Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: DanielStone on November 17, 2009, 08:49:39 pm
-
just a topic I thought of recently...
If for some reason, all digital cameras, including scan backs, point and shoots, dslr's, m/f backs, etc were to die and not turn on with no chance of repair, and new stock didn't work either,
would you continue with photography, but ONLY with film?
would YOU???
I'm not looking to argue here,
just interested in finding out if the gear actually drives people to take photographs, or the pure love of photography would cause you to turn back to the 'old medium'.
-Dan
-
I spent 12 years shooting interiors on EPN. Man I hate that film! Then again, I have a Howtek 4500 in the basement and every once in a while I fancy buying a Canham 4 x 10! Actually, I do have a 4x5 conversion kit for the Arca. Hmm....
-
I love photography and learned off of a Toyo View 4x5 camera using TXP 320 and Velvia 50, so if a solar flair or something came along and destroyed everything digital, I would go back to film.
-
If for some reason, all digital cameras, including scan backs, point and shoots, dslr's, m/f backs, etc were to die and not turn on with no chance of repair, and new stock didn't work either,
would you continue with photography, but ONLY with film?
Yes. I still have my Leicaflex SL and Nikon F2 bodies, and lenses for them. I'd dust them off & keep working, and look for a Contax 645 & Zeiss 350mm Tele-Apotessar.
-
just a topic I thought of recently...
If for some reason, all digital cameras, including scan backs, point and shoots, dslr's, m/f backs, etc were to die and not turn on with no chance of repair, and new stock didn't work either,
would you continue with photography, but ONLY with film?
In your scenario, I would hope that we'd have the rich selection of films, papers, and developers we had 20 years ago and not today's meager offerings. I believe I would go back to film, even though ot was weariness with darkroom work that drove me away from it.
-
Doesn't Tri-X have the most amazing grain?! So organic! Comparing Tri-X to T-Max is like a really good turntable against a cd player....
(http://christopherbarrett.net/personal/street_work_01/gallery/album/large/Street_Book01_015.jpg)
Tri-X 135 in a Leica CL with 35mm lens. Scanned on the Howtek.
-
I would pick up my film leicas and my 6x17 and only shoot B&W from then on - tri-x 400 or bust.
It would be a sad day for me as I enjoy my digital workflow so much.
Robb
-
Perhaps more realistic to turn that question around ...
-
Doesn't Tri-X have the most amazing grain?! So organic! Comparing Tri-X to T-Max is like a really good turntable against a cd player....
(http://christopherbarrett.net/personal/street_work_01/gallery/album/large/Street_Book01_015.jpg)
Tri-X 135 in a Leica CL with 35mm lens. Scanned on the Howtek.
Tri-X is such an amazing film, the grain is great, and it can be shot so many different ways. When shooting for silver prints I shot it at 50 ISO and pulled the processing by 20% in Microdal. When shooting for Platinum, I would rate it at 250 and push process it 10% in HC-110. And that is just me, it seemed every photographer I met had a different way using it and they all worked (as long as the photographer was good). I have been considering for a while shooting with the 4x5, developing the film in my Bathroom and making an under the bad UV lamp for platinum prints, just need to get the money for the platinum now.
Ahh, is it not so great to work in B/W and not have to worry about things like color temp, color fringe, color hue, color cast...
-
I spent 12 years shooting interiors on EPN. Man I hate that film! Then again, I have a Howtek 4500 in the basement and every once in a while I fancy buying a Canham 4 x 10! Actually, I do have a 4x5 conversion kit for the Arca. Hmm....
Chris,
did you ever try the Fuji Provia? I really like that film.... albeit, the small amount of EPN I've shot since it was discontinued was quite nice. I have a stash of 4x5 EPR (ektachrome 64) sitting in the fridge, so I need to shoot it up sometime soon. probably has a color cast though.
to all others....
I posted this topic just as a gig to see if anyone, and if anyone, how many would continue with their work.
I forgot to add though: YOU CAN HAVE A DIGITAL WORKFLOW, JUST NO DIGITAL CAMERAS[/u] film scanners and computers are ok, but a completely analog capture medium is what I meant as a starting point. Grain, not pixels and 16bit,8bit, etc....)[/b]
so Chris, you can keep using that Howtek .
-Dan
-
Duhh... of course
I love photography ... not the gizmo that makes the picture.
-
I shoot film all the time both 35mm and 645. Typically on assignments I will shot digital with one camera and switch back and forth with a film camera, more often than not with my Mamiya 645 AFDII. In the last year or so I even shot an assignment with my Contax G1 loaded with Tri-X. It is not a matter of film or digital for me, it is a different look and feel.
-
just interested in finding out if the gear actually drives people to take photographs, or the pure love of photography would cause you to turn back to the 'old medium'.
What would hurt me most would the disapearance of the digital workflow.
If I can scan film and keep enough control on the whole chain, then film would not be a major problem for me.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I am new to photography and i am late in film world, i just spent on many digital cameras from point and shoot to a medium format all completely digital, just about 2 months ago i went out and bought 2 film cameras [medium format], why i do that? because i love photography and i know many many of you grew up with film before using digital and how i always hear about how great film photography is even now digital didn't reach some areas in film, so that i decided that i will try to use film and see what i can do in that world, i bought many different film [120] color and B&W to use with those film camera, i am thinking even to buy a reasonable scanner to do my own workflow as many labs here don't develop film anymore.
So as the time all or many people going to digital side i go the opposite side, not saying i will not use digital, and even if i will digitalize those film again it doesn't mean i should never try or use film, at least i want to be a true photographer if i will use a film, i know i will get nothing to use any camera digital or film but i spent and do all that just to have fun and at least to get respect from other photographers towards me i wish.
-
Also as long it is about film here, can some people recommend me about film to use with those cameras?
For now i have the following to try sooner or later i hope:
Fuji Velvia 50 & 100
Fuji Neaopan 100
Fuji Pro 160S [220 only]
Kodak T-max 320
Kodak T-max 100
Ilford Delta 3200
Ilford PANF Plus 50
Kodak Porta 160 and 400 NC
Kodak Ektar 100
Rollei Retro 100
Anything else i should look at or any recommendations?
-
"Anything else i should look at or any recommendations?"
I think Kodak's E100VS slide film is very nice, I think I prefer it to Fuji's Velvia 50. On a technical note, the E100VS reciprocity failure sets in after 10 seconds, which is a little bit better than Velvia 50.
And if you can still find it in your area, there is also Scala B&W Transparency film.
-
"Anything else i should look at or any recommendations?"
I think Kodak's E100VS slide film is very nice, I think I prefer it to Fuji's Velvia 50. On a technical note, the E100VS reciprocity failure sets in after 10 seconds, which is a little bit better than Velvia 50.
And if you can still find it in your area, there is also Scala B&W Transparency film.
Ah cool, i will look at those films, thank you very much!
-
Hello all i think i would be wonderful , the number of aspiring photographers would drop
dramatically , business would pick up.
Just imagine the questions on all the forums.
Dust off my Sinar 4x5 and carry on as normal , well nearly !
Would hate to be reliant on the labs as before , think i would shoot neg process and scan in house.
Now you have us dreaming of the good old days :-)
Regards
Terence
-
just a topic I thought of recently...
If for some reason, all digital cameras, including scan backs, point and shoots, dslr's, m/f backs, etc were to die and not turn on with no chance of repair, and new stock didn't work either,
would you continue with photography, but ONLY with film?
would YOU???
I'm not looking to argue here,
just interested in finding out if the gear actually drives people to take photographs, or the pure love of photography would cause you to turn back to the 'old medium'.
-Dan
Can you arrange this? My definite answer is YES!!! I'm using film and digital but I prefer film to digital. Digital is the workhorse because it's much faster but if I want do quality or just taking pictures for fun I use film.
Best regards
Istvan
-
just a topic I thought of recently...
If for some reason, all digital cameras, including scan backs, point and shoots, dslr's, m/f backs, etc were to die and not turn on with no chance of repair, and new stock didn't work either,
would you continue with photography, but ONLY with film?
would YOU???
I'm not looking to argue here,
just interested in finding out if the gear actually drives people to take photographs, or the pure love of photography would cause you to turn back to the 'old medium'.
-Dan
great idea.
yes. ofcourse. would try to get back from MFHA my scanmate 5000 and love it ...
-
Digital will die after film dies. The future will not be compatible with the past.
-
Also as long it is about film here, can some people recommend me about film to use with those cameras?
For now i have the following to try sooner or later i hope:
Fuji Velvia 50 & 100
Fuji Neaopan 100
Fuji Pro 160S [220 only]
Kodak T-max 320
Kodak T-max 100
Ilford Delta 3200
Ilford PANF Plus 50
Kodak Porta 160 and 400 NC
Kodak Ektar 100
Rollei Retro 100
Anything else i should look at or any recommendations?
I had a photo teacher who once told that you really do not know your film until you shoot enough to make a stack of film 1 foot think. I like Tri-X as opposed to T-Max, but if you do not like the grain, are not using large format and want great detail, T-Max is the way to go. Tri-X is so versatile though, if you mess up in the exposure and did not realize until you develop, you can still get something out of Tri-X, fat chance doing that with T-Max. Also Velvia 50 was my favorite color film, nice and warm, whereas the Kodak colors are a little cool. Also Fuji is the only company that is committed to continue to make film (I heard that 3 years ago and am sure if that is still true). Aside from the bias on the films I have, you should find a film or two you like and learn that film; don't swap and switch or you will never learn any film well.
-
I had a photo teacher who once told that you really do not know your film until you shoot enough to make a stack of film 1 foot think. I like Tri-X as opposed to T-Max, but if you do not like the grain, are not using large format and want great detail, T-Max is the way to go. Tri-X is so versatile though, if you mess up in the exposure and did not realize until you develop, you can still get something out of Tri-X, fat chance doing that with T-Max. Also Velvia 50 was my favorite color film, nice and warm, whereas the Kodak colors are a little cool. Also Fuji is the only company that is committed to continue to make film (I heard that 3 years ago and am sure if that is still true). Aside from the bias on the films I have, you should find a film or two you like and learn that film; don't swap and switch or you will never learn any film well.
Thank you for that advice!
In all cases i bought all those film from USA because i was there, i can't find them in my country, so i can keep them for about 1-2 years before they expire, and i will shoot taking my time, no rush, also i have experience with exposure outdoors, but in all cases i have a light meter that will help me for sure, so don't worry, and swapping film is not a bad idea, those film were used by many photographers in the past and even present, each has its own effect and look, i like grain, that is way i bought 400 and 3200, i was going to buy ASA 800 but not rush again, i will use medium format for a while now, later i can decide if i want a large format, but now i am worry about how to develop those films after taking shots, labs here are awful and couldn't help much, scanner is an option but i have to decide on one [there are many choices and many recommend something].
I feel from your post that i may get lost with film and go nowhere with those films because i don't have a preference or favorite one? I need to use them first to see which one is my favorite.
-
Thank you for that advice!
In all cases i bought all those film from USA because i was there, i can't find them in my country, so i can keep them for about 1-2 years before they expire, and i will shoot taking my time, no rush, also i have experience with exposure outdoors, but in all cases i have a light meter that will help me for sure, so don't worry, and swapping film is not a bad idea, those film were used by many photographers in the past and even present, each has its own effect and look, i like grain, that is way i bought 400 and 3200, i was going to buy ASA 800 but not rush again, i will use medium format for a while now, later i can decide if i want a large format, but now i am worry about how to develop those films after taking shots, labs here are awful and couldn't help much, scanner is an option but i have to decide on one [there are many choices and many recommend something].
I feel from your post that i may get lost with film and go nowhere with those films because i don't have a preference or favorite one? I need to use them first to see which one is my favorite.
Unless I get accused of 'superiority' attitude probems again - not here but in another thread - here is my advice:
a. if you keep your film in a freezer and buy it fresh from a properly careful dealership, forget about expiry dates - the film will outlive you;
b. do [not] mess about with a hundred different flms; pick on one - I would suggest TXP if 120 format or HP4 or FP4 Plus (if still available) for 135 format. I would process it in D76 diluted 1+1 with water and I would suggest you stay with that single developer until you are more advanced in the game. The last thing you want to do is to increase the variables - it will only confuse;
c. I wouldn't even touch colour film until I thought I was reasonably sure of myself in black and white. Why? Because with b/w it is easy enough to learn from your mistakes, which you will make as do we all, whereas if using colour neg it is difficult to know just how accurate you have been since the negatives require a pretty sophisticated eye to give you good information. Transparency film is rather limited in the range of contrast that it can handle and you could spend a lot of time and money before realising where you have gone wrong. It is one thing to be an expert and be able to read a badly exposed transparency but it can be confusing, if you do not have that experience, to know just why something isn't right - there is a difference between something being badly exposed and something being as well exposed as it can be, but the brightness range simply being too great for the film. In that case you will never get it 'right' without additional lighting or the sacrifice of one end of the scale or the other. Black and white film is limited too, but not nearly as badly.
But mainly, once you select a film, expose a lot of it and keep notes of what you have done!
Rob C
-
Unless I get accused of 'superiority' attitude probems again - not here but in another thread - here is my advice:
a. if you keep your film in a freezer and buy it fresh from a properly careful dealership, forget about expiry dates - the film will outlive you;
b. do [not] mess about with a hundred different flms; pick on one - I would suggest TXP if 120 format or HP4 or FP4 Plus (if still available) for 135 format. I would process it in D76 diluted 1+1 with water and I would suggest you stay with that single developer until you are more advanced in the game. The last thing you want to do is to increase the variables - it will only confuse;
c. I wouldn't even touch colour film until I thought I was reasonably sure of myself in black and white. Why? Because with b/w it is easy enough to learn from your mistakes, which you will make as do we all, whereas if using colour neg it is difficult to know just how accurate you have been since the negatives require a pretty sophisticated eye to give you good information. Transparency film is rather limited in the range of contrast that it can handle and you could spend a lot of time and money before realising where you have gone wrong. It is one thing to be an expert and be able to read a badly exposed transparency but it can be confusing, if you do not have that experience, to know just why something isn't right - there is a difference between something being badly exposed and something being as well exposed as it can be, but the brightness range simply being too great for the film. In that case you will never get it 'right' without additional lighting or the sacrifice of one end of the scale or the other. Black and white film is limited too, but not nearly as badly.
But mainly, once you select a film, expose a lot of it and keep notes of what you have done!
Rob C
Much as I hate to have to agree with a cantankerous old coot with a "superiority" attitude like Rob C, I will have to admit that his advice is absolutely on target on all points. Do what he says!
Eric (another cantankerous old coot with a "superiority" attitude, but much more modest than Rob C)
-
just a topic I thought of recently...
If for some reason, all digital cameras, including scan backs, point and shoots, dslr's, m/f backs, etc were to die and not turn on with no chance of repair, and new stock didn't work either,
would you continue with photography, but ONLY with film?
would YOU???
I'm not looking to argue here,
just interested in finding out if the gear actually drives people to take photographs, or the pure love of photography would cause you to turn back to the 'old medium'.
-Dan
For over 25 years I used film, so it is an old friend. Now, if cars disappeared, would I get horse.
-
I never imagined to hear such a question. Either you're too young or you just enjoy "philosophying".
Eduardo
-
I'd still shoot, but it would do all manner of mischief to my bottom line.
I went digital early, with Canon's first dSLR (D30, which I still have around here somewhere- built like a tank).
I did that after an early shooting trip to Los Angeles where the film/processing/scanning costs were the single largest cost of the trip- more than the flights, hotels, locations and model fees combined, and more than enough that if I'd bought the D30 before rather than after the trip, it would have paid for itself.
I never shot another roll of film for my business. I did shoot some film for a while for fun, principally on my Mamiya 7. But I was not set up to do anything with the shots when I'd taken them- by then everything in my workflow was digital.
If film was the only option, my poor profit margin would not thank me!
So no, mark me down as a digital purist. I certainly do not miss the week's anxious wait for the slides to come back from the lab, to find out if that light that seemed to be misfiring towards the end of the shoot would result in 36 frames of screwup. Nothing beats being able to see the actual captured image just after you've shot it, the immediacy of having the results right there in digital form without scanning, ready to do whatever you need to do to it.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
I would happily go back to film. The market for film would suddenly improve, so in a short while we would have as much variety in film products available as before the Digital age.
And then, some day soon after, somebody would invent a new way to build a digital camera, and the cycle would repeat again.
-
I never imagined to hear such a question. Either you're too young or you just enjoy "philosophying".
Eduardo
Yes, I'm the ripe old age of 21
But its great to see that so many people here are still committed to the "photography" rather than just equipment. Funny though how none of the people who sell digi backs have chimed in yet .
just might tell you something
I started shooting with a small digi cam a few years back, just as a hobby. Was gifted a Pentax K1000 with a 50mm lens, was sitting in a family friends' yard for a few years. Meter still works, no damage whatsoever! But after meeting a good friend of mine, who is 3x my age, he introduced me to a Mamiya RB67. When I looked at my first contact sheet from the roll he and I put through that camera, I was hooked. Within 6 months, the digicam had nothing but dust on it due to no use. And a RB67 was in my hands almost daily. Even when I couldn't afford to put film in the camera, I'd be in the backyard or walking around, just framing photographs, and pretending I was shooting .
Things are better now.... I can afford film, and I'm in school as a photo major. I've since traded the RB for an RZ(can't get the 6x7 out of my mind) and married it with a H2 system(just the 80mm right now, all I can afford).
Running Portra 160/400VC and 800 through them at the rate of 3-5 rolls of 220 a week, sometimes more, sometimes less. Occasionally chrome(well, 10x more chrome now than 6 months ago) for shooting architecture.
Processing it all myself, making my own proofsheets, and scanning. Therefore, I get the most "control" over the process, rather than forking out cash, AND control, to a lab. There are some great labs here in LA, but they're too expensive for my student budget right now.
so: YOUNG: yes, Immature: Don't want to think so , Like philosophizing: Heck no!!!!
-Dan
-
I would happily go back to film. The market for film would suddenly improve, so in a short while we would have as much variety in film products available as before the Digital age.
And then, some day soon after, somebody would invent a new way to build a digital camera, and the cycle would repeat again.
Agree totally
Just wish it would happen to a small degree in real life
-Dan
-
just a topic I thought of recently...
If for some reason, all digital cameras, including scan backs, point and shoots, dslr's, m/f backs, etc were to die and not turn on with no chance of repair, and new stock didn't work either,
would you continue with photography, but ONLY with film?
would YOU???
I'm not looking to argue here,
just interested in finding out if the gear actually drives people to take photographs, or the pure love of photography would cause you to turn back to the 'old medium'.
-Dan
Well hopefully some mobile phones with cameras or some video cameras will still work, so your kids can document the chaos...
-
just a topic I thought of recently...
If for some reason, all digital cameras, including scan backs, point and shoots, dslr's, m/f backs, etc were to die and not turn on with no chance of repair, and new stock didn't work either,
would you continue with photography, but ONLY with film?
would YOU???
I'm not looking to argue here,
just interested in finding out if the gear actually drives people to take photographs, or the pure love of photography would cause you to turn back to the 'old medium'.
-Dan
I still shoot a lot of 35mm film in my Zeiss Ikons. Would I miss the 1Ds3 and digicam - sometimes, but of course I'd keep taking photographs and making pictures. In some ways it would be better - I'd probably make more money at it and wouldn't have to deal with people whjo think a disk full of jogs a photographer makes:)
Rob's advice, and Eric's support, above is spot on. To start out, choose one of Fuji Acros, FP4+, HP5+, Tri X and develop in one developer (I like Xtol, but D76 is fine), take pictures, make some prints and look at them. Don't change anything for a while at least. Starting out you might even try the one camera and one lens approach!!
Can you imagine that in this world of disposable (but very expensive) technology.
Mike
-
My father died 1971, what about if he come back to life,
what can I say? I'm sorry it's been so long.
Or say ya, another GOD he come from the dead
-
Rob's advice, and Eric's support, above is spot on. To start out, choose one of Fuji Acros, FP4+, HP5+, Tri X and develop in one developer (I like Xtol, but D76 is fine), take pictures, make some prints and look at them. Don't change anything for a while at least. Starting out you might even try the one camera and one lens approach!!
Can you imagine that in this world of disposable (but very expensive) technology.
Mike
great to hear mike! I like the Acros in D76 1:1. Develop in in a JOBO, same drums/processor for E6/C41 as well.
I've been using that combo for a while now, and it gives me nice,scannable results, with plenty of shadow and highlight detail.
Looking at investing in LEE filter system sometime soon, espcially in the ND-grads. They're pretty much needed for shooting chromes in bright sunlight IMO. I've borrowed my friends grads b4, and they were a treat to use! Let me shoot in 1pm sun with no problems, just having to over-expose and under develop to get enough detail in the shadows. Using some curves as well to get everything nice in PS.
tried the 1 camera/1 lens approach. Sadly didn't work for me. Would be nice if it did, less kit to carry around .
-Dan
EDIT: Acros for 120, TMAX 100 for 4x5. Sometimes TMAX for 120 when my acros runs out. Go through a good bit of it to be honest!
-
I'm not sure but if Ketchup ceased to exist I'd use Mustard.
-
I'm not sure but if Ketchup ceased to exist I'd use Mustard.
yes... and I do... with Holga... and soon a Diana +... I'm improving my gear to the next level with Portra 400 VC and Tri-X
Getting ready for 2012 12
-
nope ! I shall start drawing again
-
WE will see, just waiting the time to use it for first time, the weather becoming fine these days, and when i will get a budget i will buy a lens for the camera and i will start to shoot.
-
WONDERFUL PHOTOS!
Quote Rob C
In that case you will never get it 'right' without additional lighting or the sacrifice of one end of the scale or the other. Black and white film is limited too, but not nearly as badly.
Rob,
You will get it right (slide film) with gorgeous low light and without the need for additional lighting. Velvia was stunning in low light with careful subject planning in relation to the direction and angle of light and careful choice of backgrounds. With high contrast scenes and lighting that was not in your favour you had to think out of the box to make something out of very little (rim lighting, etc). All of the attached Velvia images were captured during pro golf tournament conditions, my specialist area. Only one image has had curves applied at minus one stop (approx), the other images are as seen on a light table and pre-photoshopped courtesy of Fuji.
I am glad that many famous artists (Rembrant for example) 'painted out' fill light bouncing off nearby surfaces onto their subjects - I am not comparing art with photography re this reference.
Additional lighting is not always necessary. Shadows reveal not hide.
-
I would! Very comfortable on horseback!
I also actually write, and with a pencil
For over 25 years I used film, so it is an old friend. Now, if cars disappeared, would I get horse.
-
I would! Very comfortable on horseback!
I also actually write, and with a pencil
funny thing, I decided to break out my dad's typewriter he got when he graduated from med. school. he hasn't used it in years(like, before I was born was the last time honestly).
just finished writing my report on it the other day. it felt good to do that. you really feel that you're doing something permanent, cause editing causes you to have to re-write the entire page, not just click-edit like in word.
my teach asked me if I did, since the typewriter left indentations where the letterhead struck the paper. he was mystified as to why I did. told him I just felt like it.
sometimes life takes some wackiness and 'backwardness' to make it fun, and livable at times...
I've found that actually WRITING a letter to someone lets you convey more than if you were to type it. more personal, not neat and composed like a word document on a screen. raw, fresh and they see what YOU ACTUALLY WROTE.
-Dan
-
I also actually write, and with a pencil
perhaps when you feel more confident,
you'll switch to ink ... eh
-
my teach asked me if I did, since the typewriter left indentations where the letterhead struck the paper. he was mystified as to why I did. told him I just felt like it.
sometimes life takes some wackiness and 'backwardness' to make it fun, and livable at times...
as an encore ... for your next report, whip out a quill pen,
an inkwell, and some parchment paper ... and fill us in on
the ensuing conversation with the teach.
-
For a personal project I wanted that special fall of of sharpness I remembered. I tried the Canon 85L@1.2, the Canon 50L@1.2 and tilted the TS-E 45 for the effect; I even tried the Hasselblad 100@2.2. The results were good but not honey for the eyes. This year in early summer I bought a box of 8x10 inch BW film and put a Schneider Symmar S 360/5.6 on - wonderful results. Now I use film again if I want that effect. There will never be a 8x10 inch sensor (I think) but there is still 8x10 inch film - and I hope in the future too.
To be clear: sharpness, resolution is not the point, but the way the sharpness fades out is not possible with smaller formats - not even 4x5 inch.
Googling around lead me to the article about Douglas Kirkland (http://www.digitalphotopro.com/profiles/do...-and-back.html (http://www.digitalphotopro.com/profiles/douglas-kirkland-from-8-10-to-digital-and-back.html)) and the Blog of Mark Tucker (http://marktucker.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/deardorff/ (http://marktucker.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/deardorff/)). I learned that I'm not alone.
Best,
Johannes
My experience exactly. I shoot editorials on film almost exclusively. Now that my commercial work is mainly motion I mainly shoot stills adjunct to the motion shoot. I really only need a few hero shots, so generally I can use whatever format I want, so long as the style of the stills complements and supports the style/mood of the film/video/commercial, etc. I find that Portra 800 through the RZ is fantastic for HMI lit sets.
To the OP, please take this as just another opinion, and I mean it with no disrespect: keep your film stuff and shoot it, but make sure its not a fetish, like using the old typewriter. I have an assistant who makes music boxes that play the sadest most discordant maudlin lilluibys I've ever heard, uses a Selectric, and otherwise only shoots cameras made prior to 1985. He's a Romantic who is busy mourning the past, busy fetishizing, like a Wes Anderson charachter. I love the guy, but he is standing in his own way. I don't like the digital much either, I much prefer the final product from LF and 6x7 film, but film is dead commercially, although its alive and well in art and editorial. My advice would be to get a D3x instead of the Leaf Aptus II and rent a back if and when you need it. Meanwhile, shoot your book on film and love the look.
-
Quote Rob C
In that case you will never get it 'right' without additional lighting or the sacrifice of one end of the scale or the other. Black and white film is limited too, but not nearly as badly.
Rob,
You will get it right (slide film) with gorgeous low light and without the need for additional lighting. Velvia was stunning in low light with careful subject planning in relation to the direction and angle of light and careful choice of backgrounds. With high contrast scenes and lighting that was not in your favour you had to think out of the box to make something out of very little (rim lighting, etc). All of the attached Velvia images were captured during pro golf tournament conditions, my specialist area. Only one image has had curves applied at minus one stop (approx), the other images are as seen on a light table and pre-photoshopped courtesy of Fuji.
I
Nick
I have no argument with you: the advice wasn't meant for an experienced pro at all - it was for someone who is starting out with film and has all those tricks yet to learn. Contre-jour etc. isn't quite as easy a falling off a log, and it all has to be learned. Turning the shortcomings of dynamic range into visual fireworks takes skill and understanding of the materials. As you may remember from earlier posts, most of my own later pro work was done on Kodachrome and Velvia too, with the Kodachrome, in retirement, turning out - quite unexpectedly - to be a wonderful source of fresh/old images when converted to b/w!
But I do believe in walking before trying to learn how to run. Simply put, once the poster is confident and competent enough with the materials to be able to get reasonably good results of relatively 'straight' subjects with equally 'straight' technique, then will be the time to experiment.
Rob C
-
thanks everyone for your input. I really appreciate it!
I've been looking more at the D3x, and a friend has one, so I might see if I can borrow it for a while when he's not using it. He likes to use my H2 anyhow, so maybe we could trade for a week so I can get the hang of the D3x.
I don't print big, but having shot 6x7 for a while now, the quality is kind of hard to leave behind. But taking nice large film scans, and down-sizing them to make 11x17 and 13x19 prints makes me wonder as to "How much quality do I need RIGHT NOW"?
the Aptus II 5 is a wonderful tool IMO, but in the end I think that the D3x is the more versatile tool. and in addition to my F100(soon to trade up to an F5), might make a nice addition. lenses can be traded between the two as well. So I can have 2 full-frame bodies in my bag
but yes, renting the back, when I need the UTMOST quality, will most likely be my route. Art Center(where I hope to transfer to soon) supposedly has some digi-backs, not sure of what vintage and make(I think older Imacon Ixpress backs). also, not sure if they can be taken off-campus or not.
blessings to you all!
lets keep this thread going, never know where it might end up
-Dan
-
If for some reason, all digital cameras, including scan backs, point and shoots, dslr's, m/f backs, etc were to die and not turn on with no chance of repair, and new stock didn't work either,
would you continue with photography, but ONLY with film?
Since photography is my profession, not some hobby, would I become a plumber if there was no digital equipment ?
Hardly.
Isn't there a beginner's section for this sort of topic ?
-
Since photography is my profession, not some hobby, would I become a plumber if there was no digital equipment ?
Hardly.
Isn't there a beginner's section for this sort of topic ?
Thanks for the support Tom! Yes, you could call me a 'beginner', I'm a student. I threw this question out here to see what people would say.
everyone's a beginner, even you were. remember that
and I wouldn't consider this a "beginners question", just an honest one, from an inquisitive person(ME).
obviously film isn't for everyone, just as digital isn't for everyone. different strokes for different folks....
I'd be shooting digital primarily if I were in a professional job, if that was the tool that would get me(and my client) what we wanted.
otherwise, please read through the post, there's some interesting replies here.
-Dan
p.s. there's a good amount of money in plumbing too . so if I felt that was where I was being called, I would be as serious about pursuing that as I am about photography.
-
everyone's a beginner, even you were. remember that
and I wouldn't consider this a "beginners question", just an honest one, from an inquisitive person(ME).
Sure I was a beginner once, actually before there was the Internet, and I asked lots of honest and inquisitive questions.
But I never crossed my mind to ask a photographer if he went back to drawing if all film was gone for good .
It'd make myself look really stupid.
otherwise, please read through the post, there's some interesting replies here.
No, there aren't. The whole film vs. digital discussion has been done over and over and over again, with always the same predictable replies.
Just like the 35mm vs. MFDB debate, it's a dead horse beaten to shreds .
I've been more analog than most posters here, processing my films, making prints by myself, only recently sold my lab equipment (thank god...) .
Digital Backs & Large Sensor Photography is the forum title , what's so hard to understand ?
Maybe there should be a forum section labeled 'How film can still be superior, and why MFDB is for pompous posers only ' .
-
Daniel, this is now 3 complete pages of responses. So, you did stirr things quite good. I was watching Tv last night and saw this program about the possible effects of gigantic solar flares that are supossed to happen soon. (coincidentally with Nostradamus and Mayan prophecies).
If these flares can completely wipe out all satellites, certainly they will do harm to digital cameras. So, I'm stocking up film for 2012.
Seriously again, it is possible, don't you think so? There was this new device to scramble digital captures from paparazzi. Did it come to the market or was it banned?
Eduardo
-
Sure I was a beginner once, actually before there was the Internet, and I asked lots of honest and inquisitive questions.
But I never crossed my mind to ask a photographer if he went back to drawing if all film was gone for good .
It'd make myself look really stupid.
No, there aren't. The whole film vs. digital discussion has been done over and over and over again, with always the same predictable replies.
Just like the 35mm vs. MFDB debate, it's a dead horse beaten to shreds .
I've been more analog than most posters here, processing my films, making prints by myself, only recently sold my lab equipment (thank god...) .
Digital Backs & Large Sensor Photography is the forum title , what's so hard to understand ?
Maybe there should be a forum section labeled 'How film can still be superior, and why MFDB is for pompous posers only ' .
Thanks Fritz,
you're totally right.... you really are! I'm not trying to make a comparison between film vs. digital. That horse really has been beaten to death.
But being that most professionals ARE using digital cameras for the majority of their work these days, I thought it plausible to ask HERE, where most of the PRO'S talk about various technologies. In the end, I should have posted this on a different section of the forum, just to make YOU happy. But I didn't think to consult you, and I'm deeply sorry for that.
please remind me if I forget to gain your approval on further postings, I wouldn't want to offend you. that would be the last thing I'd want to do.
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________
Daniel, this is now 3 complete pages of responses. So, you did stirr things quite good. I was watching Tv last night and saw this program about the possible effects of gigantic solar flares that are supossed to happen soon. (coincidentally with Nostradamus and Mayan prophecies).
If these flares can completely wipe out all satellites, certainly they will do harm to digital cameras. So, I'm stocking up film for 2012.
Seriously again, it is possible, don't you think so? There was this new device to scramble digital captures from paparazzi. Did it come to the market or was it banned?
Eduardo
thanks. I've been noticing an upswing in this issue lately. Personally I don't believe in it, but that's another matter. Besides, I wouldn't want to make anyone mad by talking about something other than digi backs and large sensors here.
good to stock up on film though, lets the companies know you use it .
-Dan
Dan
-
I shoot film all the time.
I actually just submitted 3 images to a work photo contest.
all film.
-
I shot film for ten plus years as a pro before finally succumbing to digital. I love the work I'm producing now and the capabilities of the technology. The technology really has opened the doors to the type of work that I'm currently creating. If I had to go back to film, life would be very difficult and my work would suffer.
Case in point, I did a shoot over the weekend where I composited about 15-20 shots to create the look that I wanted. I did the shoot and did the post production all in the same day. Processing and scanning all those images on film would have taken a full day at least. Combine that with the lack of real-time feedback and I doubt I would have had my shot.
So would I continue shooting? Absolutely. Would I be doing work at the same level? I'd still be doing good work, but it would look much different. And this has nothing to do with the look of film verses digital nor the quality of one verses the other. It's more a function of process. Digital has spoiled me in that department.
John
-
But being that most professionals ARE using digital cameras for the majority of their work these days, I thought it plausible to ask HERE, where most of the PRO'S talk about various technologies. In the end, I should have posted this on a different section of the forum, just to make YOU happy.
No worries, I've been ignorant once, too.
As this section unfortunately is being frequented by lots of hobbyists, you got enough replies to please you.
-
Fritzer,
i'm not ignorant. I'm just going to stop.
I posted this yes, to scratch an itch that I've had for a while, but yes, there are a lot of hobbyists that frequent this forum. I'm not one of them though, so please don't think me one. I'm a photo major, in school right now, getting ready to transfer to Art Center soon, so I'm serious about photography as a career. Otherwise, I wouldn't be researching grants to come up with enough money to cover $150k in education money for the next 3.5 years.
but we, YOU AND ME, have to remember, that WITHOUT the hobbyists, photography would be DEAD. without hobbyists and rich guys buying digi backs and hi-end DSLRS, R&D would be nil in those departments, just as if we were all still shooting film.
if there ain't money, no one gets paid .
Kodak would cease to exist, same with Fuji, Phase, Leaf, Sinar, etc....
amateurs and hobbyists are needed to keep business alive. so WE can't put them down for asking questions, no matter how trivial and 'beginner' they may seem to us. But since WE do this as a living(I'm assuming here that you derive the majority of your income from photography), we need to be open to helping them. Even as pro's, or eventual pro's(in my case), we've all been beginners.
I'd rather ask a dumb question and get the right answer, then not asking and F*cking something up royally. Obviously this doesn't count in this case(thread).
best regards, and happy thanksgiving btw (if you're from the states )
-Dan