also keep in mind that perception is much stronger than reality, in fact in the major cities of photography perception is reality.
Had I insisted that I shoot the project with film, I believe it would have been accepted.
As far as what is film, well it's still around and many of the "names" in this business prefer it, or better put prefer working with their old RZ's, pentax 6x7's, view cameras etc. It kind of falls under the heading if it ain't broke, don't fix it
...snip...
So what's film? Well it depends on where your standing, but I wish more now than ever that the digital process had never started. In New York you can shoot film, here in Cooter, Mo., we shoot digital.
Regardless, film is not dead and if there was any serious investment dollars left in the world, it might make a comeback.
I expect any day to open up PDN and see a photo of 8,000 photographers standing on the Hudson dropping their electronic cameras in the river, with the headline that says, Photographers say enough is enough, we want to make photographs, not work on computers.
I know that here, in rural Illinois, middle of nowhere, my product work is predominently LF digital, though my portfolio and selective clients work are shot with film. (the ones that want quality and archivability), the down side is that I process all C41 in house, it's becoming a neccesity these days. A great part of whether your client wants to use film is education on the shooter's part as well, once I showed one client the same image captured digitally and with film, he saw the advantages clearly. IMO, at small repro sizes, (less than full page) the waters are significantly muddied, as catalog work where lighting and w/b doesn't change, post processing is negligible, and digitally clearly is the more efficient workflow. Of course I use a scan back (and a MF Megavision S3 back), not the latest and greatest, so my view may be skewed somewhat.
-
Hi
Film is pretty much dead for us except for my 35mm panoramic camera ( Nobelux & Widelux). Stitching is not the same. We have made a decision to get rid of our remaining dark room equipment last week.
Denis
-
Two anecdotes:
1: A friend just met with one of the large and respected editorial agencies in NYC recently and was surprised when the director informed him 90% of the agency's photographers still shoot medium format film.
2: Jake Chessum came through town recently to shoot a cover for Vibe with a rapper I've done a lot of work with. The owner of the studio Jake rented said he was surprised to see Chessum's assistants unpack an RZ and a bunch of film backs. He figured Jake must have shot over 100 rolls of film. The studio happens to rent Phase backs but Jake wanted nothing to do with them from what I was told.
Different strokes for different folks is all. I love film but when push comes to shove I'll shoot digital because I'm not afraid of it. I know I can do things with digital that I could never do with film. I only wish the workflow was as simple as film. I also hate the fact that I've become the lab, the retoucher and prepress and clients balk at paying the fees associated with the time it takes to do those other three jobs.
Bob
-
Sorry to hear about your fogged film. I must admit I am paranoid about x-ray damage. Having said that, and despite multiple passes including Heathrow I've yet to experience a problem. I take it that you put your film in carry-on rather than checked luggage?
I live overseas as an expat and do frequent travels worldwide. Film have high risk of being damaged by the x-ray machines used for check-in luggage. Never run film through those. On the other hand; Carry-on x-ray machines do not damage film, especially low ISO. I base that also on my own experience of carrying also high speed film on a round the world voyage and 50-400 ISO on numerous times also to third world countries.
Above said, multiple passes may not be good, although I have film go through countless times in carry-on x-ray machines. In such cases can be good to ask for a hand search and it is granted in most countries if one persists.
I have no experience in carrying large volumes of film onto a plane. I prefer making limited shots and getting good captures on those. I can say that you would probably be surprised at the amount of gear I have been able to carry onto flights. I never check in my camera gear or computer. It is my private property. Per some international regulation or practice, the carry on of one camera and computer is exempt from weight check.
Regards
Anders
-
that's intriguing. any thoughts as to why?
There is a very widespread and deeply rooted belief that slide colors are better to start with.
I hear also people complain about the way digital cameras render the sun and about lack of smooth transitions in skies.
They should see this...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3308391255_5eb2cb1cb2_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As a MF Film shooter for the past 8 years and also a P20+ owner, I still use film in order to take advantage of the a real "Full Frame" camera, my wide angle lenses become wide again when I use them with my AFD III and for me I love it, more importantly I heart fuji velvia 50, provia 100F, Ilford pan f Plus, and T-max to name a few
sure Id like to own a P65+ but can't justify its $40,000 price tag! I use my P20+ now to shoot portraits mostly.
I read an article dated in 2007 that claimed 75% of pro photographers still shoot film and will continue to shoot film, mainly for Black and White. No argument there!
and now....a little blast from the past. This was an 8 minute exposure with provia100F
regards,
-j
-
I never gave up film for my personal work, I like the look of film and the tradition of a view camera, but for my bread and butter, my architectural photography it is dead. We got to where we had to do our own scanning and we were spending half our time scanning and still had the post work to do. Since there are no labs in town we would have to do our own processing now too. Forget it. The digital workflow is far superior and I am able to easily surpass the DR of transparency films like Velvia. There is no turning back. And I know pros all over the country and there is no movement back as far as know, though a few AP are still shooting film.
-
There is a very widespread and deeply rooted belief that slide colors are better to start with.
I hear also people complain about the way digital cameras render the sun and about lack of smooth transitions in skies.
They should see this...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3308391255_5eb2cb1cb2_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
[/quote]
Bernard
D3X I assume?
am
-
I don´t think there is a move back. Rainer just said Germans architectural photographers are the last professionels using film and he is right. A friend just bought a new 8x10 (in Ebay you have thousands of 4x5, but only a few 8x10).
Meanwhile there are some clients (artists, museums) prefering film there are people using it. Also there are always clients whishing the not-usual.
M.Heinrich
-
Hi All,
I focus mainly on the wedding market and moving more and more to the higher end of what I offer my clients and I have been seriously considering moving back to film. There are some very successful higher end photographers in the US doing very well from this and I think this sets a little trend to the return of film. very simply put I see these as the three key point for me and my business:
1. Creates a market differentiation - I see this as a return of the black box(craft) and the theatre of photography without thinking of it as going back to static posed images
2. The workflow - shoot drop the film off pick-up the prints/scans and I still have all the benefits of the digital side i.e albums, slideshows without the hours of post production
3. Archival nature of film as an object
As of tomorrow am trying to shoot various parts of the coverage on the 645 - Portra skintone what a wonderful thing!
Regards
PS also will offer fine art BW TMAX portraits
-
There is a very widespread and deeply rooted belief that slide colors are better to start with.
I hear also people complain about the way digital cameras render the sun and about lack of smooth transitions in skies.
They should see this...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3308391255_5eb2cb1cb2_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard and All,
I am a man who speaks my mind out. Bernard, you have posted alot of quality posts in the past. That is very much appreciated. This is a thread entitled "Is there a definite move back to film by many???". I guess I fail to see what possibly your image has to do with film. I guess... simply because there was no film.
I had Nikon before and thought it was the world. Now I know that any camera is merely a TOOL for the image. If you are happy with your D2X -> ZD -> D3X changes and keep raving about them that is fine. In retrospect on a number of posts in threads recent and not pointing at you directly, it is as if they were written as sticks out to people who shoot and enjoy FILM or MEDIUM FORMAT. That frank is so very silly childish. If anyone fails to see the difference or fails to experience the difference of such TOOLS, then let it be that way. However there are many who still enjoy them. Then what silly point are such childish games to try aggrevate the joys that people have? Perhaps same as camera companies brain washing people of that DX format was same as FX??? Silly. They are different, but silent went the DX prayers when FX came true...
Granted there are ways that your D3X will beat a Leaf Aptus 65 on an AFDIII or a P65 on a Hassy, or even my Mamiya 7 loaded with Fuji Velvia 50, but... there are ways that those will kill and run circles around your D3X, just different TOOLS.
About that image, sorry, but I fail to see that it equals or even better beloved FUJI VELVIA 50 slides. It is simply different. Even more I do not see what it direct has to do with the subject of this thread. No, digital is not better. It is different. The main disadvantage with film nowadays though was as hinted by some post above that FILM is difficult today, because the world is DIGITAL. That does not mean that digital is better. In many ways indeed FILM is BETTER. Some appreciate art of different counts... I simply play MP3 while other have ear for more...
Now, this thread was asking "Is there a definite move back to film by many???" I am only one of the many persons here who have stated we still shoot film and/or love FILM, and do bear in mind that this website is frequented primarily by people who shoot digital, and thus you see an impressive count in posts by users of FILM in above. Then that proves, FILM is still a beloved and much joyful media today. Perhaps some of you who have not tried it, should do so. And do try larger than 35mm, it makes you see better.
Further, apart from my two posts above I should say that I recent bought a 4x5 Shen-Hao TFC45-IIB so indeed I still grow with FILM to larger size because I enjoy FILM. FILM is now simply a different media to me than digital is. And no, development of digital technology is not matured, where is my Leaf Aptus Foveon type 645-sized sensor larger than 50MP (Yikes, dont make more or I have to spend $$$ on $$$ lenses!)? Or my Leaf Aptus Foveon type 4x5 sized sensor of 300MP??? And... keep it cheap! The Shen-Hao is frank a lovely camera, and with myself having been burnt and lost $$$ on the faulty ZD I am happy I went for Chinese instead of Japanese made. I am frank impressed by the camera's sheer simplicity compared to digital. Nope, I do not need to carry a charger and cables for it. Heck, I do not even need to carry a battery!!! And yes, the LCD measures 118mm x 98mm making it full grand 6 (SIX) inches LCD. Now if we are measuring sizes here, I am sure of at least that beats D3X... and ... at less cost. Viewing is how I see. Photography is about seeing. To my surprise really, the Shen-Hao is very simple to load each frame in using Fuji Quickloads, no more difficult than 35 was, only by each frame by frame. Metering; also using spot meter and zone system makes shots arrive spot on, no waste. Thus no big number of shots to review and process. Simply an amazing tool. Now is still an age where we have ample choices of FILM. Nope not as many as used to, but still ample. It is a joy to still use FILM. Am I definite heading back to film? It is tempting to say yes, but no... (I confess) because I simply do not want to give up my Aptus 65 either. They are different. I am current designing a custom made sliding adapter for it to use on my Shen-Hao, but... guess what... it will be far simpler to use FILM Quickloads. Then again... just different tools...
Regards
Anders
-
I am a man who speaks my mind out. Bernard, you have posted alot of quality posts in the past. That is very much appreciated. This is a thread entitled "Is there a definite move back to film by many???". I guess I fail to see what possibly your image has to do with film. I guess... simply because there was no film.
Have you even read what I wrote above?
This image was posted in the context of a comment explaining that many people in Japan had the feeling the digital images had a hard time dealing with smooth transitions in skies. That's it. Nothing more.
I still shoot slide film myself on 4x5 from time to time and like it for what it is. I have nothing against shooting film, I am just saying that some of the reasons why people are not considering digital in Japan are simply not valid anymore.
I had Nikon before and thought it was the world. Now I know that any camera is merely a TOOL for the image. If you are happy with your D2X -> ZD -> D3X changes and keep raving about them that is fine. In retrospect on a number of posts in threads recent and not pointing at you directly, it is as if they were written as sticks out to people who shoot and enjoy FILM or MEDIUM FORMAT. That frank is so very silly childish. If anyone fails to see the difference or fails to experience the difference of such TOOLS, then let it be that way. However there are many who still enjoy them. Then what silly point are such childish games to try aggrevate the joys that people have? Perhaps same as camera companies brain washing people of that DX format was same as FX??? Silly. They are different, but silent went the DX prayers when FX came true...
I don't remember insisting on the fact that this image was shot with a D3x, or even mentioning it for that matter. I believe that other recent digital bodies would have done as well. You like shooting film or a back? Great, I like that too.
I am frankly a bit surprised by your reaction. You are putting in my mouth words that I have not pronounced and are calling them childish... This is all about you man.
Granted there are ways that your D3X will beat a Leaf Aptus 65 on an AFDIII or a P65 on a Hassy, or even my Mamiya 7 loaded with Fuji Velvia 50, but... there are ways that those will kill and run circles around your D3X, just different TOOLS.
Euh... yes. I don't remember having claimed that the D3x was the best camera on earth, have I? I happen to use this tool a lot and rest assured that I don't sleep with my camera. If anything you are the one coming back with a comparison between them and proposing a value ranking. I am not.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm with you Anders. Film is different. Vive la difference!
Eduardo
Bernard and All,
I am a man who speaks my mind out. Bernard, you have posted alot of quality posts in the past. That is very much appreciated. This is a thread entitled "Is there a definite move back to film by many???". I guess I fail to see what possibly your image has to do with film. I guess... simply because there was no film.
I had Nikon before and thought it was the world. Now I know that any camera is merely a TOOL for the image. If you are happy with your D2X -> ZD -> D3X changes and keep raving about them that is fine. In retrospect on a number of posts in threads recent and not pointing at you directly, it is as if they were written as sticks out to people who shoot and enjoy FILM or MEDIUM FORMAT. That frank is so very silly childish. If anyone fails to see the difference or fails to experience the difference of such TOOLS, then let it be that way. However there are many who still enjoy them. Then what silly point are such childish games to try aggrevate the joys that people have? Perhaps same as camera companies brain washing people of that DX format was same as FX??? Silly. They are different, but silent went the DX prayers when FX came true...
Granted there are ways that your D3X will beat a Leaf Aptus 65 on an AFDIII or a P65 on a Hassy, or even my Mamiya 7 loaded with Fuji Velvia 50, but... there are ways that those will kill and run circles around your D3X, just different TOOLS.
About that image, sorry, but I fail to see that it equals or even better beloved FUJI VELVIA 50 slides. It is simply different. Even more I do not see what it direct has to do with the subject of this thread. No, digital is not better. It is different. The main disadvantage with film nowadays though was as hinted by some post above that FILM is difficult today, because the world is DIGITAL. That does not mean that digital is better. In many ways indeed FILM is BETTER. Some appreciate art of different counts... I simply play MP3 while other have ear for more...
Now, this thread was asking "Is there a definite move back to film by many???" I am only one of the many persons here who have stated we still shoot film and/or love FILM, and do bear in mind that this website is frequented primarily by people who shoot digital, and thus you see an impressive count in posts by users of FILM in above. Then that proves, FILM is still a beloved and much joyful media today. Perhaps some of you who have not tried it, should do so. And do try larger than 35mm, it makes you see better.
Further, apart from my two posts above I should say that I recent bought a 4x5 Shen-Hao TFC45-IIB so indeed I still grow with FILM to larger size because I enjoy FILM. FILM is now simply a different media to me than digital is. And no, development of digital technology is not matured, where is my Leaf Aptus Foveon type 645-sized sensor larger than 50MP (Yikes, dont make more or I have to spend $$$ on $$$ lenses!)? Or my Leaf Aptus Foveon type 4x5 sized sensor of 300MP??? And... keep it cheap! The Shen-Hao is frank a lovely camera, and with myself having been burnt and lost $$$ on the faulty ZD I am happy I went for Chinese instead of Japanese made. I am frank impressed by the camera's sheer simplicity compared to digital. Nope, I do not need to carry a charger and cables for it. Heck, I do not even need to carry a battery!!! And yes, the LCD measures 118mm x 98mm making it full grand 6 (SIX) inches LCD. Now if we are measuring sizes here, I am sure of at least that beats D3X... and ... at less cost. Viewing is how I see. Photography is about seeing. To my surprise really, the Shen-Hao is very simple to load each frame in using Fuji Quickloads, no more difficult than 35 was, only by each frame by frame. Metering; also using spot meter and zone system makes shots arrive spot on, no waste. Thus no big number of shots to review and process. Simply an amazing tool. Now is still an age where we have ample choices of FILM. Nope not as many as used to, but still ample. It is a joy to still use FILM. Am I definite heading back to film? It is tempting to say yes, but no... (I confess) because I simply do not want to give up my Aptus 65 either. They are different. I am current designing a custom made sliding adapter for it to use on my Shen-Hao, but... guess what... it will be far simpler to use FILM Quickloads. Then again... just different tools...
Regards
Anders
-
Film is still pretty big in Japan, I would say that a majority of serious landscape shooters still use film on medium format bodies.
Maybe this meshes with the recent release of a new medium format film option, Ektar:
1. Enthusiasts with medium and large format equipment might be more like to stay with film than 35mm film camera users, since the cost of digital medium format is far higher, and many are probably unwilling to sacrifice advantages like lens quality over smaller format, or to accept having to replace all their lenses and bodies and adopt the different working style of a digital system in a smaller format.
2. Relatedly, there now seem to be more good quality MF film camera models than good quality 35mm film SLRs on the market! Major brand 35mm film SLRs are down to the Canon EOS-1v, Nikon F6 and Leica R9; the rest is made by Vivitar and such (including the Vivitar product sold as the Nikon FM10.)
3. Japan seems to have a stronger tradition of medium format usage than many places.
These together suggest that in Japan, a greater number of enthusiasts will stay with film, for the sake of staying with medium format.
They also suggests that it makes sense for the "film rear-guard activity" to concentrate on medium and large formats, while de-emphasizing 35mm format.
P. S. I would not be surprised if Canon and Nikon have already made their last 35mm film cameras, with those remaining high end models staying available only due to the last batches not having sold out yet. The F5 was rumored to have been out of production for several years before its official discontinuation.
-
No wonder. 35mm photography is been truly surpassed by digital. MF still holds a few advantages over digital, but mainly for its different looks. For the smoothest transitions and super resolution, large format is still king. But if you have $40K to spare..............
Eduardo
These together suggest that in Japan, a greater number of enthusiasts will stay with film, for the sake of staying with medium format.
They also suggests that it makes sense for the "film rear-guard activity" to concentrate on medium and large formats, while de-emphasizing 35mm format.
-
LF digital needn't cost $40K, in fact if you shoot product and don't have a need for images larger than 8 1/2x11, a Phase One Studiokit (~$400-$750) will work just fine, granted a scan back requires contiuous (and lots) of lighting, but if you need movements, it's the least expensive way to have digital capture in LF. Larger than 8 1/2 x 11 require upsampling, I regularly upsample to a double truck (11x17) and it still looks better than an image shot with a Dslr, due to the lack of an AA filter.
erie
-
Have you even read what I wrote above?
This image was posted in the context of a comment explaining that many people in Japan had the feeling the digital images had a hard time dealing with smooth transitions in skies. That's it. Nothing more.
I still shoot slide film myself on 4x5 from time to time and like it for what it is. I have nothing against shooting film, I am just saying that some of the reasons why people are not considering digital in Japan are simply not valid anymore.
the reason why people shoot film in japan goes beyond the issues of smooth skies.
if you've seen some of the film they shoot in japan (fuji has film there that you don't get overseas) and the kind of textures and colour palettes you get out of the films, you wouldn't see a need to spend hours in front of a computer going through tons of photos on a screen.
Frankly the joyful part of shooting film is the giving up of full control to variables and other people.
We don't need to be in control of everything, and colour palettes of different films are fun to play with.
ironically I've only shot a few rolls of film in the past year but this thread is making me nostalgic again..
-
it feels so much that it wouldn't take a lot for a lot to drop digital...
-
the reason why people shoot film in japan goes beyond the issues of smooth skies.
if you've seen some of the film they shoot in japan (fuji has film there that you don't get overseas) and the kind of textures and colour palettes you get out of the films, you wouldn't see a need to spend hours in front of a computer going through tons of photos on a screen.
Agreed, that's the first point I mentioned above. Regardless of whether this is true or not, this is indeed how people feel about it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Would you really expect anything other from a bunch of gearheads onboard the "Good Ship Camera Porn"?
Nearly all your posts are exceedingly subjective, heavily bias without evidence, and you see photography as a war between film and digital.
The sad truth is that film and digital are just mediums that have their strengths and weaknesses. This is not an all or nothing game, nor a do or die.
There is plenty of room for both.
Stop being a medium bigot and instead be a picture bigot, because you and your ilk are no better then the "gearheads" you so disdain.
Time to grow up, and leave the Chevy/Ford/My dad can beat up your dad/mine is longer mentality to Junior High School boys ;-)
-
The sad truth is that film and digital are just mediums that have their strengths and weaknesses.
Why is this sad?
-
Talked with a Kodak rep at NANPA last week. He told me the introduction of Ektar 100 in 120 was in response to a lot of demand from shooters using everything from the old Kodak bellows cameras to new(ish) Hassys and Mamiyas. He said they also got a lot of comment on the 35mm-only intro last year from Rollieflex people, who simply don't want to stop using their TLRs. I'm not sure, though, how well the 'new' film will go over, in the long run. It's available only in 100 ASA, and the 'old' Ultra Color came in several speeds. My wife, for one, really preferred the look of the 400 ASA version, on top of the 2-stop speed improvement. And, he told me, a 220 version is not in the works. OTOH, a 120 version was not to be thought of a year ago, so we'll see.
Me, I shoot film in my 35mm Contax and film and digital with my Hassleblad. I often shoot both, switching backs, on the same shot, although I've been guilty of skipping film now and again.
As a side-note: Does anyone know just why Kodak thinks its film now belongs in pastel blue boxes? The rep couldn't say, but seemed as bewildered as I.
PS: For those of a newer age, ASA=ISO, and Kodak film (and everything else) came in bright yellow trappings, dressed with red and black, for generations.
-
Talked with a Kodak rep at NANPA last week. He told me the introduction of Ektar 100 in 120 was in response to a lot of demand from shooters using everything from the old Kodak bellows cameras to new(ish) Hassys and Mamiyas.
http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htm (http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htm)
A bit sobering, really. Velvia 100(and I suppose 50) come close to the Sony, but the rest are worlds worse in terms of grain and noise.
But I can see why some would like film better - the Sony looks a bit CGI/animated - too smooth in a way.
-
the Sony looks a bit CGI/animated - too smooth in a way.
because the captured scene itself is already printed...
-
[quote name='Plekto' date='Feb 27 2009, 10:21 PM' post='263454']
http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htm (http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htm)
A bit sobering, really. Velvia 100(and I suppose 50) come close to the Sony, but the rest are worlds worse in terms of grain and noise.
This article, as much as it shows how good film can be when brought into a digital workflow with the best equipment and experienced hands, actually re-proves that life is too short for scanning film!!!
I would rather play with my home colonoscopy kit all night than f*** around with one of these miserable, flawed, glitch-prone, costly, hair-tearing machines known as film scanners.
If my financial resources were endless, I would have every shot I wanted to see in print professionally scanned. Sadly, that makes a p65+ look cheap
- N.
-
. . .the medium is not the message.
I agree, but the workflow definitely affects the results.
My epiphany occurred when I shot a large still life job about five years ago. The layouts were very specific in terms of final size and placement of elements in each scene (to allow for text & gutters). Using the capture software I was able to use the AD's digital comps as overlays to get exact placement of all the elements in each shot. Everything when faster with more precision. Un-retouched, actual-sized proofs were printed out at beer o'clock and everyone was satisfied (and slightly buzzed).
The other aspect of digital capture is knowing exact RGB values within a few seconds of capture. No more Polaroid "estimating". Lights can be manipulated to get exact tonal values within the scene. The level of precision of exposure is much greater with digital capture tools than with analog tools.
This is old news to digital junkies, but every time I shot film I found myself fighting the workflow when trying to get precise results.
-
I agree, but the workflow definitely affects the results.
My epiphany occurred when I shot a large still life job about five years ago. The layouts were very specific in terms of final size and placement of elements in each scene (to allow for text & gutters). Using the capture software I was able to use the AD's digital comps as overlays to get exact placement of all the elements in each shot. Everything when faster with more precision. Un-retouched, actual-sized proofs were printed out at beer o'clock and everyone was satisfied (and slightly buzzed).
The other aspect of digital capture is knowing exact RGB values within a few seconds of capture. No more Polaroid "estimating". Lights can be manipulated to get exact tonal values within the scene. The level of precision of exposure is much greater with digital capture tools than with analog tools.
This is old news to digital junkies, but every time I shot film I found myself fighting the workflow when trying to get precise results.
Chris,
I do alot of this type of work, though I just print out the layout on overhead transparency flim and tape it to the ground glass. (one of the advantages of a scan back and 4x5). One of the biggest advantages of often doing the graphic design as well is also being the AD, I know exactly what I want to shoot, and know how to do it. For years I've been promoting the concept of a design firm with an in-house studio, much the same as what I did 20+ years ago. In the right location, it can work wonders, if you can find one or two talented people to work with.
where in Central IL are you located?
erie
-
. . . just print out the layout on overhead transparency flim and tape it to the ground glass.
yeah, I did this for as long as I had my Sinars and it works, but not to the precision that digital capture provides.
where in Central IL are you located?
In the flat, windy part.
-
Please give me back my Type 55.
But don't take away my Aptus 75.
I'd hate to give up digital for my commercial work.
But I'd love to have my favorite film back.
...
Once you have Alien Skin Exposure hooked up as a final step in a well crafted Lightroom Exposure... what's the difference? I have the films I want most of the time. Generally I do a final render using the Kodachrome 200 look.
Also. People do too much retouching, working the files too much makes them look artificial.
I used to have to drive an hour to a lab to process my 4x5's. Set the A run, go and not-drink for an hour and a half, review the A's, run the B's and then pick up and drive an hour home. Digital meant I could live in the country and not the city. Result.
-
I'm a landscape shooter doing both film and digital. Since it's been a big snow year in New England, I've shot quite a few snowscapes.
My P20 is used primarily on an Arca Swiss 6x9 with typical landscape movements, including stitching with a KG sliding back.
Even using LCC in Capture One, there is pretty serious casting on bright snow. It is difficult and time-consuming to correct it and get both halves of my stitched frame to color match.
It seems that when I head out to shoot snow scenes, I'm mostly taking my 8x10 Arca and Provia/Velvia sheet film. Results are outstanding.
YMMV.
Larry
I'm with you Anders. Film is different. Vive la difference!
Eduardo
-
......I have bought a 2nd hand Sinar F2 with a Schenider 150mm and am ordering my all time fave T-Max 100 film to start and shoot a personal project I'll be doing.....for commercial work...digital.....but to make me feel like I'm doing something worthwhile.....its 5 x 4 for me.
-
...add to that a Rolleflex T Black with prism and 75mm Zeiss lens.....bargain!
....and I quote www.thiaps.com
Kodak is lately as well reporting positive figures in film-and film related sales. A 40% increase solely with 4x5 films, as an example, was rumoured around in the ample halls of Photokina.
But even smaller producers and vendors were mostly starting to smile, when I asked what they think about their analogue products in future. Foma is doing obviously very well, with films and especially with papers. ADOX and Freestyle are not anymore only niche-sellers but more and more real big players in the game.
Aside the Agfa-substitute in PE, already in production and a baryta-version, available in early spring, ADOX was presenting a brand new baryta paper, with ADOX-specification made by Ilford. From the same manufacturer, but a completely different paper, is sold by Bergger. Though, Ilford obviously believes that the market is again big enough to even manufacture the products of its competitors.
-
Interesting, i am thinking to try or use film now as i never used it [if talking about 35mm or MF, not cheapo or instant or Polaroid which i used once in the past], really not sure after 10 digital cameras it is a right decision to try film now, i still remember i met a landscape Photographer in UK [Scotland] in 2007, he was using film cameras [Pentax when i was with him that day, and he has Contax as well], still confusing if i should do, in my area there is no sign of using film, maybe only 5% are using film in my country but with digital cameras beside.
-
I'm a landscape shooter doing both film and digital. Since it's been a big snow year in New England, I've shot quite a few snowscapes.
My P20 is used primarily on an Arca Swiss 6x9 with typical landscape movements, including stitching with a KG sliding back.
Even using LCC in Capture One, there is pretty serious casting on bright snow. It is difficult and time-consuming to correct it and get both halves of my stitched frame to color match.
It seems that when I head out to shoot snow scenes, I'm mostly taking my 8x10 Arca and Provia/Velvia sheet film. Results are outstanding.
YMMV.
Larry
Hmmm. Generally the LCC completely eliminates such casts.
Have you tried using the easy gray profile? That can help if there is residual cast. Just a thought.
-
Yeh I am using film again and I drop it off at the Lab with my Horse and Buggy, Sold the Car too...
Next week I am buying an AirBrush machine so I can retouch the prints as well.... Screw Adobe!!
I feel good things are coming. My clients were just complaining about how fast it was to go from shoot to printed campaign and they said. Take a couple of extra days with getting us those contact sheet....Mean time are competitor will have the Ads on the street while we look at the contact sheets with a loupe.
I also invested in some Wax pencils for marking the contact sheets....
Feels like the good old times.
Snook
-
Yeh I am using film again and I drop it off at the Lab with my Horse and Buggy, Sold the Car too...
Next week I am buying an AirBrush machine so I can retouch the prints as well.... Screw Adobe!!
I feel good things are coming. My clients were just complaining about how fast it was to go from shoot to printed campaign and they said. Take a couple of extra days with getting us those contact sheet....Mean time are competitor will have the Ads on the street while we look at the contact sheets with a loupe.
I also invested in some Wax pencils for marking the contact sheets....
Feels like the good old times.
Snook
I shot a catalogue on Provia 100F. 300 rolls total. Had the chromes back in two hours after a clip test, cut and sleeved, at the end of each day. Went to the client's production office and made selects on a light box, sent chromes to be scanned fpo. I wanted to shoot digital because film scares the shit out of me for commercial, non-repeatable, on location work. It was a weeks shoot. We worked together to produce the look for retouching all working on a few machines in the clients' studio. Once we settled on the look, the selects were drum scanned and sent to the in house retoucher who followed the recipe for color grading, etc. Car service, no horse and buggy. Just as fast, really, as with digital. Less retouching. Proofs were delivered faster and I wasn't smoking meth and espresso to stay up until dawn applying looks to 5000 digital files, selecting, editing, and uploading to ftp, then starting all over against for day two, then day three, then day four.
It was nerve wracking, not like an arty editorial where if the film is bad I can work around it, shoot three different film and digital cameras, etc.
-
I just got 30 rolls of Fuji Reala So my Hasselblad is going to work his ass of this spring
-
I used to shoot everything in 8x10 tranny. Still have the Sinar 8x10 and the 8x10 Polaroid processor, nice prints they were!
Then everybody started to shoot 4x5 only because it was easier and cheaper to drum scan. We would do all the retouching and then output back to transparency film, as the printing houses would not work with digital files.
I wouldn't touch film now, for product photography at least, digital is infinitely better, faster, betetr quality, lets you experiment, lets you push your ideas, gives you peace of mind.
I would absolutely loath going back to film. To those who look back with nostalgia, wake up, you are getting old, we have never had it better and the opportunities to make money with photography have never been better.
Edward
-
I used to shoot everything in 8x10 tranny. Still have the Sinar 8x10 and the 8x10 Polaroid processor, nice prints they were!
Then everybody started to shoot 4x5 only because it was easier and cheaper to drum scan. We would do all the retouching and then output back to transparency film, as the printing houses would not work with digital files.
I wouldn't touch film now, for product photography at least, digital is infinitely better, faster, betetr quality, lets you experiment, lets you push your ideas, gives you peace of mind.
I would absolutely loath going back to film. To those who look back with nostalgia, wake up, you are getting old, we have never had it better and the opportunities to make money with photography have never been better.
Edward
For some applictions digital is so superior to film, especially something technical like products, beauty and arch. where previews for lighting the set/composition, movements and clean files are paramount. This is where a back and a tech camera shine. But for fashion, portraits, etc, well, film and its workflow can be better than a digital.
-
I prefer the look of film (6x7 medium format and larger - especially 4x5 & 8x10), but switched to digital for practical reasons (it's harder to find good labs to process film and make analog prints, and it gets more expensive as time goes on, and I don't really need the movements a view camera provides for most of my photos).
Fotoman camera is going out of business, sad to say, but it illustrates the overall continuing decline of film-based photography. However I think there will be a continuing small or niche market for film - the new 6x7 folding camera from Japan is coming out, and the continuing use of amateur and pro use of 4x5 cameras for landscapes, and larger film formats for B&W alternatives processes.
For architecture and table top uses I would guess most pros find it cheaper to spend a bundle on a view camera with digital back solution, as they can write off the cost of their equipment against their revenue. We poor amateurs that want that kind of image quality need to still use large format film.
Stitching images with a small format digital camera is an option for objects that don't move (and for subjects for which depth-of-field can do w/o view camera movements), but I've found stitching to be pain. I guess I'm just impatient & lazy and/or set in my old fashioned single-shot ways :-)
-
...
For architecture and table top uses I would guess most pros find it cheaper to spend a bundle on a view camera with digital back solution, as they can write off the cost of their equipment against their revenue. We poor amateurs that want that kind of image quality need to still use large format film.
...
Well, you have to make the money first, or have a banker willing to loan the money, not very likely these days unless you're spotless, creditwise. For now, I'll stick with my Phase One Studiokit scan back, does all I need, and it's paid for. With clients squeezing every penny they can, raising prices isn't an option. In fact some of my clients have considered shooting in house, though we all know how that usually ends up. The one that did still uses me for about 80% of their work, it seems that having the ability to light a set effectively(full sized roooms of furniture) isn't an easy thing to find in your average employee.
erie
-
I work in a school of photography - and we are still working analogue. We crave for the old techniques like Bromoil, Van Dyke, Cyanotype and have extensive use of liquid emulsion - but how do we do in a digital age.
Well for myself, I tend to believe that there are pictures I would never make digitally for this very reason : The feel or touch in picture.
Analogue will have a "Retro-period" - and here we are keeping it alive..... well we try to :-)
But having said that - I work privately too with digital DSLR and Digital back - and some pictures cannot be made with analogue - for a different reason : TIME
I see photography is all about choosing my tool when I have my mind set on a scene - whether to go analogue or digital. I simply won´t surrender my analogue equipment, and here are a few answers why I don´t ever surrender
Jamin Darlot lens Equal of the one of Julia Margaret Cameron used for her most famous portraits
Darlot Vis a´Paysage Lens - one of the first with cone ;-)
Lerebours et Secretan Lens - gorgeous bokeh and swirley effects on nature
Verito Soft focus portrait lens with studio shutter
Kodak Soft Focus Portrait lens - Sally Mann uses this I´ve been told - and a lens construction and result comparable with the famous Cooke 945 - no digital lens will ever come close
And these are just some of the lenses that I use - and these create something that nothing digital will ever produce.
I also use film like Polaroid type 55 over almost any digital back, I crave for using the new Rollei ATP 1.1 rollfilm like I crave to use my newest purchase a Hasselblad 503CW with a 120 CFE Macro attached with a Phase One P25 digital back.....
Well - i see these cameras and lenses as technical tools - and on EVERY single job og photoshoot, I pick my choice.
The world is not all digital - yet ;-)
You may totally disagree with me, and I will understand and respect your point of view, but here in this "Camp" both Lerebours, Type 55 and old wooden cameras have a function along with Potasum Dicromat ;-)
Claus Stensgaard
-
I was going to reply about this but you also brought it up briefly. That is, the effect of psychology on a media. As any technology gets to the point where it matures and is thoroughly understood (at least from a technical POV), as well as is widely used, it ceases to be fun and interesting and "new" to many.
It becomes a commodity. A good example is computers. In the old days, computers were DIY affairs and the haven of scientists, geeks, and technological types looking to push the limits and have fun. But as they got better and better, about 4-5 years ago they suddenly became appliances. Very complex, very maintainance-intensive appliances. It wasn't fun, it wasn't easy - it was plainly put, a chore.
This is an intolerable state for the human mind - it honestly hates grinding and thinking just to get stuff done. Simplicity and functionality become more and more the goal, so there's a swing back to simpler methods. You see this in cooking - from the stupidly fancy cookbooks and shows of the 90s to a shift back to simpler food. You see it in the recent interest in low-impact and natural housing. You saw it in watches - digital was the rage in the 80s and 90s and now it's swung back. You see it even in technology itself. It's why the Wii sells so well.
DSLRs amaze me but at the same time I still opt for the simplicity of my old Rollei. 4-5 things to remember, all analog and "fuzzy logic" type controls. Dials to grasp, knobs to nudge... it's simple and intuitive. So then you concentrate on the shot alone, or close to it.
And when you get it back, it's OK or it's great - you judge and live with it. No tweaking for hours to get it to look "right" - You take your chances, learn to trust yourself, and move on. The time that people now spend at their computers is amazing, really.
Edit - that said, I also love my DSLR, but most of the time I'm just not in the mood to deal with it. Though, it does work fantastic for trips and family photos and the like. Point - shoot - done.
-
I was going to reply about this but you also brought it up briefly. That is, the effect of psychology on a media. As any technology gets to the point where it matures and is thoroughly understood (at least from a technical POV), as well as is widely used, it ceases to be fun and interesting and "new" to many.
It becomes a commodity. A good example is computers. In the old days, computers were DIY affairs and the haven of scientists, geeks, and technological types looking to push the limits and have fun. But as they got better and better, about 4-5 years ago they suddenly became appliances. Very complex, very maintainance-intensive appliances. It wasn't fun, it wasn't easy - it was plainly put, a chore.
This is an intolerable state for the human mind - it honestly hates grinding and thinking just to get stuff done. Simplicity and functionality become more and more the goal, so there's a swing back to simpler methods. You see this in cooking - from the stupidly fancy cookbooks and shows of the 90s to a shift back to simpler food. You see it in the recent interest in low-impact and natural housing. You saw it in watches - digital was the rage in the 80s and 90s and now it's swung back. You see it even in technology itself. It's why the Wii sells so well.
DSLRs amaze me but at the same time I still opt for the simplicity of my old Rollei. 4-5 things to remember, all analog and "fuzzy logic" type controls. Dials to grasp, knobs to nudge... it's simple and intuitive. So then you concentrate on the shot alone, or close to it.
And when you get it back, it's OK or it's great - you judge and live with it. No tweaking for hours to get it to look "right" - You take your chances, learn to trust yourself, and move on. The time that people now spend at their computers is amazing, really.
And years later people may look back today and amaze how little time we spent on something like computer which they may call it whatever. Photographic itself as an art does not matter whether it was produced from film or entirely digitally, art is art, and there are people switching in between, without doubt, but I believe the mass is moving to and stay with digital. But photography at the same time is not just art, it is also use to produce commercial product, and by large proportion it was done digitally, along with ever increasing online commerce and community, which eventually all need certain presentation form involves digital, and digital capture is more flexible in this regard and likely to stay, and more people jump into it. LL is a matured forum with a lot of experienced photographer who knows film, there are a whole generation of photographers or so-called photographer that never touch and careless about film, in years they will be the mainstay and further reduce the use of film, by proportion. The photography business today is much bigger than it was before, there are billions pictures took everyday, a smaller portion of it - such as film, may still support a boutique production that I also have no doubt with.
Regards, K
-
FWIW today I will be testing my new P-Sharan (http://www.sharan-camera.com/std35_camera.html) for the first time, got some T-Max 400 B&W and it's a beautiful sunny day so should be good for street work in central London. Today there's also the Holland House Festival in Trafalgar Square (http://www.holland.com/uk/hollandhouse2009/hollandhouse2009.jsp) so I should take a P&S as well for the Orange dresses.
Yair
-
FWIW today I will be testing my new P-Sharan (http://www.sharan-camera.com/std35_camera.html) for the first time, got some T-Max 400 B&W and it's a beautiful sunny day so should be good for street work in central London. Today there's also the Holland House Festival in Trafalgar Square (http://www.holland.com/uk/hollandhouse2009/hollandhouse2009.jsp) so I should take a P&S as well for the Orange dresses.
Yair
This guy is a friend of mine and produces some great pinhole photography as well as building wonderful pinhole cameras from legos
http://www.foundphotography.com/ (http://www.foundphotography.com/)
Make sure you check out the cameras section:
http://www.foundphotography.com/cameras/ (http://www.foundphotography.com/cameras/)
And the pinhole Polaroid holder pinhole cam:
http://www.foundphotography.com/2005/08/pi...e-polaroid-545/ (http://www.foundphotography.com/2005/08/pinhole-polaroid-545/)