Anyone shooting MFDB digital plus film?

[EricWHiss]

I'm wondering if any one with a MFDB setup uses the DB and film side by side?  I haven't shot film in a long time but guess that a good scan is still going to be better than my P20 files in terms of resolution and perhaps tonality?   So I was thinking that for certain images that I might want to make a bigger print (fine art stuff) that I could pop the film back on after I do the digital tethered to get the lighting how I want it? Obviously this is working better for certain shoots than others.   Just wondered if anyone is doing that and if they could say if its worth the trouble or not.

[amsp]

I have a P25, and frankly I'm shocked every time I look at scans from my 6x7 trannies and see how crappy they are compared to the digital files. Supposedly film that big should have more resolution (according to some film "evangelists"), but my own experience is that the detail just isn't there. I also find the level of control you have with a RAW file to be much greater than with scanned film. Nowadays I would actually prefer working with a 1Ds than going back to my old Pentax 67. This is just MY opinion mind you.

[Anders_HK]

I'm wondering if any one with a MFDB setup uses the DB and film side by side?  I haven't shot film in a long time but guess that a good scan is still going to be better than my P20 files in terms of resolution and perhaps tonality?   So I was thinking that for certain images that I might want to make a bigger print (fine art stuff) that I could pop the film back on after I do the digital tethered to get the lighting how I want it? Obviously this is working better for certain shoots than others.   Just wondered if anyone is doing that and if they could say if its worth the trouble or not.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,

This one may interest you   :
[a href=\"http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Kodak_Most_photographers_prefer_film_news_128432.html]http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/...ews_128432.html[/url]

Recently I posted following, it was interesting to see the number of replies posted rather quickly   :
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00N2yK

Personally I grew into photography with F100 and Fuji Slides, especially Velvia. Having used D50 for two months and D200 for 15 months I never liked them. 35mm slides has grown too small for me. Earlier this year I upgraded to Mamiya 7II and Mamiya ZD. Getting my first rolls of Velvia 50 from my Mamiya 7II, there is magic. Film is magic.    Digital is different.    

What I like about either media is in summary:

Slides: Magic and colors. Results are there when I captured them, and I can cheaply change the sensor (film). Film is cheaper than digital (unless you shoot very large volumes).

Digital MF: I like the way I can work with the files and the large DR, and that I can control the range of exposure by using curves etc, no more HDR like was case with D200, and far better results than D200. I get results faster by reading and processing RAW files, and direct to computer.

What I do not like with both: Digital age seem to have made using film more difficult: finding films, finding labs, converting to digital etc.


I did scan one slide from my Mamiya 7II, a Fuji Provia 100 at over 130MB professionally on an Epson dedicated slide scanner (was told drum scans are more messy). Details and resolution were awesome and in my opinion well to compete and exceed my ZD. I think comparison of film versus digital is lame. They are simply differen medias and both can complement each other.

I never wish to give up slides. Same time I much enjoy good files from the ZD. In fact, seeing colors of Velvia 50 and technical issues with digital makes me think of shooting more slides. I have plenty of new Fuji Velvia 50, but am searching to find Fuji Asia 100  .

Regards
Anders

[Frank Doorhof]

I just bought a filmback (will pick it up tomorrow).
I bought it to play with it, especially with the ultra grainy 3200 films.

When I want the shot I will use the Leaf aptus, when I want to play I will experiment with film.

[wolfnowl]

What I do not like with both: Digital age seem to have made using film more difficult: finding films, finding labs, converting to digital etc.

I find this to be somewhat true.  There's a new store in town - part of a larger chain, and they actually have 120 slide film available, but it seems no one has thought of putting it in a fridge.  As for processing, since I gave up my key to college darkroom years ago, I haven't done any E-6.  Neither do they... it has to take a round-trip through Vancouver.

Mike.

[EricWHiss]

Thanks for the replies so far...

Anders,
Yes I had been following your post on photo.net but didn't know that was you, and also saw the other article you posted.


I guess what I am asking is not is film better than digital because at least for me with my 16mp back, I know it is at least for some circumstances.  When I go to museums and photoshows, I am always amazed at the film prints especially ones with dark areas of saturated color, especially after working with digital for the last 6 years. Film does have a certain look.  I just have been blown away by the big film C prints in galleries lately, and I can still spot the digital ones most of the time.  

 It seems really great that some of the cameras will take both film and digital backs and I was wondering if anyone took advantage of that capability.  Heck both my Rollei and my Leica R8/DMR can shoot both, but until now I've never used film on either.

What I am asking is for those of you with cameras that take both film and db - do you ever just pop off the digital back and swap in film for a certain shot cause you can and you want that look, or shoot the same shot first with the digital back using it like a polaroid - to get everything right, then pop on the film back?  That's what I'm thinking about doing and was curious to know if anyone is doing that.

And if you are doing that, how do you adjust your exposure settings when switching to film?  I mean probably your back has more DR than film and you are probably exposing to the right? So how many stops do you adjust for?

[Anders_HK]

I find this to be somewhat true.  There's a new store in town - part of a larger chain, and they actually have 120 slide film available, but it seems no one has thought of putting it in a fridge.  As for processing, since I gave up my key to college darkroom years ago, I haven't done any E-6.  Neither do they... it has to take a round-trip through Vancouver.

Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mike,

You are more fortunate. As long as mailed domestic assumably it should not get X-rayed. I work in Korea, at the very south tip. I got my 120 Velvia 10-packs in Hong Kong and send it for processing in Seoul, way north. To make more challenge the form is all Korean, but works ok...   , of course I cannot read it... just use template.  

Anders

[Dustbak]

I have not been using film since 1998. I have been tempted to buy film backs more than once but could resist the urge of doing so.

I fear that when I also start using film again, I will end up buying stuff like high-end scanners etc...

It still itches but for the moment I can resist

[NBP]

I have a P25, and frankly I'm shocked every time I look at scans from my 6x7 trannies and see how crappy they are compared to the digital files. Supposedly film that big should have more resolution (according to some film "evangelists"), but my own experience is that the detail just isn't there.

I've been producing my own portfolio's for several years now & I've just finished a major yearly redesign of all my portfolio's - the first since I went 100% digi -  I too am frankly shocked at the quality of some of the 6x7 scans I'd previously used (and thought to be ok) next to the new work from the Aptus 65.
Admitedly, some of the scans are 2-4yrs old. But I've had to eject quite a few shots for now until I get them re-scanned as they just don't cut it next to the newer digi shots.

[Rob C]

Seems this one will go on and on for ever - might as well jump in too!

I have spent much time scanning 35mm Kodachrome 64 Pro that´s even up to 24 years old, this with a CanoScan FS4000US. The files are then converted to black and white via Channel Mixer and the resulting prints are excellent.

I still have a Nikon F3 (one of the last ones made) and a freezer full of film; I also have a D200. Every now and again I load the F3, determined to use it, only not to do so. The huge problem - and I´m talking here from the amateur side of the fence, the pro days have passed - is cost. Is it really worth the price of getting that freezer load processed? Will it make any damn difference anyway, being an amateur again with only myself to please; will I find myself grudging every exposure, having got used to the freedom of an electronic card? Will I want to face again the digital spotting of the cleanest transparency?

But, I wouldn´t judge the quality of digital files created via a Pentax 67 ll. I had one for a year or so - a vain attempt to get back into stock, just as it was going totally digital(!) - and despite feeling beautiful to the hand, it was the most useless camera I ever owned: with MU it STILL died the death because of shutter bounce, never mind the mirror! So, If you want to compare film MF with digital, then use something like a Mamiya or Hasselblad, something with betweeen the lens shutters!

Using large focal plane shutters is a waste of bloody time.

Ciao - Rob C

[wolfnowl]

I still have a Nikon F3 (one of the last ones made) and a freezer full of film; I also have a D200. Every now and again I load the F3, determined to use it, only not to do so. The huge problem - and I´m talking here from the amateur side of the fence, the pro days have passed - is cost. Is it really worth the price of getting that freezer load processed? Will it make any damn difference anyway, being an amateur again with only myself to please; will I find myself grudging every exposure, having got used to the freedom of an electronic card? Will I want to face again the digital spotting of the cleanest transparency?

Excellent questions, Rob.  Something all of us using film, or considering using film, go through.  Before digital became so ubiquitous, we dealt with negatives (or positives), chemicals and paper.  That was our only route, whether we did the processing/ printing ourselves or farmed it out to someone else.  And each method had its own challenges.  

We've become so used to Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. and scanners/ inkjet printers now that it seems few people can even think of film without seeing it fitting into a digital workflow as a necessary final step.

Mike.

[Bernd B.]

But, I wouldn´t judge the quality of digital files created via a Pentax 67 ll. I had one for a year or so - a vain attempt to get back into stock, just as it was going totally digital(!) - and despite feeling beautiful to the hand, it was the most useless camera I ever owned: with MU it STILL died the death because of shutter bounce, never mind the mirror! So, If you want to compare film MF with digital, then use something like a Mamiya or Hasselblad, something with betweeen the lens shutters!

Using large focal plane shutters is a waste of bloody time.

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you know to use it, a Pentax 67 and 67II produces outstanding pictures. IMO there is nothing that compares to the bokeh (=rendering of the background blurr)  of the newer 105/2,4, 165/2,8 and 200/4. Absolutely nothing (and I own and use a lot of cameras).

But it took me years to learn how to use it. I bought my first one in 1989 and really had worked in it six years later. From then on it was the greatest tool I ever used. If my new H1 and H3D come somewhat close to a Pentax 67 I´ll be really happy! I fear it won`t, because the bokeh probably is not as beautyful, but I´m on my learning curve,

Bernd

[mahleu]

I bought a Nikon F2 for next to nothing with 4 lenses a while back and more recently a Hassy 500c/m with a box full of bits. Whilst most of my shooting requires digital, I still love to go out with film.

On a recent trip to Zambia my digital decided it wasn't happy so I shot with my film canon and I got lovely results, even when scanned.

I have access to a black and white darkroom this year which helps a lot keeping costs down, I've sourced an enlarger for next year and I can't wait to get back into printing.

As Anders_HK said, film is magic. So is printing your own pictures in a darkroom, computers have made that process a bit sterile. I can still remember the amazement of my first print appearing in the developer.

[KAP]

If you know to use it, a Pentax 67 and 67II produces outstanding pictures. IMO there is nothing that compares to the bokeh (=rendering of the background blurr)  of the newer 105/2,4, 165/2,8 and 200/4. Absolutely nothing (and I own and use a lot of cameras).

But it took me years to learn how to use it. I bought my first one in 1989 and really had worked in it six years later. From then on it was the greatest tool I ever used. If my new H1 and H3D come somewhat close to a Pentax 67 I´ll be really happy! I fear it won`t, because the bokeh probably is not as beautyful, but I´m on my learning curve,

Bernd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have and do use Pentax 67's, I've got one of each model. Good as they are, they are never as sharp as my Makina or Corfield. I use them for aerials mostly, lenses wide open and fastest speed I can get from 100iso Provia. Another problem when using fast shutter speeds is the dark edges of the frame where the shutter accelerates and slows down, all 3 Pentax cameras show this.
I still like film compared to my 1DsmkII or Kodak SLR/n, if I had a MFDB I think that would do nicely and the film cameras retired for good (I mostly use them for fun anyway).

Kevin.

[sanvandur]

For me, digital is fantastic for ultimate fidelity, sharpness, speed, and all that we love about digital. For most of what I do, this would apply. Film, I use for extreme long exposures, polaroid, "grainy" images, Holga, pinhole photography, Lomography, etc. I don't believe that digital "replaces" analog in every way, or vice versa. They each do their own thing, and they both have their pros and cons. I've heard of people simulating analog "looks" digitally. For the most part (there are exceptions), I think it's stupid to simulate if you can just do the real thing. What's the point, and joy, of digitally simulating an 8x10 pinhole color polaroid photograph, or a Holga? If that's something that appeals, fine. But it's not superior (or inferior). It is what it is.
That said, I love both and hope that digital doesn't make analog supplies dissappear altogether.

[Gary Ferguson]

Yes I still shoot a few rolls of black and white film. Chiefly of my family, and of neighberhoods, buildings, and landscapes that are unlikely to endure.

A century or so from now film will offer an archival alternative, and a negative is still a pretty good guarantee of image authenticity and therefore it meets the standards of historical documentation more readily than a digital file.

[Lust4Life]

Until the P45 came along, I shot strictly film and scanned on my Howtek Hi-Resolve 8,000 line drum scanner.  Shot with Hasselblad 503cw and 4x5 using Fuji Acros film.  Not as convenient as shooting with digital back but I got far better images drum scanned.

With the advent of the P45 and now the P45+, I've sold all of my film gear, including 4x5, and gone totally digital with the Phase P45+ on an H2.

So convenient with image files that match or in many cases beat what I could get drum scanner.

At this point in the technology curve, more MP is not necessarily what we need.

Jack

[Dustbak]

I agree! More MP than the 39 (or even more with microstep) I can currently use is not on the top of my priority list.

I hate the friend that sold me his multishot back. Now, I am simply addicted to multishot and try to use it where I can. What an unbelievable difference between single and multishot! Before I was living in blissfull ignorance now I am spoiled by the joys of multishot.

We need a singleshot version of multishot. We need non-interpolated colors. (Foveon MFDB anyone?).

We need IR filters and coatings that do not cause weird reflections under various circumstances.

[ynp]

I shoot 400 ISO Fuji  film alongside eMotion backs on my ALPA when traveling. I usually have a light  Horseman/Arca Swiss roll-film back with me and a Helvetar 48 mm lens.  I tried to avoid shooting film for a while.  Than I realized that in low light situations the Digitar lenses do not allow me to use reasonable shutter speed at obligatory   f 8-16. I think that I will be shooting film before I have bought a Rodenstock HR lenses for f 4,5-5,6 shooting and a Digital back good for 400 ISO.
Yevgeny

[Bernd B.]

I have and do use Pentax 67's, I've got one of each model. Good as they are, they are never as sharp as my Makina or Corfield. I use them for aerials mostly, lenses wide open and fastest speed I can get from 100iso Provia. Another problem when using fast shutter speeds is the dark edges of the frame where the shutter accelerates and slows down, all 3 Pentax cameras show this.
I still like film compared to my 1DsmkII or Kodak SLR/n, if I had a MFDB I think that would do nicely and the film cameras retired for good (I mostly use them for fun anyway).

Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149390\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I shot a few thousand rolls with my four 67 and 67II and compared the pictures to my Hasselblad V lenses and Schneider Super-Angulon XL (47 and 58) I used for some jobs. Except for a bid of distortion and some CA in the corners with the 45mm lens Pentax 67 equipment is absolutely top notch. This was extremely fine equipment at a reasonable price. Some might think it can´t be too god, because of it´s price, but that´s not the case. I `m talking of the last series of lenses with the rubber grip surface. The older versions were not as good.

When I started with the RZ I compared a sh 180mm Z to a Pentax 200/f4 (newer version). The Mamiya was so much behind that I returned it and went for a newer 180 SB.

Also I never had any problems with the shutter of the Pentax.

When I bought it, I had all the bad rumors about it in my mind. None of them became true.