Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: pjtn on December 04, 2012, 08:49:47 PM

Title: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: pjtn on December 04, 2012, 08:49:47 PM
I'm just curious to see how many people are still shooting film and what reasons you have for doing so?

After selling my Hasselblad MFD setup for finding it hard to justify owning such an expensive piece of equipment, I'm thinking of shooting 6x6 film rather than heading back to a DSLR.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 04, 2012, 08:59:13 PM
I still shoot a lot of film, and often side by side with my MFDB.   I just like the look of it, I guess.  Primarily I shoot T-Max and mostly 6x6 or larger.  4x5 and now 5x7.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 04, 2012, 09:28:14 PM
I still shoot film. 6x8cm with the Fuji gx680 and 20x25cm (8x10in).

I love film. Will be developing 25 rolls tonight while listening to some fine music. ;)

I still shoot commercially on film too.

Here are a couple of my favorite shots:

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5204/5317147602_bb1d0ca19b_b.jpg)
Fuji gx680

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5250/5356464560_f46a54d63a_b.jpg)

If you are going to shoot film look into formats a bit larger than 6x6cm.

I got a friend of mine to get a Fuji gx680 as his main camera and a Fuji GF670 folding camera as his walk around camera.

IF you want some documentation on the Fuji gx680 I have a good collection of documentation I have digitaized for people like you ;)

PM  me and I can send you the PDFs... manuals, system catalog etc..
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 04, 2012, 09:38:48 PM
Hi,

Regarding film I would say that scanning is a major problem. Cannot really say about T-MAX 100 as I was mostly using Velvia, I also was trying to use Ektar 100. With both Ektar 100 and Velvia the D-MAX scanners can handle may be a major problem. Drum scanning is probably the best way to go, check your options.

I have written about my experience here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

On the other hand, it is quite obvious that film has a lot more to give, if optimally used. Tim Parkin sent me a piece of a scanned Velvia image taken with a Mamiya 7 that probably far outresolved IQ180. Tim has his own drum scanner and scans at 10000PPI.

Tim published an excellent comparison of film and digital here: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

There is a convenience aspect with digital versus analog. I normally take one digital image, check sharpness and histogram, that's it. With the new cameras I can use live view at actual pixels to focus. With film, it is tedious. I don't do development so I send the film to the lab, turnaround time is a week, or so. Scanning is no great fun.

Best regards
Erik

I'm just curious to see how many people are still shooting film and what reasons you have for doing so?

After selling my Hasselblad MFD setup for finding it hard to justify owning such an expensive piece of equipment, I'm thinking of shooting 6x6 film rather than heading back to a DSLR.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: SecondFocus on December 04, 2012, 09:41:07 PM
Just Beautiful!

I still shoot film. 6x8cm with the Fuji gx680 and 20x25cm (8x10in).

I love film. Will be developing 25 rolls tonight while listening to some fine music. ;)

I still shoot commercially on film too.

Here are a couple of my favorite shots:

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5204/5317147602_bb1d0ca19b_b.jpg)
Fuji gx680

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5250/5356464560_f46a54d63a_b.jpg)

If you are going to shoot film look into formats a bit larger than 6x6cm.

I got a friend of mine to get a Fuji gx680 as his main camera and a Fuji GF670 folding camera as his walk around camera.

IF you want some documentation on the Fuji gx680 I have a good collection of documentation I have digitaized for people like you ;)

PM  me and I can send you the PDFs... manuals, system catalog etc..
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Kirk Gittings on December 04, 2012, 10:21:13 PM
I still shoot 4x5 film for 99% of my black and white landscape and historic architecture for gallery/museum exhibits. I've been shooting such since 1970 and don't see any particular reason to stop (though the loss of Acros Readyloads make me want to). I know exactly what my film/filter/developer combinations will do. I shoot all my commercial work digitally.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: DanielStone on December 05, 2012, 12:12:12 AM
I shoot film primarily. I then either wet print it, or drum scan it. 8x10(soon to shoot 5x8 as well, w/ a reducing back on my 8x10), and Pentax 645 for MF.

Analog capture and digital post works great for me most of the time, but sometimes getting myself into the darkroom is good too.

Film is easier for me. An 8x10 ground glass is a glorious thing to compose on, and having the ability to scan a large piece of film to whatever resolution I want(up to 8000dpi, for film up to 8x10), I find that very liberating. I also like the tools I've chosen. Most of my LF equipment is 40-50yrs old(I'm 24), or older. But it all still produces wonderful results, especially w/ today's wonderful film emulsions.

Dan
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: PeteZ28 on December 05, 2012, 12:12:45 AM
Guilty!

Why? Partly because a MFDB is not in the financial cards at the moment, but mostly because I just love it. Film just has an aesthetic to it, and isn't that the purpose of art? Shouldn't art be a bit of an abstraction? I still plan on keeping the freezer stocked with sliver long after I obtain a digital back. I shoot mostly Tri-X and Velvia 50 and the occasional roll of Portra through my Mamiya AFD and Hassy 500C/M. In 35mm I really only shoot Tri-X. I need to drag out my 4x5 more often.

In the last year I'd say I have shot more film than digital (D3), save for party snaps/occasions/ebay ads. 

Shot on Ektar 100 @ ISO 100, 30 seconds, f? just before sunset. Mamiy 645 AFD 80mm.
I'd have preferred to shoot a little looser but there was really only one spot to place the camera to get remotely close to the composition I wanted.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 05, 2012, 12:22:51 AM
I mainly shoot film. 6x6, 135. I recently stopped shooting sheet film but only because the Sinar 8x10 was too bulky and heavy to deal with after 20 years of use.  I'm looking to get a Toyo 810m.

Here are my thoughts on format sizes. 6x6 is fine, you get the look of MF, but not as pronounced as say a 6x7, 6x8, 6x9 Format negative.  I happen to very much like square, and the Blad 150 Sonnar and the CF 80.  I also like how it handles.  I have an RZ and many, many lenses, but it is big and heavy.  I like he negs and the lenses very much.  I like 4x5 but I really believe that an RZ gets you 85% of 4x5, and for a real jump in look you should get on the 8x10 tip.  

As to scanning, an Epson v700/750 will give good results unless you are into test charts. With care the v700 will give a great file.  I scan proofs that are very usable at 16 x20 for 6x7 and 16 x 16 for 6x6 negs.  Sharp enough to read the date codes on my Metzler tires on my motorcycle.  Anything that needs to be bigger I send out for a drum scan, which is rare.

I mainly shoot black and white, if that makes a difference to you.  
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 05, 2012, 01:19:07 AM
Yeah, you can get pretty far with the RZ and Mamiya 7 negs.   Something really great about shooting my old 2.8F TLR though.  So light, so quiet, no batteries... 

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: pjtn on December 05, 2012, 03:36:20 AM
Stunning photos FredBGG and PeteZ28.

And some very useful links ErikKaffehr.

The reason I want to shoot 6x6 is purely because I want to shoot square. My prints will only be around 15"x15" and I would get an Epson V750 to do the scanning. Film would probably be Kodak T-Max 100.

I'm not sure yet what camera I would get, the Rollei 6008 and Hasselblad 503CW look nice. The Mamiya RZ67 looks good too, not very pricey either, just very heavy and not square.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 05, 2012, 03:48:14 AM
(http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/images/Hasselblad-203-FE-'Millennium'.jpg)

Hasselblad 203 FE with a 110mm f2

or

(http://www.adorama.com/images/300x300/RL1102.jpg)

With the right Rollei body

Or if you are looking for something lighter the Fuji gf670.

It also shoots 6x6. It has an adjustable negative size. 6x6 and 6x7.

(http://www.shueido.com/img-new/fuji/gf670/001/1.jpg)
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: KevinA on December 05, 2012, 04:26:59 AM
I still go through a few rolls for fun, I intend to get the darkroom up and running this winter. Just for fun, all my jobs are digital.
If I just did it for a hobby I can't see any compelling reason for shooting digital. If it's a hobby would you not want to be as involved in it as much as possible, not just a button pusher? I don't get this rush to not get involved with the process.
 I much prefer a tripod, a Rolleiflex, a light meter and pocket full of film, I feel free from batteries, fiddly buttons endless menus etc
It's happened to me a couple of times now when I've been out shooting and the time of day when the light gets good, the only people still out with cameras have all been shooting film! Daytime the coast was awash with Dslr's and those zoom all, "walk about lenses".
Pushing a few buttons and getting a screen full of images is just boring.

Kevin.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: IHDAP on December 05, 2012, 04:37:47 AM
It might be surprising for most digital photographers, but the quality of film has been enhanced over the last years. I am shooting mostly Kodak Portra 4x5 and scan them on a Hell Linotype Drumscanner.
The results are stunning. The new emulsions are crystal clear and produce a very high resolution.

If Kodak would stay, I would stay with film. But I guess this is a different story....
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: bcooter on December 05, 2012, 04:43:09 AM
The Hasselblad FE is a great camera and the 110 F2 a pretty amazing piece of glass.

I use one with my Contax, not often, usually for personal work, but still a great lens.

(http://spotsinthebox.com/110portrait.jpg)

One thing to think of if your going to a larger than 35mm camera and want to shoot film is the contax.

It's not square, but you can easily mask the finder, get a square and with the waist level finder you have a much larger view than with a prism and it's easy to focus.

It has analog controls which are easy and familiar.

The upside of the contax, unlike the FE is it has a true digital interface so almost any digital back is offered for it.  If you want a film like look the Aptus 22, 54 or Phase P21 are IMO the two most film like digital devices you can find.  

Both has a lot of texture and shoot as fast as most medium format film cameras.

(http://spotsinthebox.com/contaxphoto.jpg)

IMO

BC
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: patrickfransdesmet on December 05, 2012, 05:55:44 AM
Started shooting film 40 years ago, 35mm then MF
B/W settled on ACROS 100 and Rodinal
Color, mainlt Slides, and some Portra
B/W I develop myself and do wet prints in the darkroom.
Still cannot achieve camparable results after spending A LOT of money on MFDB, MAC's, EPSON's ...(sigh)
Color, I send to my lab (milo profi belgium) they develop the films, scan with Imacon 949 and print on Lambda, GREAT !
When they print my MFDB files, I personally prefer the look of the film prints over the MFDB's (P20, P45)

I recently tested a  Leica monochrom, but ordered a Nikon F6 instead ...
I love the convenience of digital, and for some commercial work, cannot live without it,
but for REAL art-work, I still prefer Film

Scanning film, then printing on the epson's is nice too.

We can have it all, but PLEASE ! DO NOT STOP PRODUCING FILM !!!
it would be the same, than no longer produce oil paint and canvas .

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: joneil on December 05, 2012, 07:40:41 AM
Yep, still actively shooting film, all in 4x5 format, B&W.  I haven't shot a roll of 55mm or 120 in a while, but just was using my 4x5 last week for the better part of a day.   Like others have said, please don't stop making film & related products!
:)

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Codger on December 05, 2012, 11:58:57 AM
I've used the big Pentax gear going on 14 years (from Nikkormat FT3), and for me it was love at first sight when I put a roll of 220 Fuji Provia on my light box.  It's exasperating that I can only get 120 now, but I accept it because of the results I get from fine glass, a huge Gitzo tripod and chunky Bogen head.  I always do mirror lock up.  Sure, it's hard on my patience, waiting to see the actual results of a back-country shoot.  And, yes, it's hard on my back after a day out at elevation.  After so many years of working with the same 6x7 gear I can pretty well sense what I'm going to have when the processing is done.  I have my "keeper" shots commercially drum-scanned at 400 mb each and then do some post production.  The smoothness is beautiful to work with and the resolution is unbelievable.  I haven't "gone over" to digital because of two things: I can't justify paying the price of a luxury car for a MFD body, back and four lenses, and I'm put off by the jumble of endless menus.  I just want to take pictures, and having control of focus (manual), shutter and aperture lets me concentrate on the scene. Sure, there are lots of times when I'd like to have a range of ISOs within the roll.  Yes, I'd like to avoid that lab and scan cost and delay, but if I'm disciplined and stick with my workflow, I reason that's a lot cheaper than paying for a Lexus.  Besides, there's a certain pleasure in being anachronistic, and it's fun when someone approaches me in the field and says "What's that you're shooting with?"  I get to tell them.  And the results when I hang a gorgeous five or six foot print (or larger), speak for themselves.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: revaaron on December 05, 2012, 01:18:00 PM
I shoot most personal things with a 35mm, some toycamera 6x6, a little with my contex 645, and a tiny bit with my rolleichord 6x6.

Right now, I'm looking for a good deal on a mamiya press super 23 with a polaroid back.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 05, 2012, 04:21:38 PM
Hi,

I guess that you may get as good results with a Nikon D800 or even a Sony Alpha 99. I have been using Pentax 67 and shooting Velvia, so I know what I talk about. Well, it is possible I don't know everything.

By the way, I was shooting with my Pentax 67, 300/4 (non ED) and 1.4X extender and had a lot of problems with vibration from the shutter although using MLU and cable release. I was using a Manfrotto 055 tripod with a Bogen #3039 head. I replaced the Manfrotto 055/Bogen 3039 combo with a Velbon Sherpa Pro 630CF tripod and got sharp pictures at half of the weight. Those Manfrotto Hex QR plates are just bad designs, in my experience.

My experience is that 67 Velvia and 24 MP digital are pretty close in resolution, with advantage to 67 for high contrast detail. I was scanning up to 6096 PPI.

These two articles sum up my experience:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

On the other hand, Tim Parkin has made a large comparison between film and digital and had another experience:

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

What I essentially want to say is that you don't need to invest 50000 $US in MFDB to replace a Pentax 67, a well chosen DSLR equipment for 5000$US will be just fine. It may be possible to get better results from MF than what I have achieved, but it takes experience, knowledge and a high end drum scanning equipment.

Best regards
Erik





I've used the big Pentax gear going on 14 years (from Nikkormat FT3), and for me it was love at first sight when I put a roll of 220 Fuji Provia on my light box.  It's exasperating that I can only get 120 now, but I accept it because of the results I get from fine glass, a huge Gitzo tripod and chunky Bogen head.  I always do mirror lock up.  Sure, it's hard on my patience, waiting to see the actual results of a back-country shoot.  And, yes, it's hard on my back after a day out at elevation.  After so many years of working with the same 6x7 gear I can pretty well sense what I'm going to have when the processing is done.  I have my "keeper" shots commercially drum-scanned at 400 mb each and then do some post production.  The smoothness is beautiful to work with and the resolution is unbelievable.  I haven't "gone over" to digital because of two things: I can't justify paying the price of a luxury car for a MFD body, back and four lenses, and I'm put off by the jumble of endless menus.  I just want to take pictures, and having control of focus (manual), shutter and aperture lets me concentrate on the scene. Sure, there are lots of times when I'd like to have a range of ISOs within the roll.  Yes, I'd like to avoid that lab and scan cost and delay, but if I'm disciplined and stick with my workflow, I reason that's a lot cheaper than paying for a Lexus.  Besides, there's a certain pleasure in being anachronistic, and it's fun when someone approaches me in the field and says "What's that you're shooting with?"  I get to tell them.  And the results when I hang a gorgeous five or six foot print (or larger), speak for themselves.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 05, 2012, 04:30:49 PM
Erik,

There are other considerations besides resolution, which has been covered elsewhere in this forum. 

regards,

T

Hi,

I guess that you may get as good results with a Nikon D800 or even a Sony Alpha 99. I have been using Pentax 67 and shooting Velvia, so I know what I talk about. Well, it is possible I don't know everything.

By the way, I was shooting with my Pentax 67, 300/4 (non ED) and 1.4X extender and had a lot of problems with vibration from the shutter although using MLU and cable release. I was using a Manfrotto 055 tripod with a Bogen #3039 head. I replaced the Manfrotto 055/Bogen 3039 combo with a Velbon Sherpa Pro 630CF tripod and got sharp pictures at half of the weight. Those Manfrotto Hex QR plates are just bad designs, in my experience.

My experience is that 67 Velvia and 24 MP digital are pretty close in resolution, with advantage to 67 for high contrast detail. I was scanning up to 6096 PPI.

These two articles sum up my experience:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

On the other hand, Tim Parkin has made a large comparison between film and digital and had another experience:

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

What I essentially want to say is that you don't need to invest 50000 $US in MFDB to replace a Pentax 67, a well chosen DSLR equipment for 5000$US will be just fine. It may be possible to get better results from MF than what I have achieved, but it takes experience, knowledge and a high end drum scanning equipment.

Best regards
Erik





Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 05, 2012, 11:27:58 PM
Hi,

If you happen to read any of the articles I referred to, you will see that there is a lot of ground covered, not just resolution. I don't know exactly which posting you  are referring to, there was a posting indicating that the poster regarded it necessary to invest in high end MF to replace Pentax 67 equipment. I have also Pentax 67 equipment which I replaced with DSLR.

The poster I was responding to indicated that he prints up to 6 feet wide. Resolution is quite interesting in that context.

The main problems I have with film are:

1) Turnaround time, I need to send film to a pro lab

2) Scanning. It takes a long time to scan images.

3) DMAX, Velvia has a very wide density range, DMAX is about 4.0. CCD based scanners will not handle as high DMAX well. With Ektar 100 I have seen the additional problem that individual color channels may be clipped, giving weird color.

Check the enclosed image of the white wall. The Sony image has much more detail. The detail of the 6096 PPI drum scan is significantly more distinct, but the image lacks much of the fine detail.

The red flower scans lack detail compared to the digital image, in my view. On the other hand very small detail in the reds can be lost on the digital image, due to the digital image having a "Bayer filter".

In the red flower shot I had some vibration from sensor based image stabilization. I have noticed it after high res scans of film were made. The "marble statue" images have no vibration issues, but in that case I have no 6096PPI drum scan.

Best regards
Erik

Best regards
Erik



Erik,

There are other considerations besides resolution, which has been covered elsewhere in this forum. 

regards,

T

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Brian Hirschfeld on December 05, 2012, 11:37:28 PM
Personally, I shoot film for fun, and sometimes when doing more serious shoots as a supplement to digital for the aesthetic of it, though then it is generally ultra-fine grain black and white films. For personal use my favorite film to shoot is ILFORD Delta 3200 on 35mm and 120 formats, although 3200 on 120 is one of my personal favorites.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: artobest on December 06, 2012, 09:03:46 AM
@Eric, the OP wanted to know why some of us still shoot film, not why digital is or isn't better. Here's a chance for those of us who love film (and sometimes feel marginalised around here) to put our hands up and be counted.

I shoot with a Rollei SL66SE, a Yashicamat 124G, a Pentax LX and a nice little Nikon 35Ti, plus sundry pinhole cameras. I like the craft aspect of film. I develop b&w in my bathroom using Agfa Rondinax daylight tanks (35 and 120). My favourite colour film by far is Portra - love those magical colours. I scan it on my Konica-Minolta film scanner, or, if it's 120, on an Epson V750. The results are, to my eyes, beautiful. For years I've tried all manner of b&w films, but only shot my first roll of Tri-X this week! For years I swore by Fujifilm, but now all I care about is the slow, inexorable death of Kodak.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 06, 2012, 09:09:28 AM
Stunning photos FredBGG and PeteZ28.

And some very useful links ErikKaffehr.

The reason I want to shoot 6x6 is purely because I want to shoot square. My prints will only be around 15"x15" and I would get an Epson V750 to do the scanning. Film would probably be Kodak T-Max 100.

I'm not sure yet what camera I would get, the Rollei 6008 and Hasselblad 503CW look nice. The Mamiya RZ67 looks good too, not very pricey either, just very heavy and not square.

You can get 6x6 backs for the RZ. They are rare. I decided on sticking with Blad over the 6008, only because I had the Blad and lenses already. Keep in mind that the 501cm is the same camera as the CW, but without the winder capability. The 503cx is really nice as well, and cheaper.  The Epson will get you the file you need. Get the betterscanning holders, makes a world of difference.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 06, 2012, 09:26:17 AM

Erik,

My reply was not explained, and I apologize. I've read several of your posts/links on comparing your P67 to the A900. My results were different, but I don't shoot scenics so I'm looking for different qualities in an image and, at the time I read your links a while back, I was shooting editorials. For instance, I hate Velvia. The blacks are always crushed unless you drum scan, and even then the color is odd to me. Again, I shoot people and Velvia is not suited to it. 

With a Nikon or Imacon and Portra, I get better color and DR than any digital camera I've used. I also get a look that can only come from a big piece of film, bigger than 645.  I've also spent too much time with scanners since 2001 or so.

I understand how you found that you Sony beats you Pentax and Minolta. You like Velvia, and shoot scenics, so resolution and stopped down sharpness are important, as well as easily accessible (no drum scanning) DR. The Sony can get you there without spending all of your time operating a scanner or paying for drum scans.  However, if you take portraits, and shoot reversal film, color or B&W, the bigger than 645 sensor, lenses, and baked in color and curves allows me to get what I'm after.

T

Hi,

If you happen to read any of the articles I referred to, you will see that there is a lot of ground covered, not just resolution. I don't know exactly which posting you  are referring to, there was a posting indicating that the poster regarded it necessary to invest in high end MF to replace Pentax 67 equipment. I have also Pentax 67 equipment which I replaced with DSLR.

The poster I was responding to indicated that he prints up to 6 feet wide. Resolution is quite interesting in that context.

The main problems I have with film are:

1) Turnaround time, I need to send film to a pro lab

2) Scanning. It takes a long time to scan images.

3) DMAX, Velvia has a very wide density range, DMAX is about 4.0. CCD based scanners will not handle as high DMAX well. With Ektar 100 I have seen the additional problem that individual color channels may be clipped, giving weird color.

Check the enclosed image of the white wall. The Sony image has much more detail. The detail of the 6096 PPI drum scan is significantly more distinct, but the image lacks much of the fine detail.

The red flower scans lack detail compared to the digital image, in my view. On the other hand very small detail in the reds can be lost on the digital image, due to the digital image having a "Bayer filter".

In the red flower shot I had some vibration from sensor based image stabilization. I have noticed it after high res scans of film were made. The "marble statue" images have no vibration issues, but in that case I have no 6096PPI drum scan.

Best regards
Erik

Best regards
Erik



Title: How many print traditionally
Post by: EricWHiss on December 06, 2012, 11:24:49 AM
Kind of a follow on question... how many of those shooting film go onto to make traditional film prints?
I'm doing both, but think the film prints can be very nice perhaps better overall, but prefer to edit in the digital darkroom.

Scanning is a pain, but I think worth it since its not so easy to emulate these looks with digital capture as people want you to believe.  As TMARK pointed out some films capture more DR or its more usable, and there's the visual depth of the image recorded perhaps because of the larger formats available.    Also film starts to win out over my MFDB at higher ISOs.   

I have been shooting my negs with my CF 528 multishot back on a light table/copy stand - I have the Kaiser eVision executive hf copy stand which has the flicker free 40kh ballast lights built into the bed. This seems to get a good file quickly and I can 'scan' 5 rolls worth of 120 film in about 30 minutes.  I'm sure I could do better with wet mounting or with a dedicated  high end scanner, but its good enough for me. 

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Paul Ozzello on December 06, 2012, 11:30:38 AM
@Eric, the OP wanted to know why some of us still shoot film, not why digital is or isn't better. Here's a chance for those of us who love film (and sometimes feel marginalised around here) to put our hands up and be counted.


Thank you ! If you feel the need to make a comment about film vs. digital, please refrain from hitting the "Reply" button and post it elsewhere.
Title: Re: How many print traditionally
Post by: Paul Ozzello on December 06, 2012, 11:41:55 AM
Kind of a follow on question... how many of those shooting film go onto to make traditional film prints?
I'm doing both, but think the film prints can be very nice perhaps better overall, but prefer to edit in the digital darkroom.

Scanning is a pain, but I think worth it since its not so easy to emulate these looks with digital capture as people want you to believe.  As TMARK pointed out some films capture more DR or its more usable, and there's the visual depth of the image recorded perhaps because of the larger formats available.    Also film starts to win out over my MFDB at higher ISOs.   

I have been shooting my negs with my CF 528 multishot back on a light table/copy stand - I have the Kaiser eVision executive hf copy stand which has the flicker free 40kh ballast lights built into the bed. This seems to get a good file quickly and I can 'scan' 5 rolls worth of 120 film in about 30 minutes.  I'm sure I could do better with wet mounting or with a dedicated  high end scanner, but its good enough for me. 



I'm doing both as well but now that I'm making 40" prints I'm drum scanning and printing digitally; I love the tonality achievable with the latest inkjets and piezography inks and the endless choices of papers; film and inkjet are a wonderful combination.

Paul

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 06, 2012, 01:01:37 PM
Hi,

I do apologize.

The way I interpreted the original posting is that the poster sold of his digital MF equipment and considered to switch to MF film instead. My point was mostly that full frame digital is in many senses a good alternative to medium format film.

Also, I think some poster said that you needed 50000 $USD worth of MF equipment to replace a Pentax 67 equipment, that is clearly not my experience. Replacing 4x5" may be a different case.

The third issue is that if you go from MFD to MF film you need to consider scanning equipment, film development and so on.

Drum scanning can be very expensive, I had two 6096PI scans made from 55x69 film, got one for free and a very low price of 20€ for the second one, but commercial price would be about 200€ each. Those files were 1.5 GByte.

http://www.high-end-scans.de/pdf/high-end-scans_prices.pdf

Best regards
Erik


Erik,

My reply was not explained, and I apologize. I've read several of your posts/links on comparing your P67 to the A900. My results were different, but I don't shoot scenics so I'm looking for different qualities in an image and, at the time I read your links a while back, I was shooting editorials. For instance, I hate Velvia. The blacks are always crushed unless you drum scan, and even then the color is odd to me. Again, I shoot people and Velvia is not suited to it.  

With a Nikon or Imacon and Portra, I get better color and DR than any digital camera I've used. I also get a look that can only come from a big piece of film, bigger than 645.  I've also spent too much time with scanners since 2001 or so.

I understand how you found that you Sony beats you Pentax and Minolta. You like Velvia, and shoot scenics, so resolution and stopped down sharpness are important, as well as easily accessible (no drum scanning) DR. The Sony can get you there without spending all of your time operating a scanner or paying for drum scans.  However, if you take portraits, and shoot reversal film, color or B&W, the bigger than 645 sensor, lenses, and baked in color and curves allows me to get what I'm after.

T

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: KevinA on December 06, 2012, 01:09:22 PM
It might be surprising for most digital photographers, but the quality of film has been enhanced over the last years. I am shooting mostly Kodak Portra 4x5 and scan them on a Hell Linotype Drumscanner.
The results are stunning. The new emulsions are crystal clear and produce a very high resolution.

If Kodak would stay, I would stay with film. But I guess this is a different story....

Portra is simply fantastic, is not just comparing resolution of scanned film v digital, it's the overall look that's more important. It can look saturated and pastel all at the same time. I shoot MF portra and scan at 32bit on a Coolscan. I'm debating wether when I restore my darkroom to include the facility to do wet colour prints as well as B&W. I know digitising gives more choice, but I kind of like the restriction of 12 shots and straight printing untouched by Photoshop or a computer .
Yes Kodak is the limiting factor, I hope someone else picks the ball up from Kodak. One thing is for sure, film will missed when it's gone, so anyone wondering about giving it go. Do it now while you still can, you can pick of quality  film cameras  for not a lot. Even if you bought a Hasselblad it will be worth the same in a year or two's time unlike digital.
Kevin.


Title: Re: How many print traditionally
Post by: TMARK on December 06, 2012, 01:37:10 PM
Kind of a follow on question... how many of those shooting film go onto to make traditional film prints?
I'm doing both, but think the film prints can be very nice perhaps better overall, but prefer to edit in the digital darkroom.

Scanning is a pain, but I think worth it since its not so easy to emulate these looks with digital capture as people want you to believe.  As TMARK pointed out some films capture more DR or its more usable, and there's the visual depth of the image recorded perhaps because of the larger formats available.    Also film starts to win out over my MFDB at higher ISOs.  

I have been shooting my negs with my CF 528 multishot back on a light table/copy stand - I have the Kaiser eVision executive hf copy stand which has the flicker free 40kh ballast lights built into the bed. This seems to get a good file quickly and I can 'scan' 5 rolls worth of 120 film in about 30 minutes.  I'm sure I could do better with wet mounting or with a dedicated  high end scanner, but its good enough for me.  



If I had a darkroom available to me I'd make more darkroom prints on fiber.  I've also developed an alergy to some of the chemistry, which sucks.  I get hives and all itchy from the fix.  The depth of a fiber print is unreal.  The issue is, of course, that there are few if any public darkrooms anymore, and rental and materials fees add up if you get out of the habit of making prints, especially color and fiber B&W.  It just takes time to get your groove back after a few months.  When I was shooting editorials on film I had the prints made by Lamount in NYC.  It was an incredible process because you tell them what you want, stand there with them at the enlarger, at the chem baths or on the other end of the Colex machine, and give directions.  

I do like the Epson printers and the digital darkroom.  It works well for me.  I like the papers and teh precise color grading you can do in PS.  In truth, Portra doesn't need much adjustment, but if I want to, its all there in PS.

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 06, 2012, 03:53:21 PM
There is a great public darkroom here in San Francisco.  It's http://harveymilkphotocenter.org/
You don't have to be a resident of the city to use it or take classes though there are quite a few offered such as dark room printing, etc.  The city staff makes up the chemicals and you just process and print.  You only need your film and paper.  The staff even takes your prints out of the bath (if you want) washes and drum dries them for you. They have a digital lab with some Macs, scanners, and a epson 4000 and 7900 printer.

I'm often there on Saturdays.
There is a membership, but its really low cost -  $5 a day or less.     If anyone wants a day pass to check it out, just send me a PM or e-mail and I can get you one.  


btw - I'm helping them by creating a not for profit corporation to assist the whole arts center that the Harvey Milk Photo Center is part of.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 06, 2012, 04:30:20 PM
Fantastic resource.  I used Print Space in NYC for years and years.  It wa sa great place to hang out while prints driend and talk shop with people.  Thye had Imacons for rent as well.  It was $13 an hour for color and $10 or $11 for B&W.  Cheap C41 processing as well, like $4 a roll.  Now I've moved and all of the public labs are gone.  The Milk Center sounds fantastic.  Wish I could get out there!

T

There is a great public darkroom here in San Francisco.  It's http://harveymilkphotocenter.org/
You don't have to be a resident of the city to use it or take classes though there are quite a few offered such as dark room printing, etc.  The city staff makes up the chemicals and you just process and print.  You only need your film and paper.  The staff even takes your prints out of the bath (if you want) washes and drum dries them for you. They have a digital lab with some Macs, scanners, and a epson 4000 and 7900 printer.

I'm often there on Saturdays.
There is a membership, but its really low cost -  $5 a day or less.     If anyone wants a day pass to check it out, just send me a PM or e-mail and I can get you one.  


btw - I'm helping them by creating a not for profit corporation to assist the whole arts center that the Harvey Milk Photo Center is part of.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: pjtn on December 06, 2012, 05:55:50 PM
I hear a few people worried about the demise of Kodak. Will it really be the end of film when they are gone?

I thought that companies like Ilford would keep things alive. I even noticed Rollei makes film and chemicals, which I never knew.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: artobest on December 06, 2012, 06:02:11 PM
I hear a few people worried about the demise of Kodak. Will it really be the end of film when they are gone?


Not the end of film ... but very likely the end of Portra, the greatest colour negative film ever made.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: pjtn on December 06, 2012, 06:14:14 PM
Not the end of film ... but very likely the end of Portra, the greatest colour negative film ever made.

Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't sure if I was missing something.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 06, 2012, 06:20:38 PM
Maybe I'm an optimist but Kodak says they hope to find a buyer that will keep their film business alive and even invest further....
 http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2206235/kodak-in-active-discussions-to-sell-its-film-business
Title: Re: How many print traditionally
Post by: PeteZ28 on December 06, 2012, 09:46:39 PM
Kind of a follow on question... how many of those shooting film go onto to make traditional film prints?
I'm doing both, but think the film prints can be very nice perhaps better overall, but prefer to edit in the digital darkroom.

Scanning is a pain, but I think worth it since its not so easy to emulate these looks with digital capture as people want you to believe.  As TMARK pointed out some films capture more DR or its more usable, and there's the visual depth of the image recorded perhaps because of the larger formats available.    Also film starts to win out over my MFDB at higher ISOs.  

I have been shooting my negs with my CF 528 multishot back on a light table/copy stand - I have the Kaiser eVision executive hf copy stand which has the flicker free 40kh ballast lights built into the bed. This seems to get a good file quickly and I can 'scan' 5 rolls worth of 120 film in about 30 minutes.  I'm sure I could do better with wet mounting or with a dedicated  high end scanner, but its good enough for me.  



I do... when I can. I'm in an apartment so no room for a full time darkoom. Making a print is an hour long process of just dragging junk out, then another hour cleaning up and putting stuff away. So once in a while when I have a few prints I really want to make, well, I'll make them.

Here is a scanned neg that I toned in Camera Raw, but I made a nearly identical split toned 5x7 print of this on Ilford Warmtone. I never could get the scan of the print to do it any justice. Conowingo dam, Conowingo MD. Mamiya 645 AFD, 35mm, Delta [email protected]

It's nothing award winning but it's a place dear to me. Many a cold winter day spent there chasing bald eagles :)
Title: Re: How many print traditionally
Post by: Paul Ozzello on December 06, 2012, 10:40:20 PM
Beautiful image

I do... when I can. I'm in an apartment so no room for a full time darkoom. Making a print is an hour long process of just dragging junk out, then another hour cleaning up and putting stuff away. So once in a while when I have a few prints I really want to make, well, I'll make them.

Here is a scanned neg that I toned in Camera Raw, but I made a nearly identical split toned 5x7 print of this on Ilford Warmtone. I never could get the scan of the print to do it any justice. Conowingo dam, Conowingo MD. Mamiya 645 AFD, 35mm, Delta [email protected]

It's nothing award winning but it's a place dear to me. Many a cold winter day spent there chasing bald eagles :)

Title: Film from Ilford, Fujifilm, Agfa ...
Post by: BJL on December 07, 2012, 01:09:51 AM
I hear a few people worried about the demise of Kodak. Will it really be the end of film when they are gone?

I thought that companies like Ilford would keep things alive. I even noticed Rollei makes film and chemicals, which I never knew.
Ilford is definitely still around. It came close to bankruptcy a few years ago, but if Kodak B&W film goes away, Ilford probably benefits. Part of Agfa-Gevaert is still around too — in fact much of the film sold under the Rollei brand is made by what remains of Agfa-Gevaert: Rollei does not make any itself.

And of course Fujifilm is still active in film, despite having wisely diversified.

Edited for spelling errors and the correct name of the former Agfa-Gevaert.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 07, 2012, 01:17:56 AM
Hi,

I don't think Rollei exists any more. It is just a trade mark, essentially, owned by http://www.rcp-technik.com/.

Ilford is still around: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/home.asp

The real powerhouse in film is probably Fuji, they managed transition to digital quite well. I don't know how they film business is doing.

Best regards
Erik

I hear a few people worried about the demise of Kodak. Will it really be the end of film when they are gone?

I thought that companies like Ilford would keep things alive. I even noticed Rollei makes film and chemicals, which I never knew.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: RobertJ on December 07, 2012, 05:44:30 AM
I shoot DSLR for stock photography.

The unused film I have left right now:

40 sheets 4x5 Fuji Astia (this stuff is gone now...)
30 sheets 4x5 Kodak E100G (uh, this stuff is gone now too!)
20 sheets 4x5 Fuji Provia
10 sheets 8x10 Kodak E100G
60 sheets 8x10 Fuji Provia

You guys are worried about Portra, but Kodak is still making neg film.  They stopped making positive film (E100G), while Fuji stopped making negative film. 

Portra is currently available at B&H in 4x5 and 8x10.  Stock up if you can afford it. :)
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 07, 2012, 09:31:01 AM
When I shot beauty and cosmetics on 4x5 E100G was my film.  Love(d) it.

I shoot DSLR for stock photography.

The unused film I have left right now:

40 sheets 4x5 Fuji Astia (this stuff is gone now...)
30 sheets 4x5 Kodak E100G (uh, this stuff is gone now too!)
20 sheets 4x5 Fuji Provia
10 sheets 8x10 Kodak E100G
60 sheets 8x10 Fuji Provia

You guys are worried about Portra, but Kodak is still making neg film.  They stopped making positive film (E100G), while Fuji stopped making negative film. 

Portra is currently available at B&H in 4x5 and 8x10.  Stock up if you can afford it. :)
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: DennisWilliams on December 08, 2012, 12:18:30 AM
All my output is with Pentax 67 bodies and lenses, Acros and Provia.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Aryan Aqajani on December 08, 2012, 09:38:21 AM
Like 80% of my personal work are being done with RZ67 Pro IID and film. I use Fuji Acros 100 for long exposure photography, Kodak Tri-X for portrait stuff rated at ASA 800 and 1600, Kodak Portra 160 and 400 as well for portraits again! My scanner is Epson V700 and printer is Epson R3000! The reasons I am shooting film while I have a DM22 back are;

1. I love 5:4 ratio!
2. Love the look of film!
3. The depth of filed is more shallower than a 36x48mm sensor!
4. Due to max 30s exposure time of my back, shoot film for long exposures during day time!
5. Due to max ISO 400, shoot film when I need to go over ISO 400!
6. Love to use all the area of the huge RZ viewfinder!
7. I love it when I develop the film and my hands smell all those chemicals when I'm done!
8. When I am doing the agitation, I feel like I am making those photos come to life, feeling like I am creating something not capturing!
9. I love the fact that I don't need to bother with the LCD, just focus on the subject! There is no way to have a glance at histogram or whatever! The fact that I have to understand how I am measuring the light with my handheld light meter!

Long live film  ;)
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 08, 2012, 12:06:11 PM
Like 80% of my personal work are being done with RZ67 Pro IID and film. I use Fuji Acros 100 for long exposure photography, Kodak Tri-X for portrait stuff rated at ASA 800 and 1600, Kodak Portra 160 and 400 as well for portraits again! My scanner is Epson V700 and printer is Epson R3000! The reasons I am shooting film while I have a DM22 back are;

1. I love 5:4 ratio!
2. Love the look of film!
3. The depth of filed is more shallower than a 36x48mm sensor!
4. Due to max 30s exposure time of my back, shoot film for long exposures during day time!
5. Due to max ISO 400, shoot film when I need to go over ISO 400!
6. Love to use all the area of the huge RZ viewfinder!
7. I love it when I develop the film and my hands smell all those chemicals when I'm done!
8. When I am doing the agitation, I feel like I am making those photos come to life, feeling like I am creating something not capturing!
9. I love the fact that I don't need to bother with the LCD, just focus on the subject! There is no way to have a glance at histogram or whatever! The fact that I have to understand how I am measuring the light with my handheld light meter!

Long live film  ;)


Right on! 
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: drevil on December 08, 2012, 09:02:15 PM
i occasionally still shooting film, gonna finish a roll of tmax400 today and then i will load the magical adox csm 20 for the first time, i think with this one i will rethink composition 10x before shooting  ;)
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: wolfnowl on December 09, 2012, 01:58:00 AM
Still shoot film on occasion... both 35mm and 120.  Really miss Kodachrome 25 though!

Mike.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Gel on December 09, 2012, 03:09:02 AM
i occasionally still shooting film, gonna finish a roll of tmax400 today and then i will load the magical adox csm 20 for the first time, i think with this one i will rethink composition 10x before shooting  ;)

Ooh, been looking at Adox 20 but developing it scares the hell out of me.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: pjtn on December 11, 2012, 03:38:09 AM
Ilford seem very dedicated to black and white film, so it gives me some hope that film will be around for some time to come.

I started photography in the digital age so really have next to no experience with film. What exactly is it that gives film a different look? After seeing a number of images online I can usually pick which is film, but I can't pinpoint why.

Also, does anyone know of comparison images online directly comparing digital with film? It would be nice to see how they compare side-by-side and what kind of resolution to expect from a 6x6 image. Not that I will need all that much for 14"x14" prints.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: JohnCox123 on December 11, 2012, 04:39:48 AM
I shoot film, I'm taking delivery of 25 rolls of Tri X today.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 11, 2012, 05:14:20 AM
Hi,

Film has sort of built in rendition. The chemistry is part of the imaging chain.

Regarding side by side comparisons, here are some links:

A great comparison of film vs. digial by Tim Parkin et al. : http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

This one: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

Or this: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2?showall=1

My take is that 20 MP digital is perfectly good replacement for 120 film (6x4.5 - 6x8) on technical grounds.

Best regards
Erik

I started photography in the digital age so really have next to no experience with film. What exactly is it that gives film a different look? After seeing a number of images online I can usually pick which is film, but I can't pinpoint why.

Also, does anyone know of comparison images online directly comparing digital with film? It would be nice to see how they compare side-by-side and what kind of resolution to expect from a 6x6 image. Not that I will need all that much for 14"x14" prints.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: patrickfransdesmet on December 11, 2012, 05:54:13 AM
yes ofcourse
the technical comparison is ONLY one part of the story
one could find that an IQ180 looks sharper than velvia
but what I see is, that even the jpg scan from these images
show that typical film look
that 3D look that I miss in CCD or CMOS images
this is due to the 3D film layer perhaps
this is what is missing in CCD's who are mirror flat
so the images look flat too

but then ...
Compare a real contactprint from a 8x10 black white print
to the same size of an IQ180

personally, I prefer the film print

but, as it is art, it is up to you wether to like it or not


other thing what bothers me, is the amount of money I've spend on digital
over the last 15 years, upgrading all the time
while my 4x5 or medium format film gear, did not change
and guaranteed me of CONSTANT QUALITY
I cannot do a retrospective from my digital prints over the last 15 years
because they vary in quality ...imacon 96, P20, P45, P65 ...
and then STILL NOT REACH THAT SAME IMAGE THAN WITH FILM


So I STOPPED COMPARING FILM and DIGITAL
It makes NO SENSE !

Two different media

as Oil paint and Aquarel
they're in the same ligue

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 11, 2012, 06:27:02 AM
Hi,

The original poster wants to have a comparison between film and digital images. He is coming from MF digital and considers film as an option. He seems to be interested medium format film, that is roll firm and not large format.

He also needs to consider scanning and practicalities.

Best regards
Erik

yes ofcourse
the technical comparison is ONLY one part of the story
one could find that an IQ180 looks sharper than velvia
but what I see is, that even the jpg scan from these images
show that typical film look
that 3D look that I miss in CCD or CMOS images
this is due to the 3D film layer perhaps
this is what is missing in CCD's who are mirror flat
so the images look flat too

but then ...
Compare a real contactprint from a 8x10 black white print
to the same size of an IQ180

personally, I prefer the film print

but, as it is art, it is up to you wether to like it or not


other thing what bothers me, is the amount of money I've spend on digital
over the last 15 years, upgrading all the time
while my 4x5 or medium format film gear, did not change
and guaranteed me of CONSTANT QUALITY
I cannot do a retrospective from my digital prints over the last 15 years
because they vary in quality ...imacon 96, P20, P45, P65 ...
and then STILL NOT REACH THAT SAME IMAGE THAN WITH FILM


So I STOPPED COMPARING FILM and DIGITAL
It makes NO SENSE !

Two different media

as Oil paint and Aquarel
they're in the same ligue


Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: pjtn on December 11, 2012, 06:28:42 AM
Actually scanning is probably the most annoying part and may be the weakest link. Most probably I would get an Epson V750 to do the scanning.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: JV on December 11, 2012, 07:38:56 AM
Just short of 100 rolls of 120 film last month.
Not a professional photographer so all for personal non-commercial use.
I have a H4X and a Hy6 which both allow to shoot film but I mostly use the Hy6 for film.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: JohnCox123 on December 11, 2012, 08:13:18 AM
Actually scanning is probably the most annoying part and may be the weakest link. Most probably I would get an Epson V750 to do the scanning.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. I'm trying to find the optimum dpi to scan at for convenience and quality. I'm using an Epson V500 and VueScan. I can get 2400 dpi scans that look good, but from the majority of my scans only a few make it into portfolios or to customers, -I don't need to scan everything at 2400dpi. This begs the question of what the best solution is for workflow, and should I scan things just to proof and then get the ones that are good scanned with a drum professionally.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 11, 2012, 09:25:15 AM
This is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. I'm trying to find the optimum dpi to scan at for convenience and quality. I'm using an Epson V500 and VueScan. I can get 2400 dpi scans that look good, but from the majority of my scans only a few make it into portfolios or to customers, -I don't need to scan everything at 2400dpi. This begs the question of what the best solution is for workflow, and should I scan things just to proof and then get the ones that are good scanned with a drum professionally.

John,

I essentially scan for good 16x16 from 6x6 on a V750 with the betterscan holders, or 16x20 from 6x7 negs.  In a sense I consider these proofs, but they are good enough for a 16x16 print on an Epson or for publication.  I have anything I really like drum scanned.

I scan at 6400dpi and downsize in PS.  I suspect that with the V750 I'm probably getting something like 2400 dpi actual resolution.  The V750 is a surprisingly capable scanner, and with more effort comes better results.  My now departed Nikon and Imacon were better, much better in some respects, but in reality I'm really scanning for proofs and medium sized prints, so the V750 is all I need right now. 
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: kers on December 11, 2012, 10:02:59 AM
In the past i developed BW and printed in BW and sometimes colour..

After that there was a period i scanned negatives- slides and prints.
The mayor problem with scanning colour was getting the colours right- it always was a mess and a struggle.
Never liked the flatbed scanner for film.. the only scanner i liked for film (slide) was the Imacon ( and drum but too expensive to do frequently)
of course negative film was never made to be scanned but to be printed. And those prints look very good indeed. I used slides for scanning

Nowadays my 'darkroom' is HP printer Z3100- i always like to control the whole process... It is very good for BW as well as colour and you can choose so many papers
It prints while i have a coffee ... and i can do colour-and the colours are right- this was almost impossible before. ( and the colours stay longer)

I would never go back to the darkroom but only for printing BW ( medium format or larger) on baryte paper. Very much like the results of a beautiful baryta print (- not the chemicals)
it is about the luster and the beautiful darktones ...

For me the digital image is now better than the film image;  it has much more depth: ( compare a d800 file with a scanned negative or slide and see there is so much more information in the shadows and highlights)
about 3 dimensionality- it has a lot to do how you process the digital image...
And the digital image is still developing fast and very young ...







Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 11, 2012, 10:58:33 AM
In the past i developed BW and printed in BW and sometimes colour..

After that there was a period i scanned negatives- slides and prints.
The mayor problem with scanning colour was getting the colours right- it always was a mess and a struggle.
Never liked the flatbed scanner for film.. the only scanner i liked for film (slide) was the Imacon ( and drum but too expensive to do frequently)
of course negative film was never made to be scanned but to be printed. And those prints look very good indeed. I used slides for scanning

Nowadays my 'darkroom' is HP printer Z3100- i always like to control the whole process... It is very good for BW as well as colour and you can choose so many papers
It prints while i have a coffee ... and i can do colour-and the colours are right- this was almost impossible before. ( and the colours stay longer)

I would never go back to the darkroom but only for printing BW ( medium format or larger) on baryte paper. Very much like the results of a beautiful baryta print (- not the chemicals)
it is about the luster and the beautiful darktones ...

For me the digital image is now better than the film image;  it has much more depth: ( compare a d800 file with a scanned negative or slide and see there is so much more information in the shadows and highlights)
about 3 dimensionality- it has a lot to do how you process the digital image...
And the digital image is still developing fast and very young ...









Newer Kodak color films are designed to be scanned.  The emultions were designed for scanning as digital intermediaries for editing and eventually for digital projection, which is why, I believe, that Portra and Ektar look so great.  I photograph people, mainly, and only rarely have I ever run into serious color issues scanning.  It really depends on the software.  I use ColorNeg to invert my positive scan of a negative.  If that doesn't work I use Silverfast, which can be brilliant or maddening.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 11, 2012, 11:47:57 AM
TMARK,
I'm glad you brought up scanning color.  I've sort of avoided color film because of the difficulty getting color.  I had been using VueScan, and tried SilverFast but wasn't totally happy. I'll try colorneg -  but do you mean this http://www.colorneg.de/colorneg.html  or http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html ?
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: kmallick on December 11, 2012, 12:51:06 PM
Newer Kodak color films are designed to be scanned.  The emultions were designed for scanning as digital intermediaries for editing and eventually for digital projection, which is why, I believe, that Portra and Ektar look so great.  I photograph people, mainly, and only rarely have I ever run into serious color issues scanning.  It really depends on the software.  I use ColorNeg to invert my positive scan of a negative.  If that doesn't work I use Silverfast, which can be brilliant or maddening.

+1. This is the workflow that works best for me as well scanning C41 and E6 that I develop myself and scan on a flatbed.
Scanning raw in Vuescan and using Color perfect filter in Photoshop (http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html) make it quite straightforward.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 11, 2012, 01:33:07 PM
TMARK,
I'm glad you brought up scanning color.  I've sort of avoided color film because of the difficulty getting color.  I had been using VueScan, and tried SilverFast but wasn't totally happy. I'll try colorneg -  but do you mean this http://www.colorneg.de/colorneg.html  or http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html ?

ColorNeg.de.

The interface sucks, and is not all intutive, but after a while it comes together.

I have to say that Nikon Scan, and Flexcolor, could get color right on the first try 90% of the time.  Silverfast could hit it about 50% of the time, but was very easy to get wher eyou wanted the file, before Dilverfast would crash.

With vuescan I get a big flat file, with as much as the information in it as possible, scanning negs as positives, then work the file in PS with color neg and then fine tune with the usual tools. 

T

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: gotspeed on December 11, 2012, 04:38:34 PM
Ok, i admit it, i just shot a roll of  120 film  ilford panf 50 on the RZ... I didn't do so hot, it was overcast, i thought I overexposed it,  it came out very low contrast..  I hear it's a tricky film. I bought a couple rollls of panf+,  portra 160, tri-x and tmax 400 to check them out. So i am just getting into it.  

The bad side, i discovered nobody wants to develop it, high price of scanning. Surprised me a bit. I think I have two labs that will do it here locally. One is high end drum scan only. Other is more reasonable.  So then next decision is do I start developing and scanning it myself. Millers still does color 120. So portra can go there.

Shooting with the full RZ viewfinder outdoors and 65 f/4-la  was great (and so short just 10 exposures), unless i am imagining it, it has that large feel, (low angle shot of a family). Cient saw the work in progress, and commented on how tall their oldest son has gotten.  She only made that one comment specifically about size.  Is that a coincidence..  Wide view, with no wide angle distortions.

What about this bad boy..
http://plustek.com/mea/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/

Now that i finally have 2 or 3 digital systems I am looking at film, must be nuts :)
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: uaiomex on December 11, 2012, 05:48:29 PM
Finally selling this December 20. Don't hold your breath. It's been delayed before.
Eduardo
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=OpticFilm+120&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=




What about this bad boy..
http://plustek.com/mea/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/

Now that i finally have 2 or 3 digital systems I am looking at film, must be nuts :)

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Codger on December 11, 2012, 08:06:51 PM
I shoot 120 film (Fuji Provia 100F) and understand your questions about making something of the images you capture.  I elected to have my film processed at a great local lab.  I know they'll use the right chemistry every time -- fresh, untainted -- so I don't have to mix up expensive solutions for a couple of rolls and then have it go bad waiting weeks for the next batch.  I have them do the drum scans, too, and yes, each one is costly, but the key for me is, I exercise super critical evaluations before I hand a piece of film over to them.  Early on, I bought a good light box and better loupe, and I do a few steps before a scan order.  I go through all the strips and weed out 2/3 rds of the images instantly.  I put together a group of "really good" and a group of "maybe good" (or back-ups), and set them aside for a day or two.  When I return with more objective eyes, I work over each scene with two strengths of magnification, starting with whether it is a good composition and represents the subject positively.  Next, I assess the slide for technical elements: focus, motion, edges, etc., to determine if one of those factors should disqualify the shot.  The keepers that emerge are then sorted into "is it a pretty good shot" or "is this one I'll post on a strong forum or pursue for a juried show or contest."  Of this last group, I'll then rank them for preference/need to have a scan made.  All of this can take a week (no instant gratification here), but I've found it lets the deserving shots through, and the pretty good "tourist" shots end up on a side track.  Every 6-10 months I go through the tourist shots and throw most of them away, only keeping the very good alternate views of the best shots I've gotten scanned.  Insight: 120 size film for a 67 system is more than four times larger than a full-framed DSLR.  I have mine scanned at 400 mb.  I know I'll be able to take any of the files and produce a clean 40" print, and if I work with it some, a 60" print.  Don't underscan to save a few dollars.  An eight foot print hanging in a corporate office will underwrite quite a few scans in the future.  On a parallel line of thought: I've known a couple of guys who were quite accomplished with the techniques and workflow for digital capture, who figured as "simple" as film shooting was (shutter, aperture, right?) they would add the medium format "feather" to their bonnets.  Didn't work that way for them: there's different savvy and instincts at play and it takes a fair amount of conditioning and practice to previsualize and produce consistently good results with film.  MF film work can give you special images, but my advice is to hand off your film for lab processing, and then become very selective about WHY and WHAT you end up scanning, and don't stint on the quality.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 11, 2012, 10:57:49 PM
I shoot 120 film (Fuji Provia 100F) and understand your questions about making something of the images you capture.  I elected to have my film processed at a great local lab.  I know they'll use the right chemistry every time -- fresh, untainted -- so I don't have to mix up expensive solutions for a couple of rolls and then have it go bad waiting weeks for the next batch.  I have them do the drum scans, too, and yes, each one is costly, but the key for me is, I exercise super critical evaluations before I hand a piece of film over to them.  Early on, I bought a good light box and better loupe, and I do a few steps before a scan order.  I go through all the strips and weed out 2/3 rds of the images instantly.  I put together a group of "really good" and a group of "maybe good" (or back-ups), and set them aside for a day or two.  When I return with more objective eyes, I work over each scene with two strengths of magnification, starting with whether it is a good composition and represents the subject positively.  Next, I assess the slide for technical elements: focus, motion, edges, etc., to determine if one of those factors should disqualify the shot.  The keepers that emerge are then sorted into "is it a pretty good shot" or "is this one I'll post on a strong forum or pursue for a juried show or contest."  Of this last group, I'll then rank them for preference/need to have a scan made.  All of this can take a week (no instant gratification here), but I've found it lets the deserving shots through, and the pretty good "tourist" shots end up on a side track.  Every 6-10 months I go through the tourist shots and throw most of them away, only keeping the very good alternate views of the best shots I've gotten scanned.  Insight: 120 size film for a 67 system is more than four times larger than a full-framed DSLR.  I have mine scanned at 400 mb.  I know I'll be able to take any of the files and produce a clean 40" print, and if I work with it some, a 60" print.  Don't underscan to save a few dollars.  An eight foot print hanging in a corporate office will underwrite quite a few scans in the future.  On a parallel line of thought: I've known a couple of guys who were quite accomplished with the techniques and workflow for digital capture, who figured as "simple" as film shooting was (shutter, aperture, right?) they would add the medium format "feather" to their bonnets.  Didn't work that way for them: there's different savvy and instincts at play and it takes a fair amount of conditioning and practice to previsualize and produce consistently good results with film.  MF film work can give you special images, but my advice is to hand off your film for lab processing, and then become very selective about WHY and WHAT you end up scanning, and don't stint on the quality.

This is what I do, but I scan proofs on the Epson V750 and print them, use them as work prints before sending selects to the drum scanner. 

I agree 100% on the different mind set off MF film.  It takes a while to learn an emulsion, internalize what it will look like, what the light and lens will do. 
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 12, 2012, 01:05:26 AM
Hi,

I have made a few 70x100cm (27x39.5") prints from scanned 67. I was scanning on a Dimage Scan Multi Pro at 3200 PPI. Drum scan offers a better image quality, and I'm pretty sure that excellent lens in front of Velvia 120 combined with excellent focusing and excellent processing can produce outstanding results.

On the other hand I am pretty sure I see a lot of lateral chromatic aberration from my Pentax 67 lenses.

Here are two scans from one of my favorite Velvia slides:

Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/VelviaScans/20111002-Velvia_to_hamburg_03_.jpg

http://www.high-end-scans.de/ (6096 PPI): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/VelviaScans/20111010-Kaffehr01.jpg

My own scanner cannot handle the DMAX of the Velvia, the drum scan holds good shadow detail.

I will also post similar scans from Ektar 100, in a few days.

Best regards
Erik



I shoot 120 film (Fuji Provia 100F) and understand your questions about making something of the images you capture.  I elected to have my film processed at a great local lab.  I know they'll use the right chemistry every time -- fresh, untainted -- so I don't have to mix up expensive solutions for a couple of rolls and then have it go bad waiting weeks for the next batch.  I have them do the drum scans, too, and yes, each one is costly, but the key for me is, I exercise super critical evaluations before I hand a piece of film over to them.  Early on, I bought a good light box and better loupe, and I do a few steps before a scan order.  I go through all the strips and weed out 2/3 rds of the images instantly.  I put together a group of "really good" and a group of "maybe good" (or back-ups), and set them aside for a day or two.  When I return with more objective eyes, I work over each scene with two strengths of magnification, starting with whether it is a good composition and represents the subject positively.  Next, I assess the slide for technical elements: focus, motion, edges, etc., to determine if one of those factors should disqualify the shot.  The keepers that emerge are then sorted into "is it a pretty good shot" or "is this one I'll post on a strong forum or pursue for a juried show or contest."  Of this last group, I'll then rank them for preference/need to have a scan made.  All of this can take a week (no instant gratification here), but I've found it lets the deserving shots through, and the pretty good "tourist" shots end up on a side track.  Every 6-10 months I go through the tourist shots and throw most of them away, only keeping the very good alternate views of the best shots I've gotten scanned.  Insight: 120 size film for a 67 system is more than four times larger than a full-framed DSLR.  I have mine scanned at 400 mb.  I know I'll be able to take any of the files and produce a clean 40" print, and if I work with it some, a 60" print.  Don't underscan to save a few dollars.  An eight foot print hanging in a corporate office will underwrite quite a few scans in the future.  On a parallel line of thought: I've known a couple of guys who were quite accomplished with the techniques and workflow for digital capture, who figured as "simple" as film shooting was (shutter, aperture, right?) they would add the medium format "feather" to their bonnets.  Didn't work that way for them: there's different savvy and instincts at play and it takes a fair amount of conditioning and practice to previsualize and produce consistently good results with film.  MF film work can give you special images, but my advice is to hand off your film for lab processing, and then become very selective about WHY and WHAT you end up scanning, and don't stint on the quality.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Jason Denning on December 12, 2012, 06:24:50 PM
I shoot 617, because I shoot panoramics exclusively and you can't get the quality with digital in one shot as I do on film. It rocks!

Jason
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: SecondFocus on December 14, 2012, 03:14:45 PM
I always seem to like shooting film. It seems so simple sometimes and I get a lot of great response.

Kodak Portra 400, Mamiya 645AFDII...

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Cineski on December 17, 2012, 11:27:53 AM
I got back into film almost two years ago partly because digital burnt me out, and partly as a means to get away from the digital mess of photographers in today's market and the notion that the digital image is cheap (yes, this is unfortunately a perception in today's market).  I will say this:  I love film and it's that love that keeps me going because film is a pain in the butt to deal with  ;D.  Although now that I've honed my workflow, it's almost easier dealing with the film image than digital (except for dust  >:( ::)) and the results I get cannot be touched by digital.  I shoot Portra 400 in 120 and 135 which is the most amazing negative film ever in my opinion.  I scan on a Nikon 9000 with the Nikon software and I've dialed in results that are stunning.  Now when I go back and shoot a job on digital because the client doesn't want to spend the extra for film, I'm almost disgusted by the digital image.  They're just flat and lifeless compared to film.  Square vs. round.  Do I still shoot digital?  Of course, in low light situations digital is a wonderful tool.  So currently 70% of my work is shot on film.  I'd really like to get into 4x5 but my only dependence on labs are currently for processing, which is a wonderful and liberating thing to scanning your own film aside from the time spent.  I'd have to get an Imacon along with a 4x5 camera for my personal workflow.  Although with 4x5 I'd probably start developing myself.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Tejpor on December 17, 2012, 11:45:06 AM
Which lens did you use at what aperture? I have yet to see CA this bad in my drum scans.

(I will also check some bright sunny shots too.)
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 17, 2012, 11:48:08 AM
I got back into film almost two years ago partly because digital burnt me out, and partly as a means to get away from the digital mess of photographers in today's market and the notion that the digital image is cheap (yes, this is unfortunately a perception in today's market).  I will say this:  I love film and it's that love that keeps me going because film is a pain in the butt to deal with  ;D.  Although now that I've honed my workflow, it's almost easier dealing with the film image than digital (except for dust  >:( ::)) and the results I get cannot be touched by digital.  I shoot Portra 400 in 120 and 135 which is the most amazing negative film ever in my opinion.  I scan on a Nikon 9000 with the Nikon software and I've dialed in results that are stunning.  Now when I go back and shoot a job on digital because the client doesn't want to spend the extra for film, I'm almost disgusted by the digital image.  They're just flat and lifeless compared to film.  Square vs. round.  Do I still shoot digital?  Of course, in low light situations digital is a wonderful tool.  So currently 70% of my work is shot on film.  I'd really like to get into 4x5 but my only dependence on labs are currently for processing, which is a wonderful and liberating thing to scanning your own film aside from the time spent.  I'd have to get an Imacon along with a 4x5 camera for my personal workflow.  Although with 4x5 I'd probably start developing myself.

Yes.  On editorial jobs I always ried to shoot film.  The workflow was as fast as digital and I ended up with something I really liked.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: petermfiore on December 17, 2012, 11:49:12 AM
Although with 4x5 I'd probably start developing myself.


Welcome to your next career.


Peter
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 17, 2012, 11:50:50 AM
Which lens did you use at what aperture? I have yet to see CA this bad in my drum scans.

(I will also check some bright sunny shots too.)

I've seen CA from scanners before.  Frankley I didn't notice it until you pointed it out.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 17, 2012, 12:19:12 PM
Hi,

Pentax 67 45/4 at f/11. Lateral chroma is independent of aperture. It can also be seen in both CCD and Drum scan, so I am pretty sure it is on film.

I'm pretty sure all my Pentax 67 lenses have lateral chromatic aberration, I have seen it on the 300/4, 45/4, 35/4. You wouldn't really see it in projection and not with a 15X loupe but you could "feel" it being there. It can be reduced with chromatic aberration tool in old LR3.

If it was my scans you were referring to.

Best regards
Erik


Which lens did you use at what aperture? I have yet to see CA this bad in my drum scans.

(I will also check some bright sunny shots too.)
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Cineski on December 17, 2012, 12:58:23 PM
Yes, scanners are a weak link (as is processing) with film.  The problem with film is there's far more that impacts the image than the photographer.  To control this yourself takes a lot of extra work but like I stated before, it's liberating as an artist to control the digitizing of your film.  Even my Nikon 9000 can have occasional issues with edge bloom and film flatness but it's generally fast and 9/10 the results are amazing.  I'm definitely wanting to try out the Plustek 120, I've spoken to them and the answers to my questions were positive (including there's enough depth of field in the imaging machine to not have film flatness be an issue...HUGE!).  My only other option would be to get an Imacon which I may just do someday but not at the expense of my Nikon 9000.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 17, 2012, 01:54:27 PM
Hi,

My experience is the contrary, spending hours on film scans but just a few minutes at most on digital. I guess it depends if you want the film look or not.

I sort of fell in love with digital as soon I had my first digital camera. Stopped shooting 120 film almost immediately.

Best regards
Erik

I got back into film almost two years ago partly because digital burnt me out, and partly as a means to get away from the digital mess of photographers in today's market and the notion that the digital image is cheap (yes, this is unfortunately a perception in today's market).  I will say this:  I love film and it's that love that keeps me going because film is a pain in the butt to deal with  ;D.  Although now that I've honed my workflow, it's almost easier dealing with the film image than digital (except for dust  >:( ::)) and the results I get cannot be touched by digital.  I shoot Portra 400 in 120 and 135 which is the most amazing negative film ever in my opinion.  I scan on a Nikon 9000 with the Nikon software and I've dialed in results that are stunning.  Now when I go back and shoot a job on digital because the client doesn't want to spend the extra for film, I'm almost disgusted by the digital image.  They're just flat and lifeless compared to film.  Square vs. round.  Do I still shoot digital?  Of course, in low light situations digital is a wonderful tool.  So currently 70% of my work is shot on film.  I'd really like to get into 4x5 but my only dependence on labs are currently for processing, which is a wonderful and liberating thing to scanning your own film aside from the time spent.  I'd have to get an Imacon along with a 4x5 camera for my personal workflow.  Although with 4x5 I'd probably start developing myself.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 18, 2012, 07:58:13 PM
8x10 film Schneider 480mm .... I just love it.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8494/8284820105_594136e7e4_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 18, 2012, 11:20:34 PM
I think going back to shooting film is helping me revisit how I like the look of my files.  I think its very beneficial to be able to shoot both.  No question I am spending more time on the film than the digital files on a per image basis, but I shoot way more digital files. I'll have several hundred digital files and maybe 6 LF sheets and one or two rolls of 120.

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Rob C on December 19, 2012, 04:34:58 AM
I think going back to shooting film is helping me revisit how I like the look of my files.  I think its very beneficial to be able to shoot both.   No question I am spending more time on the film than the digital files on a per image basis, but I shoot way more digital files. I'll have several hundred digital files and maybe 6 LF sheets and one or two rolls of 120.





I have to agree 100% with that sentiment.

I came into digital after my working life had pretty much ended, and my feeling has usually been that it was mainly the 'feel' of film, its cameras, the processes that drew me to the medium. It can truthfully be said that that first print coming to life in the tray was a life-setter. It really did represent creation, as in something from nothing (I appreciate that's not technically the case; spiritually, for me, it was).

Regarding digital production, however, the ability to print wet, in both b/w and colour, to a high professional standard made it a non-question as to what one should be aiming for with a digital print or on-screen picture: the experience and a sophisticated sense of what's possible was already instilled long, long ago in the darkroom. That background was an invaluable aid. Without it, I doubt that I'd have started messing with digital or even continued. In fact, looking at some digital reproductions on the Web, I do get the impression that there are perhaps better visual artists out there than good printers of their own work; in other words, I see many poor productions of good shots.

I guess that all experiences add up.

Rob C
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: jon404 on December 19, 2012, 04:41:43 AM
Amateur, Pentax 645N. Why? The camera just feels good. Good to hold, good to use. Ambivalent these days about digital. Retired now (multimedia designer, illustrator), not in a hurry anymore. Shooting film is slow, but then, so am I these days. Expect that 120 film will be around for at least 10 more years... we'll see.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 19, 2012, 06:52:26 AM
One of the many reasons I still shoot film is large format.

8x10 Film:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8494/8284820105_594136e7e4_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: patrickfransdesmet on December 20, 2012, 06:16:53 AM
aaaaaah

the beauty of 8x10
simply breathtaking !

I must advise everyone, to visit the photography museum in Belgium, Charleroi,
where you can find a large collection of fine art prints

I get emotionally touched by prints, made on film and fiber base baryta paper
I do not get this feeling from digital

Must be me ...


Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 20, 2012, 09:33:18 AM
aaaaaah

the beauty of 8x10
simply breathtaking !

I must advise everyone, to visit the photography museum in Belgium, Charleroi,
where you can find a large collection of fine art prints

I get emotionally touched by prints, made on film and fiber base baryta paper
I do not get this feeling from digital

Must be me ...




I think this is true.  Film can be a dream world.  The imperfections and limitations drive you forward, as in life.  Its a different dimension to image making.  I'm not knocking digital, but digital's brief is PERFECTION and EASE.  This is nothing like life, it is what an advertisement for life looks like.  This accounts, perhaps, for the distance.  This is not to say that digital can't express or convey emotion, just look at photo journalism.  Its almost all digital and in many cases VERY compelling.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 20, 2012, 10:18:01 PM
Film while limited in certain ways is quite unlimited in other. 8x10inch image circles being one of them, creating an immersive depth even with one simple light.

The nature of the lens, the fact that the image is never miniaturized in the workflow.

The way fine detail fades smoothly into the film grain.... it's a different story to digital.

Digital has put great image detail into small packets, but it has left behind the beauty of most of medium format and all of large format.

Here is what I mean about fine detail....

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8354/8292346341_233671a046_b.jpg)


Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 20, 2012, 11:03:26 PM
aaaaaah

the beauty of 8x10
simply breathtaking !

I must advise everyone, to visit the photography museum in Belgium, Charleroi,
where you can find a large collection of fine art prints

I get emotionally touched by prints, made on film and fiber base baryta paper
I do not get this feeling from digital

Must be me ...




Thanks!

I often go over to the Panavision offices where they have George Hurrell prints in the halls.

They are simply breathtaking.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 21, 2012, 01:14:34 AM
Hi,

Tim Parkin sent me an Mamiya 7 Image from the same test. If you measure MTF it would outspace IQ180 with some margin. But thinks are not that simple. Tim scans on drum at 10000 PPI. The best scans I have are at 6096 PPI, but they would come in at 200€ each at official price. Drum scans are not exactly cheap. Also, digital images are smoother, no grain. If you enlarge a digital image it just fells apart.

Regarding Pentax 645D it is awesome with good lenses, but according to Lloyd Chambers testing most lenses are not that good. Nevertheless, I have seen a lot of perfectly good P645 images.

What I have seen is that when scanning my Pentax 67 slides on my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro I get about the same resolution for high contrast detail as on the 24 MP Sony Alpha 900 I have. Image quality wise I regard the Alpha to be much better.

Best regards
Erik


Film while limited in certain ways is quite unlimited in other. 8x10inch image circles being one of them, creating an immersive depth even with one simple light.

The nature of the lens, the fact that the image is never miniaturized in the workflow.

The way fine detail fades smoothly into the film grain.... it's a different story to digital.

Digital has put great image detail into small packets, but it has left behind the beauty of most of medium format and all of large format.

Here is what I mean about fine detail....

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8354/8292346341_233671a046_b.jpg)



Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 21, 2012, 01:39:10 AM
.....Also, digital images are smoother, no grain. If you enlarge a digital image it just fells apart.....
Best regards
Erik

Digital sensor while clean in some aspects are a pain in the ass in others.

No sensor moire problems with film. Grain has a magic way of avoiding banding if you need to heavily process an image.
Film defects tend to look more pleasant than digital artifacts.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Rob C on December 21, 2012, 07:45:42 AM
Digital sensor while clean in some aspects are a pain in the ass in others.

No sensor moire problems with film. Grain has a magic way of avoiding banding if you need to heavily process an image.
Film defects tend to look more pleasant than digital artifacts.



But Ektachrome wasn't without faults, either: I remember shooting two very similar leather jackets, one a pale blue and the other a pale greenish tone. When the film came back I couldn't tell which was which. The day was saved because I still had the jackets in the studio and the buttons were different, so I knew which to label as which.

I'm not really sure about moire: I seem to be familiar with it from before 'enjoying' the digital experience, but without having any precise memory of why it seems a familiar concept - maybe I saw it in film?

Rob C
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: artobest on December 21, 2012, 07:56:19 AM
Rob, you probably saw moire in half-tone reproductions in books and magazines. It predates digital for sure, but you won't find it being caused by film.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 21, 2012, 12:33:22 PM
Rob, you probably saw moire in half-tone reproductions in books and magazines. It predates digital for sure, but you won't find it being caused by film.

Yup... it wasn't the photographers problem.

However digital moire can be used to your advantage if there is a moire caused by two layers of fabric.
IF you scale the subject on the sensor while shooting to just the right size you can bet the camera color moire
to coincide with the dual fabric moire and use the color information of the moire to correct the luma moire caused by the fabric.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: carloalberto on December 21, 2012, 08:25:50 PM
Very technically proficient as well as doing more then full justice to the beautiful subjects.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 21, 2012, 09:27:06 PM
Fuji GX680 and Plus-X-Pan

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8215/8294967667_158ea67af3_b.jpg)

I should have shot a fraction of a second later, but I had to run before getting soaked....
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: K.C. on December 22, 2012, 11:17:29 PM
I often go over to the Panavision offices where they have George Hurrell prints in the halls.

They are simply breathtaking.

Undoubtedly Hurrell's work remains amongst the greatest of the all time but you can't just credit film and large format for the amazing look he captured. He spent hours hand retouching his negs on the base side with pencil and pastels, effectively taking away sharpness.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 23, 2012, 05:12:47 AM
Undoubtedly Hurrell's work remains amongst the greatest of the all time but you can't just credit film and large format for the amazing look he captured. He spent hours hand retouching his negs on the base side with pencil and pastels, effectively taking away sharpness.

Hurrell embraced the art of retouching. He preferred his subjects to have little foundation and powder preferring to retouch.
However film and the format he used were instrumental to his style. I have seen prints prior to retouching and they are beautiful..
in some ways I like them even more. Some of his nicest work is not retouched to the smoothness that was the look of his mainstream work.

Here is one for example:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2492/3920763514_b3983898b9_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 23, 2012, 06:11:00 AM
Quote
Who's still shooting film?

Spent the day developing film....
Sometimes I just love it... the process...
Choosing the developer to use....
Mixing...
Checking temp...
Aggitation....
Loading the rolls...
watching the last cloudiness go away as the fixer does the job..
Looking at the rolls as they dry ..
I enjoy all the good music I listen to in the process...
today it was Ania Dąbrowska
http://youtu.be/OOGOMm2NkDg (http://youtu.be/OOGOMm2NkDg)
http://youtu.be/vUgpNwWff6I (http://youtu.be/vUgpNwWff6I)

and R L Burnside
http://youtu.be/DsfZ1N-s-qM (http://youtu.be/DsfZ1N-s-qM)

Sometimes I can't wait for the film to dry so I have a mini light box and I set my
cell phone to shoot negative and I take snaps of the negatives still drying..

here's one from today:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8351/8298626053_2fd483bcc3_z.jpg)

Shooting film is like cooking a fine meal. Digital however magnificent it is still somewhat feels like heating up
junk food in a microwave ;)...... just kidding

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Rob C on December 23, 2012, 12:01:09 PM
Fred, that's almost as bad as smoking whilst you print!

I used to work in a darkroom of five of us, and all smoked. The poor girl who did the spotting used to get overtime. Cruel stuff or cool, depending on whether she needed the money.

The Polish chick has a nice video - the first one - and as for the last link to Burnside, I'm a sucker for blues.
But none of it, for me, is for working. For that, I prefer swamp pop rock or straight Chuck Berry. Music that's emotion and not message-based is better when your head has to be someplace else.

It's like driving: I often wonder if I even noticed the lights, but I guess I did or I wouldn't be writing this. When working, I seldom know which song I just heard, but am quite aware of the one playing.

Isn't photography something else?

http://youtu.be/3jLn1_shQXQ

Rob C

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: bucko on December 23, 2012, 10:48:33 PM
I still use Velvia 50, 35mm. Anyone else?

bucko
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 23, 2012, 11:08:57 PM
A friend of mine recently did a road trip along Route 66
and took an old Leica he bought at a yard sale.... his pictures came out really well.
Funny thing is he only took up photography a couple of weeks before going.
He shot Velvia because he bought a slide projector at the same yard sale.

16 year old kid. He also geo tagged all his shots with his cell phone. Oh these young hipsters... they have it all figured out.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: TMARK on December 24, 2012, 10:51:51 AM
I like the drone of Velvet Underground when I process film. It's meditative in a way.

I reserve swamp pop for scanning!


Fred, that's almost as bad as smoking whilst you print!

I used to work in a darkroom of five of us, and all smoked. The poor girl who did the spotting used to get overtime. Cruel stuff or cool, depending on whether she needed the money.

The Polish chick has a nice video - the first one - and as for the last link to Burnside, I'm a sucker for blues.
But none of it, for me, is for working. For that, I prefer swamp pop rock or straight Chuck Berry. Music that's emotion and not message-based is better when your head has to be someplace else.

It's like driving: I often wonder if I even noticed the lights, but I guess I did or I wouldn't be writing this. When working, I seldom know which song I just heard, but am quite aware of the one playing.

Isn't photography something else?

http://youtu.be/3jLn1_shQXQ

Rob C


Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Rob C on December 24, 2012, 12:36:08 PM
I like the drone of Velvet Underground when I process film. It's meditative in a way.

I reserve swamp pop for scanning!





klrzfm.com is having to alternate my time slots with jazzradio.com which offers a wide range of jazz styles. It's also free, and that's encouraging! The guy who runs a local bar always has great music on, and when I thought to ask, turned out it was from jazzradio.com! I do wish they still had jukeboxes, though; there was something wonderfully sexy in the deep bass throb of a beautiful Bal Ami. Or maybe it was just the normal feeling of being young. Who can remember? Stupid Cupid, Sixteen Candles, Heartbreak Hotel, Rock Around The Clock, Long Tall Sally, Kokomo... them wuz the days.

I'll probably be doing some more scanning over the holidays - thank goodness my scanner wasn't broken, just being temperamental some weeks ago; I had imagined all my old trannies were now useless to me. Maybe that was an early visit from Santa?

;-)

Season's best to you .

Rob C


Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: JV on December 25, 2012, 07:54:08 PM
Oh these young hipsters... they have it all figured out.

Talking about hipsters, there was an article on Lomography in the Financial Times of July 2012.
According to that article Lomography sold 500,000 cameras and 2,000,000 rolls of film in 2011.  They have an annual growth rate of 30%.
I am not sure how significant this is in the whole scheme of things but the numbers struck me as being quite high...
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: SecondFocus on December 25, 2012, 11:25:20 PM
I had stopped in to the Lomography store in Los Angeles a few months back. It was the middle of the week and the end of the afternoon. The place was quite busy and people were definitely buying cameras and spending money.

Talking about hipsters, there was an article on Lomography in the Financial Times of July 2012.
According to that article Lomography sold 500,000 cameras and 2,000,000 rolls of film in 2011.  They have an annual growth rate of 30%.
I am not sure how significant this is in the whole scheme of things but the numbers struck me as being quite high...
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: VisualLifeLine on December 26, 2012, 02:09:03 AM
I think the main reason for the lifeless looking digital images is poor processing skill and the missing of taste of the majority of users.
The retouching of scanned negatives is at first a very technical one (dust bust, tweaking the white point etc....), while the retouching of a digital image has to be more creative right from the start and requires vision and skill to generate an image with comparable visual qualities as a scanned film image has it.
I believe, that it is possible to get the same organic look from digital with appropriate retouching as with film. Obviously comparing same negative and sensor formats. In my experience I get really close in matching files from my M9 to the scans from a M6 (with the same lenses). The cameras handle very identical, too. So for me this is not the point. The point is the process of loading film, developing, waiting and finally seeing the results. On the other hand with digital you press the button monitor the histogram and a little later you download the images from the card. Film feels magic and has so many more qualities in the handling. You actually do something with your hands, you touch, you smell, you interact a lot more, whereas digital is just pressing the shutter and doing digital retouching (which is also a process I love, but it's different).
The result is, that my emotional connection is so much stronger to the film image than to the digital. So that's the point. It's hard to say, wether this is good for my photography or not. I don't know. So far I can't recognize an distinctive difference in my imagery.

BUT: The thing changes, when you consider some larger format cameras. For example 6x7 or 6x6. The transition to the out of focus areas is something completely different. The rendering differs so greatly from everything else. The last months I retouched countless images taken on the P30+ and P65+. (It was my job in my practical term) If at all you can compare the dof, and out of focus rendering with 645. For myself I shoot also 6x7 and I think you can't get the look with digital cameras. Period.

I have to admit, I'm torn between digital and using film as well. I miss the emotional connection to the pictures and the feeling of doing something special, when pressing the shutter.
Furtheron I think it's good to cultivate the craft and keep a diversity in the age of Canon/Nikon/PhaseOne gear, where everybody uses the same few lenses, the same sensors/sensor sizes and every picture is rendered in the same way.



Best Regards,
Jan
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 26, 2012, 02:17:14 AM
Hi,

I don't want to argue, but once you are into digital, weather scanning film or shooting digital originals, you are into processing. I'm pretty sure that if you give the same image to 30 different photographers you come up with 30 different renditions.

Best regards
Erik


I think the main reason for the lifeless looking digital images is poor processing skill and the missing of taste of the majority of users.
The retouching of scanned negatives is at first a very technical one (dust bust, tweaking the white point etc....), while the retouching of a digital image has to be more creative right from the start and requires vision and skill to generate an image with comparable visual qualities as a scanned film image has it.
I believe, that it is possible to get the same organic look from digital with appropriate retouching as with film. Obviously comparing same negative and sensor formats. In my experience I get really close in matching files from my M9 to the scans from a M6 (with the same lenses). The cameras handle very identical, too. So for me this is not the point. The point is the process of loading film, developing, waiting and finally seeing the results. On the other hand with digital you press the button monitor the histogram and a little later you download the images from the card. Film feels magic and has so many more qualities in the handling. You actually do something with your hands, you touch, you smell, you interact a lot more, whereas digital is just pressing the shutter and doing digital retouching (which is also a process I love, but it's different).
The result is, that my emotional connection is so much stronger to the film image than to the digital. So that's the point. It's hard to say, wether this is good for my photography or not. I don't know. So far I can't recognize an distinctive difference in my imagery.

BUT: The thing changes, when you consider some larger format cameras. For example 6x7 or 6x6. The transition to the out of focus areas is something completely different. The rendering differs so greatly from everything else. The last months I retouched countless images taken on the P30+ and P65+. (It was my job in my practical term) If at all you can compare the dof, and out of focus rendering with 645. For myself I shoot also 6x7 and I think you can't get the look with digital cameras. Period.

I have to admit, I'm torn between digital and using film as well. I miss the emotional connection to the pictures and the feeling of doing something special, when pressing the shutter.
Furtheron I think it's good to cultivate the craft and keep a diversity in the age of Canon/Nikon gear, where everybody uses the same few lenses, the same snesors/sensor sizes and every picture is rendered in the same way.



Best Regards,
Jan

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Rob C on December 26, 2012, 04:09:11 AM
Hi,

I don't want to argue, but once you are into digital, weather scanning film or shooting digital originals, you are into processing. I'm pretty sure that if you give the same image to 30 different photographers you come up with 30 different renditions.

Best regards
Erik



But that's just the same with film: give 30 printers the same neg and you get 30 different prints.

That's partly why, in another thread here about art and how much involvement the photographer needs to have with the final product, I argued that he has to do it all if he wants to call it his art, but not so if he's happy to call it commerce. It's a semantic mind game that carries premium prices in the gallery world. And in this instance, rightly so.

Rob C
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: FredBGG on December 26, 2012, 06:55:42 AM
But one thing that is special about film is that when used rough and not seeking perfect image quality film
still has a very nice look to it. Just look at distressed film. Being physically distressed it has some of the charm that could be associated with antiques.
Distressed digital on the other hand looks like crap. Scratch a CD and you get a corrupted frame with a big ass half the size of the image grey fill.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: VisualLifeLine on December 26, 2012, 07:13:17 AM
But one thing that is special about film is that when used rough and not seeking perfect image quality film
still has a very nice look to it. Just look at distressed film. Being physically distressed it has some of the charm that could be associated with antiques.
Distressed digital on the other hand looks like crap. Scratch a CD and you get a corrupted frame with a big ass half the size of the image grey fill.
True!

I think, imperfectness attracts me, because it's a counterweight to the idealism in our commercialised world.

Best regards,
Jan
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Rob C on December 26, 2012, 03:11:20 PM
True!

I think, imperfectness attracts me, because it's a counterweight to the idealism in our commercialised world.

Best regards,
Jan



That's well put; I sometimes wondered why I found plastic faces and bodies in fashion shots anything but pleasant. I'd wondered if it was envy because I'm no hotshot PS guru by an stretch of the imagination, but being honest with myself, I didn't quite buy the self-criticism. I believe that you're closer to the reason. Also, I remember perfectly well that there were wonderful makeup artists in the 60s and 70s too, and their work still kept the models looking human. Perhaps it's the combination of digital capture, inevitable PS temptation to make it better-than-life and current expectations that has made today's 'look' what it is, and nobody feels safe in breaking the system.

Having said that, much of the actual photography in those images is petty damned wonderful, and not just from a few people, either. Good work is everywhere.

Now, if Vogue suddenly needed a photographic primitive once more...

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Rob C on December 27, 2012, 04:46:42 AM
For a long time there was a small poster over the espresso machine in my lab saying: Drink more coffee to do stupid things even faster. Now I understand: I don't need coffee to do stupid things faster, I need to use digital technology.

Best,
Johannes



Yes, it's much the same thing between film formats too; use 35mm for when you want/need to do a lot quickly, and MF and LF when you need to think longer and can afford the time. Discipline? Well, possibly, but more likely horses for courses.

Rob C
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: marfa.tx on December 27, 2012, 01:53:35 PM
I still shoot film.

I also still make prints (BW & color)

why?
because it is easy.
because the cameras are better to hold.
because people wait longer, talk more, are much less afraid.
because the gods of photon require offerings, else they shall return and take back their oil.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: KevinA on December 28, 2012, 08:33:23 AM
But that's just the same with film: give 30 printers the same neg and you get 30 different prints.

That's partly why, in another thread here about art and how much involvement the photographer needs to have with the final product, I argued that he has to do it all if he wants to call it his art, but not so if he's happy to call it commerce. It's a semantic mind game that carries premium prices in the gallery world. And in this instance, rightly so.

Rob C
Give me a neg to make 30 prints and you would end up with 30 different prints :-)
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Rob C on December 28, 2012, 10:32:13 AM
Give me a neg to make 30 prints and you would end up with 30 different prints :-)




That's the advantage I had: spent my formative photographic years working in an industrial photo-unit: we generally had to make prints in sets of 30 to 40 of each, depending on the departments that needed copěes. The skill came from learning how to make greyish turbine blades look correct as black/white prints and the same was true for flame tubes, where the colours in C-type prints meant very significantly different things to the engineers. As a result, my first foray out of that dedicated ethos and into the commercial photo world was quite discouraging: I'd stepped my first step in to the psychology of 'good enough'.

So yep, making thirty identical prints by hand is both possible and regularly done. At least it was during the late 50s/mid-60s when I quit. We didn't do machine prints.

Rob C
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: rolleiflexpages on January 02, 2013, 05:16:43 PM
I am using film for 95% of the time, both in 35mm and 120 rollfilm format.
Why? Because the process is more fun; because it just feels better; because you can choose from different emulsions; because the results are more natural; because the results can be more spectacular (slide projection); because somebody else does the processing/printing; ...
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: esox on January 02, 2013, 06:19:19 PM
Hi,

Nice thread, didn't read it yet thoroughly (English isn't my mother language), but I will. I still shoot films (BW and positives colour), mainly Foma100, Acros, and Provia or Ektachrome100VS for colours. That is very interesting beacause here, in US, medium or large format is much more used than in France, and maybe because even if photography was born in Europe and more precisely in France, the photographic culture is far more alive in US. The first photo art gallery was created in 1974 in France as far as I know. I find the photographer more opened mind here on that forum than in France. I've been working 3 years with Dennis Stock, US photographer known for his pictures of James Dean, and spoke a lot with him. Photo isn't reallyu considered as a major art in France. It tends to change lately, mainly with "conceptual photography".

So what I mean is that the gap between digital and silver photograpy is far more deep in France than in US. That's a shame.

I use a hassy 503CX, a Sinar F2 and as 35mm, Olympus OM4.

Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Rob C on January 03, 2013, 04:38:52 AM
You surprise me; I bought French PHOTO for many, many years, and was of the conviction that France was very photo-aware. About France being the birthplace of photography: there's another school of thought that favours England...

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: esox on January 03, 2013, 06:04:37 AM
I didn't say that photography was not present in France. It is very important, but it has been considered for a very long time as a minor art. We have a few very famous photographers like Cartier Bresson, Clergue, etc. But photography suffered a very long time of an image of minor art, not as "good" as painting for example. And also it may be because photography deals with the "Devil" : fashion, publicity, etc. You know in France we are a bit schizophrenic we it is about money...  ;D
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: uaiomex on January 03, 2013, 10:47:26 AM
Same here. Photography started in France. Cinema started in France. Too many of the greatest photographers of all times are french. I know french are a little schizo. Hate english, yet they use it everyday instead of using french. (eg.: week-end) Hard to believe.  ???
Eduardo

You surprise me; I bought French PHOTO for many, many years, and was of the conviction that France was very photo-aware. About France being the birthplace of photography: there's another school of thought that favours England...

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: esox on January 04, 2013, 05:26:13 AM
But that is changing, photography begins to be recgnized as a major art, not only dedicated to"pictures of the reality" like were Cartier Bresson, Clergue... That doesn't mean it is good news, I'm not very happy with conceptual art expression.

But that is not the subject of this perticular discussion...

Regarding english, before hate, there is always love... Don't forget englih are our best ennemies ! As well as french are english best ennemies. I think that britih hate more french peopole that the contrary.
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Gel on January 04, 2013, 06:11:59 AM
Best enemies are the best ones to have.

c'est ne pas une pipe
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: esox on January 04, 2013, 06:33:00 AM
Encore heureux...
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Rob C on January 04, 2013, 11:08:55 AM
But that is changing, photography begins to be recgnized as a major art, not only dedicated to"pictures of the reality" like were Cartier Bresson, Clergue... That doesn't mean it is good news, I'm not very happy with conceptual art expression.

But that is not the subject of this perticular discussion...

Regarding english, before hate, there is always love... Don't forget englih are our best ennemies ! As well as french are english best ennemies. I think that britih hate more french peopole that the contrary.



I can offer a thought: in my experience, francophobia stems from visits to Paris and expensive restaurants. People who try the countryside and the N and D roads have entirely different experiences.

Partly, the problem lies with the French: they can't speak French as well as British school teachers speak French. That causes communication problems. My granddaughter has just come back from a year in Paris 'studying' at some Law college; perhaps nobody will be able to understand her anymore.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Hulyss on January 04, 2013, 12:16:43 PM


I can offer a thought: in my experience, francophobia stems from visits to Paris and expensive restaurants. People who try the countryside and the N and D roads have entirely different experiences.

Partly, the problem lies with the French: they can't speak French as well as British school teachers speak French. That causes communication problems. My granddaughter has just come back from a year in Paris 'studying' at some Law college; perhaps nobody will be able to understand her anymore.

;-)

Rob C

Well... I'm French but my only regret on my death bed will be to be born in France. Seriously... I mean  C'mon !! this country is a fail (or soon to be) especially for young like me. To bad we can't immigrate like in the old days :/

I still shoot film, between  :P
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: bcooter on January 04, 2013, 02:23:47 PM
I guess it depends on your expectations.

Paris, New York, LA, Tokyo they all have different attitudes towards foreigners working, though I find Paris the easiest city I work in.

I've stood in the middle of Boulevard Saint Germain and blocked traffic for 15 minutes and not one person honked.  Trying that in LA will get you arrested or flattened.

Recently we shot in the cafe Le Montebello with a crew of 20 and all they asked was for us to have dinner.  It's my favorite place in Paris and I love that restaurant and this time they had new ownership so they didn't know us and still let us work.

I have dozens of experience like this. 

Yes Parisians are abrupt but like any expensive, heavily populated city, a person working in a retail shop doesn't have time to talk for 15 minutes because rent is incredibly expensive and they have to get to work.

In fact if I'm in the lobby of the Hotel going over the days shoot, we are always surrounded by dozens of hotel staff just loving the images. 

I find being a photographer in Paris brings a lot of respect and professional photography in Paris, like the rest of the world has taken a big financial hit.

Other cities are good, all are different. 

NY easy, LA difficult, Milan complicated with a lot of words, Hong Kong amazing (like NY on acid), Tokyo restrictive but polite, Munich efficient though somewhat restrictive, Moscow a lot of hands out for money, a lot of people with those hands are wearing guns (though I love Moscow).

Though I'm not a fine art photographer, I was asked to place an image in a gallery auction that sold at what I thought was an astonishing number.

I love Paris and it's been good to me.

(http://spotsinthebox.com/paris_story.jpg)

Well, except the cab drivers. 

IMO

BC
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Rob C on January 04, 2013, 02:41:37 PM
James, it's because it was shot on an M8!

I think so, but maybe I'm more confused than I thought.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: Rob C on January 04, 2013, 05:08:43 PM
Can't watch: it's been banned in 'my country'.

;-(

Rob C
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: uaiomex on January 04, 2013, 08:11:03 PM
Now, can you link the director's cut?  :D

You can try with french subtitles:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x99ein_make-the-girl-dance-baby-baby-baby_music?search_algo=2#.UOdechxbSBQ
or with engl. subtitles, better video quality
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb80pk_baby-baby-baby-english-subtitles-ma_music?search_algo=2

Hope it works, if enjoy,
Johannes
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: jon404 on January 04, 2013, 08:52:43 PM
Still shooting film? I am. Not because I think film is better than digital -- as far as I can tell, this has become a meaningless argument. No. For me, it's the large old cameras -- like my Pentax 645N -- with their weight and easy-to-use controls. The Pentax is an ergonomic treat, with fine lenses that do justice to Kodak Ektar 100 and Portra 400 film.

But it isn't exactly film-OR-digital, is it? I use a small Olympus XZ-1 pocket camera for the histogram, and to preview monochrome. And, I get hi-res digital scans from North Coast Photo in Carlsbad, California... fast turnaround, great place. And then, there's Photoshop. So for me, it's the best of times, the best of both worlds.  Hopefully we'll have film around for 20 more years or so.

A priceless intangible -- each time I load a roll of 120 into the Pentax, I'm 10 years old again, with my brand-new Brownie Hawkeye on a Christmas morning. What a treat!
Title: Re: Who's still shooting film?
Post by: esox on January 05, 2013, 06:28:05 AM
I fully agree with that !
Also, as I use mainly cameras in manual mode or sometimes aperture mode, I find those CanoNikon stuff very complicated... I also use my Olympus E620 for the histograms in difficult lightes. Otherwise it is Lunasix F