Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: revaaron on September 25, 2009, 10:51:10 pm
-
This thread is probably redundant, but I really would like to know. $10K-$48K on a MFDB is a heck of a lot of film.
-
This thread is probably redundant, but I really would like to know. $10K-$48K on a MFDB is a heck of a lot of film.
Is it really ? 4x5 film is expensive, 8x10 even more. Than there are more costs coming. for example developing or scanning. Most people couldn't probably afford the same amount they shoot with film. I don't say it is a good thing just a point.
-
Try shooting tethered with film
-
Is it really ? 4x5 film is expensive, 8x10 even more. Than there are more costs coming. for example developing or scanning. Most people couldn't probably afford the same amount they shoot with film. I don't say it is a good thing just a point.
From a professional level, the acceptance to digital is down to one single thing . . . you know you have the shot. It's not prettier than film, can be as pretty, it's not faster, not with all the post work we do nowdays, but it does allow the assurance that on an important production the shot is in the can.
Now as far as costs, there is no comparison. Film is a lot cheaper, any size film, because with film you never would scan 1500 images from a day, you deliver the film, then you or the client scans the one, two three, selects.
In fact in the film days, few if any photographer shot 1500 frames a day.
When you factor in computers, computer upgrades, monitors, calibration devices, three types of storage, (always one off site), software, plug ins, training, the fact that the photographer and or their studio has now become the lab, server costs, storage fees, the costs of the cameras, including the constant upgrades of cameras, backs, digital lenses, cf cards, portable storage, multiple backups on everything and a life cycle of around 2 years for most of the major equipment, film cameras and film was cheap and all of the above doesn't include the costs of digital technicians, magliners in the place of a polaroid and portable generators.
Also from a professional level, we now produce twice minimum in a day what we did with film, which means most photographers are working less, at least on set, more after the shoot.
From an artistic standpoint the one real advantage digital has over film is the ability to shoot in lower light and once again be assured you have the shot.
This doesn't mean I don't shoot digital, I adopted it early, but I knew down the line that someday we would look back at film and think, wow, film only costs $1.45 a frame . . . man that was cheap.
JR
-
This thread is probably redundant, but I really would like to know. $10K-$48K on a MFDB is a heck of a lot of film.
no customers will never pay for films
-
Really really simple. Really too difficult to get film processed around here, you can hardly even find it and I started to get fed up of scanning and I wanted to keep shooting my MF setup. Getting film printed is also starting to get harder to do.
-
no customers will never pay for films
The law used to be that the owner of the picture was the owner of the film at the time of the exposure... so you could argue that if wedding photographers take their fee in advance then the customer owns the pictures? ...of course, many photographers offer the option of photos on CD.
-
From a professional level, the acceptance to digital is down to one single thing . . . you know you have the shot.
In a standard studio or landscape situation, a seasoned pro might not lose any sleep waiting for film to be developed, but if you ever contemplated spending all day taking several exposures with different light sources and filters on one sheet of film... knowing you have the shot is worth the £30k.
With digital you can take one shot and selectively change each colour, or you can take separate photos and edit each independently and selectively mask and merge... so you can almost always produce an acceptable result.
-
Film costs are only of interest to the amateur who by definition uses mimimal quantities of the stuff but suffers the personal cost.
Speaking from the point of view of the pro, all clients paid for the film used on their account, whether by direct charge on low-cost jobs or by inclusion in a contract price for things such as calendars or fashion trips.
That the person who paid for the film owned copyright was ever a bit of a myth. Copyright is vested in the intellectual property, not the bit of film, tape, paper, canvas or marble. To imply otherwise would suggest that if the photographer were to lose his negative or transparency, open season would then be declared on his work? Interesting: burn down his studio and win his rights - better ploy even than the Leibovitz Loan route to ownership! Copyright was sometimes vested with the client and sometimes not - it was ever negotiable.
Later changes with the Copyright Act in the UK made some alterations, but the hard reality is as cloudy as ever it was and its value, today, has shifted to different parts of the equation and depending on client, you can do well or be screwed. I seldom worked for magazines because I expected to make money on every shoot. In fact, the mag work that came my way did so because I was already known to some people for my work in advertising, not the other way around as many photographers dream it will be. In fact, the blanket copyright demands some current magazines make are even more bad news for the photographer than they used to be and a greater disincentive to seeking work with them. But then, photographers seem to be in ever more desperate times and their bargaining position becoming weaker and weaker.
But the points made about the difficulties regarding staying with film are all too true, as is the fact that price has rocketed upwards for both film and E6 - where available.
Of greater importance, at the moment, is the threat of a blocked kitchen drain that I am trying to cure by pouring chemical answers down its throat, without much sign of success, I have to say. Some drains are just too dumb to understand what you are trying to do for them.
Rob C
-
This thread is probably redundant, but I really would like to know. $10K-$48K on a MFDB is a heck of a lot of film.
what about comfort?
-
For me (still life photographer) the advantages of digital are too numerous:
-Cost. Digital is cheap if you shoot a lot. I used to spend thousands on Polaroids and 4x5 film, processing, bikes and wasted time waiting.
-Ability to quickly experiment with light, with angles, color etc.
-Ability to combine a series of shots into one.
-Sharper and cleaner results.
-Instant approval of the shots by the client
-Creativity. You push yourself to go against the grain, and you discover things in the process. Because experimenting is free, you are inclined to experiment more.
-Ability to teach my assistant and let her learn from mistakes at no cost (other than time). A good assistant makes you money.
-Flexibility in the process. You can alter the mood of a picture easily, and have various versions from the same raw image.
And zillions more advantages.
Obvious disadvantages:
-Devaluation of the craft of Photography. Now anybody can call themselves a photographer, produce crap and because this happens 'en masse', on a big scale, the whole profession is degraded. Professional fees have come down.
-Clients can become a pain in the butt because they can have so many choices that they often waste your time with demands of the "shall we try this?" kind.
-Clients have become very demanding as to quality, they expect the earth because they know it can be done. This takes time, and time is money. Money that they are not willing to pay.
-Computer time. I spend the majority of my working life sitting in front of a computer. This is unhealthy and sad. I love what you can do with computers, but I hate the fact that my life is more sedentary. We have become slaves to the computer, addicts.
-Other than this, I don't see any major disadvantages that affect me. Probably because I'm not looking.
On balance, I have to ask myself an important question: Am I happier now with digital than I was with film?
Well, I have made considerably more money thanks to digital and I have explored my creativity more with digital...So I have more money and I am more creative, but I have lost a lot of my freedom, I have more responsibilities and little free time. I used to have time to read, to go to the cinema, to go for walks, go on holidays........I could easily cut down now and have fewer clients and more time, but when you are in this business, you mind tends to think you can do more and you can achieve more, have more clients, do better photography, make more money, more connections, more, more, more. And maybe I enjoy the challenge too much.
It's very difficult to pause and think of your own well-being.
Edward
-
I said that many time before on different websites, i use digital and now i am going to enter film, even it is so late but i like to try and test film joy, so that i will read more about film photography and i will do something when i can.
I will not use film for about 70-90% of what i shoot, but i will be happy that i have film camera when i want to shoot with film that's all.
-
I agree with everything that Edward said but would add that a certain point arrived when most clients were suddenly unwilling to pay for film or scans, so it became impractical for photographers to shoot film if they would have to absorb all the material costs personally.
In my own case, I used to work in Milan where it was pretty standard for photographers to have film and processing billed directly to the client along with any costs for models, studio and makeup etc. This cut out the chance of additional profits for the photographer, however it did at least protect your cash flow while waiting several months to be paid yourself. Payment can be very slow arriving with some countries.
When I moved over to the UK I was shocked to see that lab charges were often 3-4 times more than they were in Italy but photographers were expected to absorb all the costs of film, processing and scanning before preparing a global invoice that covered everything. This made me anxious about the idea of working for clients that might suddenly decide to close their doors one day leaving me with huge bills to pay for their jobs. The case for a move to digital suddenly became quite compelling on a pure business level.
-
...So I have more money and I am more creative, but I have lost a lot of my freedom, I have more responsibilities and little free time. I used to have time to read, to go to the cinema, to go for walks, go on holidays........
sounds like your move to digital was quite costly ...
-
sounds like your move to digital was quite costly ...
Plenty of people with similar stories. I believe it's called evolution. Besides, I'm not complaining, you can't have it all. And I count myself lucky to have lived right in the middle of this digital revolution, but have also experienced and earned my living with what we used to have before. I've adapted very well.
-
D Y N A M I C -- R A N G E
-
I'm one of those that has gone full-circle. Edward brought up many points which are good, but for myself, the idea of slaving away for hours at a computer is just too much, considering that the output is close to each other if you know what you are doing. But I also don't shoot on a professional scale, either, so there's that factor as well.
I loved digital for a while but since I find myself shooting a lot of black and white as well as high DR shots, film still works best for me. My only gripe is that, yes, prices for it have gone up a lot.
-
Couldn't agree more with everything that E_Edward said!
The irony now too is that with the transition of nearly all the printing processes to digital, film must be digitised (scanned) anyway. The amount of time spent cleaning up film scans as opposed to cleaning up a file captured digitally, is exponentially greater - particularly with large pieces of film and large prints.
I am about to get rid of my 8" x 10" for just that reason...
Cheers
Murray
-
no more pro lab in my area
i hate scanners, and cleaning scans
but i still think that they are just two differents medium... how can you shoot in the middle of nowhere for one month and plenty of rain or dust with digital ?
in the studio, digital is the way to go, but outside... it depends !
-
Scanning (really hate it) and film cost.
Digital is time consuming though!
-
White balance, large tolerance in dark and lighted areas.
PdF
-
Moving out of a toxic and polluting dark room environment and away from the expense of colour chemistry was my number one issue closely followed by the WOW factor of relatively instant confirmation of exposure/focus/ etc.. In output terms, power and flexibility of digital darkroom combined with the far superior printing capability of modern ink technology in colour for large format prints which actually hang on walls and galleries - digital is a no brainer.
Nostalgia sees the occassional roll of TRX or TMAX run through for full format 6X6 shooting or street with Leicas - weird how even scanned neg look cant be replicated in B&W conversions ( really) - however hassle of self developing sees me with about 100 rolls of emulsion still waiting to be souped up - pretty much all summarised as digital winning by way of convenience.
Not a believer in the art of photography being lost because of digital arguments - however dissapointed with current technology as far as ease of use in technical camera - for still life and architecture - the ( relative) tiny size of capture medium makes the use of tilt and shift extremely finicky and cluncky compared to film - however offsetting this is the demise of readily available 'clean' pro labs for large format emulsions.
Number one criticism of film for me is the loss of high quality high silver content paper ( bye bye true rich velevety fat blacks and subtle highlights) - inks are better now.
Number one bug re digital capture is cost of staying on top of digital asset management requirements for storage and clunky first party RAW development software.
-
how can you shoot in the middle of nowhere for one month and plenty of rain or dust with digital ?
Prefer Digital here over large format film any day...
-
I started shooting professionally in 1990. I switched to small format digital in 2002. I don't think I shot a single roll since the day I picked up that camera. The freedom to shoot as much as I wanted while seeing what I was getting in real time changed my career. That and the ability to pick an image and immediately manipulate it in the darkroom (computer). No developing time. No looking at trannies, contacts or negs. No waiting to scan (minutes) or for my B&W printer to work his magic (days).
Just yesterday, I worked on a personal project documenting life in a nearby beach town. I sat on the boardwalk shooting image after image of people cruising by. After each series of images, I checked what I was getting for content, composition, focus and exposure. I tweaked my approach to get different stuff. I shot the equivalent of 15 rolls of 35mm. Later, as I sat watching a movie, I picked out my favorites and worked them in Photoshop.
Here's an image from my project. I just couldn't see getting stuff like this with film. The feedback I get as I'm shooting and the ability to shoot excessively is integral to getting what I want.
(http://mirelesblog.com/photos/4july09blog/mireles-july4-09c.jpg)
There's just a freedom to working with digital that doesn't exist with film.
John
-
hi,
I didn't read every post in this topic, but just wanted to ad one more point:
in terms of money i spent more every month for film, labs and scanning only for personal work, than i pay to the lease company for my back now (not to mention assignements, where i charge for the back). and everything else, what followed for computers, harddrives, monitors, calibration would have been necessary for shooting film anyway.
emotionally i still have some moments like this isn't a "real picture", but my RZ has never ever seen a roll of film, since i switched to the back.
cheers,
marcel
-
Try shooting tethered with film
this made me lol
-
I'm really really glad this thread is reading out as well as it is. Thank you to everyone.
from me, since my dad made fun of me for wasting film shooting rolls of blurry chickens when I was like 7, I waited a decade and a half to shoot more when I got a digital camera.
for my professional work, I shoot 35mm nikon digital.
for my private work, I shoot MF film.
I spend WAY more time in front of the computer with 340MB scans of film, but when the aliens send a EMP pulse down on the earth destroying all magnetic media and we are tossed into a race for our lives in a struggle to keep humanity alive as we are systematically enslaved and/or exterminated by our alien overlords, I will still be able to show off my MF slides and film to survivors before going off to kill the head alien (play by john travolta).
-
Hi,
Some factors:
1) Health, I had problems with the chemicals
2) Inkjet printing, I could achieve better results than using Cibachrome
3) Good enough, digiatl was good enough for what I was doing
4) No grain and little noise
First I moved to scanning slide film and after that to digital imaging.
But, I'm a geek and engineer, not an artist, even if I have pride in my pictures.
Best regards
Erik
I'm really really glad this thread is reading out as well as it is. Thank you to everyone.
from me, since my dad made fun of me for wasting film shooting rolls of blurry chickens when I was like 7, I waited a decade and a half to shoot more when I got a digital camera.
for my professional work, I shoot 35mm nikon digital.
for my private work, I shoot MF film.
I spend WAY more time in front of the computer with 340MB scans of film, but when the aliens send a EMP pulse down on the earth destroying all magnetic media and we are tossed into a race for our lives in a struggle to keep humanity alive as we are systematically enslaved and/or exterminated by our alien overlords, I will still be able to show off my MF slides and film to survivors before going off to kill the head alien (play by john travolta).
-
The number one factor was the theft of all my film gear.
-
I shoot both. I like film better. Commercial is 90% digital, most of that being Canon or Red. Anything personal or for editorial portraits I shoot film, mainly in a Mam 7, RZ or Leica.
Its easy to stay with film in NYC. Good labs abound, film is cheap.
I did switch almost exclusively to scanning and inkjet printing. I have a Nikon 9000 and an old Epson 2400 for proofs and small prints, but anything important goes to Lamount where Allison gets the best out of the big HP's.
What I object to about digital is that it takes too much work to get it looking like negative film.
-
I only shoot digital when:
- I require a portable camera setup.
- The client doesn't need, care or is willing to pay for film and scanning. Even then I try to smuggle a little roll of 120 or 4x5 sheet into the mix.
- Due dates are ... well ... instant.
For everything else, I stick with film, mostly because:
- I like it
- It's the cheapest route to extensive perspective correction, with 6x9 and 4x5.
- It's the cheapest route to using my Hasselblad glass.
- I like it
- It takes days to get it back from the lab; there's no instant gratification.
- Film has character and grain
- Film stands out in a sea of digital pictures, and a film camera always brings up a good conversation
- Negative film has a highlight range that takes a beating, and I'm severely imprudent with exposure
- It heals the soul
- I like it
-
Started my career hand processing and hand printing B&W film as a newspaper photographer.
Continued my career with an RZ shooting E-6 and biting my nails to stubs waiting for the E-6 run to come back, hoping that those fuzzy polaroids had been somewhere in the neighborhood of vaguely accurate.
Dipped a toe in the water of digital when the Canon D-60 came out.
Quickly abandoned film.
Now my nail biting is purely recreational.
@ Juanito: Sweet shot from the beach there. Share some more.
-
The number one factor was the theft of all my film gear.
I just had my first lens stolen... at a show that I was shooting... in a church.
$350 was a very cheap leason.
-
A good thread - agree with all E Edwards said. There is something in the change of life that comes with the transition from analog to digital, and he has started to call that out more clearly.
There is no doubt that even for the private work, digital control is good fun - allowing more experimentation, instantaneous results, correction on the fly, and risk taking in light conditions or in composition we'd never take with film. And probably tech'l levels have been raised as well.
Last week I went back to find some shots I took in 1999 and earlier in film. It took me 5 minutes to find the contact sheet, one minute to find the film. The scan on the Epson 700 was mostly good enough, up to a reasonable size; with an Imacon available to me for larger scans. The ability to find the "source file" quickly, without hassle, has a remarkable appeal.
I don't care for the lab scene, and the quality of work has gone down as well. While reasonably convenient in the big city, its still a hassle. But as time goes on (we get older) I'm more interested in less overhead, not more. The ability to have a wonderful source file independent of the machinations of the digital industry, available for instant retireval, and for gentle thoughtful perusal (looking through 120 proof sheets is a great joy) has more appeal than ever.
The costs of improving MF quality digitally are hard to justify for the non-pro. Always tempting, always convenient. Can we do both? Now, that's confusion.
-
Last week I went back to find some shots I took in 1999 and earlier in film. It took me 5 minutes to find the contact sheet, one minute to find the film. The scan on the Epson 700 was mostly good enough, up to a reasonable size; with an Imacon available to me for larger scans. The ability to find the "source file" quickly, without hassle, has a remarkable appeal.
Since I adopted a proper approach to digital asset management I can now find any image in a matter of seconds, however, it did take me about 3 weeks of initial work to catalogue ten years of earlier production this way and each job requires a little time to ensure that the system is maintained. I agree though that labs are not as good as they should be in most cases and this was a strong incentive for me to make the switch to digital.
Edit: I do get fed up with having to buy multiple hard drives to back up everything.
-
greater colour accuracy and less steps from capture to print
-
greater colour accuracy and less steps from capture to print
Absolutely, and not only did transparency film give you something at which to aim, it gave you something that subsequent steps/people down the line could always refer to in times of uncertainty. Of course all films gave different interpretations, but at least they were only film-subjective, not open to operator memory, whim or convenience. And what a marvelous stick with which to beat the printers!
As an earlier poster commented: how nice to be able to find stuff quickly without having to spend yet more hours on the DVT seat. And how damn nice trannies look on the lightbox! A treat in themselves.
But as ever, nothing exists in a vacuum and where the labs stop working...
Rob C
-
This thread is probably redundant, but I really would like to know. $10K-$48K on a MFDB is a heck of a lot of film.
I think if I sent my clients a batch of mounted Velvia or Ektacrome most would not know what it is or what to do with it. Life in general was easier with film, drinking coffee with other photographers at the Lab waiting for the film to appear. Now I spend days sitting at the computer making tiffs appear and everyone wants a low res to look at asap.
I changed because the local labs would not change with the times, the services they offered were all based on film and print as the end product. If they had provided a cost effective scanning service I would of stuck with film much longer. But they didn't so I bought a digital and shut the door on the way out.
Kevin.
-
A good thread - agree with all E Edwards said. There is something in the change of life that comes with the transition from analog to digital, and he has started to call that out more clearly.
There is no doubt that even for the private work, digital control is good fun - allowing more experimentation, instantaneous results, correction on the fly, and risk taking in light conditions or in composition we'd never take with film. And probably tech'l levels have been raised as well.
Last week I went back to find some shots I took in 1999 and earlier in film. It took me 5 minutes to find the contact sheet, one minute to find the film. The scan on the Epson 700 was mostly good enough, up to a reasonable size; with an Imacon available to me for larger scans. The ability to find the "source file" quickly, without hassle, has a remarkable appeal.
I don't care for the lab scene, and the quality of work has gone down as well. While reasonably convenient in the big city, its still a hassle. But as time goes on (we get older) I'm more interested in less overhead, not more. The ability to have a wonderful source file independent of the machinations of the digital industry, available for instant retireval, and for gentle thoughtful perusal (looking through 120 proof sheets is a great joy) has more appeal than ever.
The costs of improving MF quality digitally are hard to justify for the non-pro. Always tempting, always convenient. Can we do both? Now, that's confusion.
I have to find old stuff everyday and it's much easier with digital than film. That's what keywords are for.
Kevin.
-
I have to find old stuff everyday and it's much easier with digital than film. That's what keywords are for.
Kevin.
And I bet you are young enough to be able to remember your PIN number too!
Rob C
-
I have to find old stuff everyday and it's much easier with digital than film. That's what keywords are for.
Kevin.
Depending on how you file. Of course, almost all the work I do now is digital too. Having dropped off three rolls of film for dev/proof for $75, it does give one pause. While surely there are cheaper film houses, most involve mailing negs, something that's a bit nervewracking.
Thus, digital, and upfront costs instead. Oh well.
Geoff
-
Of greater importance, at the moment, is the threat of a blocked kitchen drain that I am trying to cure by pouring chemical answers down its throat, without much sign of success, I have to say. Some drains are just too dumb to understand what you are trying to do for them.
I am glad somebody was in the end brave enough to state that clearly.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am glad somebody was in the end brave enough to state that clearly.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, it gets even worse: the plumbers came yesterday morning (two of them), took the sink apart and poured something very strong down the neck of the drain. It was 98% sulphuric acid and gurgled in a very exciting manner as it slipped down the throat of the tube. I don't know what the additional 2% consisted of - maybe magic ingredient - it wasn't written on the empty bottle they left me, along with the advice that the product was unavailable to the general public.... just in case I took matters into my own hands, I expect.
However, they put the various pipe connections back together again, filled both tubs with water, did some basic pumping with the plunger and created not a lot of difference to the emptying rate at all. They took it all apart once more, the plumber's mobile rang, he had a conversation in Mallorquin and then they reassembled everything and left, saying that I should try it for a couple of days and after that, should it not work, to get in touch again and they would try something else.
Which means that tomorrow, when I ring them again, it will be too late for this week and I shall be expected to wait until Monday at the earliest. That's the trick in Spain: start any number of jobs and then dump the client once you have started, because by then he has little option but to wait until you have time to return or, alternatively, hire another plumber/electrician/builder and face TWO sets of delays, invoices or the courts. Or worse.
The government in Britain is trying to create further education for everyone; 50% university rate, at least. But, try and get a trained tradesman there - just as difficult as it is here, except that in Spain the problem arises because legislation has made it next to impossible to fire unwanted or unrequired labour. The result is that employers do not employ above a bare minimum of staff - never quite enough so the chain of too much work for too few people continues ad infinitum. Socialism - its own worst enemy.
Funny how a working sink is more valuable than any quantity of politicians.
EDIT: à propos of the hiring or otherwise of staff: unemployment on the island is over 60%; yes, you read that correctly. Yet one can't get jobs finished because not enough people are employed to do them because of the risk in taking them, the people, on.
Rob C
-
The government in Britain is trying to create further education for everyone; 50% university rate, at least. But, try and get a trained tradesman there - just as difficult as it is here, except that in Spain the problem arises because legislation has made it next to impossible to fire unwanted or unrequired labour. The result is that employers do not employ above a bare minimum of staff - never quite enough so the chain of too much work for too few people continues ad infinitum. Socialism - its own worst enemy.
The notion of quality of service still hasn't sunk in it would seem...
Come to Japan Rob... people work hard and things just... work... sinks don't get stuck in the first place. I have never had to deal with a... what was the word again... plumber once in 12 years... don't think they exist here!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This thread is probably redundant, but I really would like to know. $10K-$48K on a MFDB is a heck of a lot of film.
As somebody doing landsacpe away from the roads:
- autonomy,
- image quality per gram of equipment,
- the value of a digital workflow and the ineficiency of scanning (both time and qualitywise),
- the end of innovation in non digital bodies,
- the desire not to be mocked by my future children as somebody "still shooting film".
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Absolutely, and not only did transparency film give you something at which to aim, it gave you something that subsequent steps/people down the line could always refer to in times of uncertainty. Of course all films gave different interpretations, but at least they were only film-subjective, not open to operator memory, whim or convenience. And what a marvelous stick with which to beat the printers!
As an earlier poster commented: how nice to be able to find stuff quickly without having to spend yet more hours on the DVT seat. And how damn nice trannies look on the lightbox! A treat in themselves.
But as ever, nothing exists in a vacuum and where the labs stop working...
Rob C
And now we can use a colour managed print as that reference and still get greater quality than we were ever able to get with film. Remember the days of the big blue lightbox( AKA window) that our clients used to assess transparencies and complain when nothing matched
-
Remember the days of the big blue lightbox( AKA window) that our clients used to assess transparencies and complain when nothing matched
Frankly, no!
The big lightbox they used in Glasgow was a pretty well calibrated perfect mid-grey all year round, tending to some darker drift in autumn/winter, but you could allow for that. Perfect match to all my black and whites.
Rob C
-
Of greater importance, at the moment, is the threat of a blocked kitchen drain...
Rob C
This is, of course, very much on topic, as, if you had had a wet dark room in your kitchen, and you were regularly pouring nasty chemicals down that sink, you would never have had the problem in the first place!
-
This is, of course, very much on topic, as, if you had had a wet dark room in your kitchen, and you were regularly pouring nasty chemicals down that sink, you would never have had the problem in the first place!
This is very sound advice, but it comes too late. However, there is alway the next time after the demise of the digital revolution, when film will be king again and the silver mines will flourish and the horses' hooves will be melted for gel---------
Ooops! Quite forgetting myself for a moment in this sweet reverie of new life for the F3!
Rob C
-
If I ever had to use film again, I would fine a new career.
Try traveling through customs every few weeks with cases of roll film, polaroid, sheet film, etc etc etc..... so glad that's over forever!
-
Yesterday, I shot at three separate locations as part of a three day ad shoot. Two of the shots were of a guy on a Harley. I brought in eight strobes to light the subject, the bike, and the location. I did the shots in about two hours which was whippet fast for the complexity of the lighting. Getting that instant feedback on the positioning of my lights really allowed me to tweak everything to perfection.
To have done that shot on film would have taken all day. I would have shot about 50 Polaroids - just the time spent waiting for all of them to develop would have been about two hours. Then there's the hassle and expense. In the film days, I would have just kept the lighting simple. Probably a big light for the subject and one or two fill lights.
That's not to mention the "plates" that I shot at different exposures with no subject and no lighting so that I could composite them in after the fact.
Basically, my work now is so much more rich and complex than before. A similar image on film would just look uninteresting by comparison. It's not that film couldn't technically stand up; it's that the process of digital allows for greater complexity in far less time than what's achievable with film.
John
-
"What I object to about digital is that it takes too much work to get it looking like negative film"
That is why I shoot film when I'm not working. I love the film characteristics, and being able to get a fantastic look without even starting PS.
And it is something wonderful and special with waiting for them vacation rolls to come back.
I could never use film for work purposes though, I think you guys have covered the reasons quite well.
-
For me it was 1) cost and 2) immediacy.
As a one man band whose business is selling sets of photos to multiple customers, I had to cover all the costs myself and had to get them all scanned. This was ruinously expensive. One shooting trip to L.A. and my film and scanning costs came to more than twice the cost of the D30 digital SLR I bought right after the trip. I wished I'd bought it earlier. At 3.1 megapixels it was not up to the quality of 35mm, obviously, but was OK for the image sizes then expected by customers who viewed the images on the web.
There were few things as horrible as seeing a roll come back from the labs all messed up because of some technical issue. I recall a failing camera whose shutter mechanism was on the way out ruin a whole day's photos with a sticking
or randomly firing second shutter curtain cutting shots in half. Even untethered on a dim screen, with digital you can check the shots for gross errors like that.
I've only shot film once or twice since then, both times for purely fun non-commercial projects, and then cursed because I realised that everything I might have wanted to do with the images involves them being digital, so I'd have had to pay get them scanned and I never did. so there's also the immediacy of having them in digital form ready to be used.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
The Market, My Clients,The competition, and lower cost!!!
Snook
-
Personally, I got tired of dealing with dust and scratches on the negatives/transparencies. Digital (if the sensor is clean) is a much clearer image to work with.
-
Hi,
As advanced amateur with passion for landscape photography and personal portraits, I still shoot film - at same time also digital. Why? They are two different medias. Digital does not replace film. They render different and thus serve different applications (or preferences?).
Film (to me slides) - Pleasingly enhances reality at capture, in particular for landscapes. Fuji Velvia 50 equals magic.
Digital - Enables adjustment in many and select ways to colors, contrast, light and dark and to parts of image etc, but... not by a simple programmed rendering to result entire image being pleasing as does film.
My experience - With an eye for a high quality in rendering of image: As an advanced amateur digital is far more expensive and requires far more time to get to pleasing - Not to mention the gigantic learning curve. One must retroactively ask why? I am now also the lab, while film was simply snap and it was more or less done!
Above said;-
For portrait - I prefer digital (my Leaf Aptus 65), because can in much detail adjust capture to what looks best and convincing to eye and to what becomes a pleasing image. Occasionally I use Provia 100 slides.
For landscapes - Landscapes are much more complex world to adjust than portraits. Our eyes wander across an image in search of light, colors and details, while for portraits they simply wander for the eyes of subject and the light and dark of portrait being simple contrast ends to bring 3d and rendering to the image. For landscapes, nothing seems to beat Velvia 50 slides, and the larger format the better. It is simply a difficult act to adjust digital images to the same pleasing and naturally convincing enhancement in rendering as film does. With simplicity film looks right film for landscapes. Sure, it is simple to make some adjustments to a digital raw file, but... BUT, kid you not at getting it truly pleasing to a sensitive eye... because for most of time such adjustments look rather pale or not as convincing compared to how films such as Velvia 50 render the same. For those of you who disagree on that, please show me one single landscape photographer that produce digital images of same level of artistic and quality in rendering as the very best of best landscape images using 4x5s, e.g. by Jack Dykinga and similar level of images. Is there a single book produced with such level of quality digital images? Very serious, I would be pleased to find one and to learn from it. However, do think careful prior to reply on this, it is not about the gear; it is about the rendering. Lets note that in particular at the golden hours and when rendering of beautiful light as part of the image is indeed very challenging to digital. Even with the large DR of MFDB the capture remains linear and it is difficult to adjust it to the brilliance of Velvia 50... which... was captured simply with a single click.
For snaps - Digital is great (Leica M8).
In regards to digital adjustments, here is an article for thoughts.... http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/20...tography-1.html (http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200909/digital-photography-1.html). What do we see nowadays? Many images are over adjusted (PS) for simple attention of observers... is that quality? Perhaps for sales of products, or... Perhaps Ansel was right in f/64 and in opposing too much adjustments???
What honest got me into digital in first place was that the nearest slide film processing lab where I lived the other year was an hour away and put fine scratches across all frames of three of my rolls of slides. I thought digital excelled. Well... at least the forums raved of that... of the crappy D200 etc. Digital still does not excel. Film and digital is simply different. Nope, in no way did anything influence me "away" from film. Now I am stuck with both. Sure, I also use digital for landscapes (Aptus), but I am not yet fully convinced of it there yet. However, had I been smarter - for simplicity and low cost - I would have stuck with film. Film is also lighter gear... or... if not need pixels or brilliance of landscapes and in large prints, perhaps just get an M9 and never look back or read these forums... It does appear these forums are about the gear. Did we forget the image? Did we forget to really make photos, such as with film?
Regards
Anders
-
Film (digital output) is highly preferred. But I'm not a heavy user - 250-350 rolls/yr.
Long exposures (5/10/15 minutes) - yea, an upper end MFDB back (many, many $s) MAY exhibit less noise but it can't beat the cost of a noiseless piece of silver on acetate.
Dynamic range - yea HDR, but it looks like HDR and if I'm going to lug around a tripod then lug around film for the day.
Color fringing (cringing)
The additional hours of post-editing files that I probably should have never made, but did, as they were "cheap, available, and why not?"
The attendant on-site redundant backups, recharging, weight/bulk, etc
Extreme obsolescence/depreciation
Storage/filing - TBs of redundant HD/DVD/off site storage
Reliability in climate extremes
The tonal palette of film
I know and like film - however the costs, availability and quality processing is a serious concern.