MFD maybe I do want one

[KevinA]

Lately I have been going the retro route and shooting the odd roll of film on jobs just for my own pleasure. I shoot Canon digi and MF film, Portra to be exact on either Pentax 67 or a Rolleiflex T I just bought off ebay. I love it, the colour gradation and softer feel just looks more natural. The digital looks great on edges, in fact that's what I think it does best, sharp edges, colour is bright and bang in your face to. I like what film does between the edges more than I like what my digital does between the edges. I like the look of scanned negative film, my experience with MFD is not much. For those of you that have shot the latest colour neg films and MFD, do the backs give you that film like feel? the best way I can describe what my eyes see is my Canon digital is like the colour is painted on glass, film is like it is dyed through the glass, the same colours but different. I am not looking to start a film v digital debate, just curious if I bought something like a P25 wether the extra bit depth and greater DR would give me what I can see is missing from a 1DsmkIII. I'm not bothered which shoots a resolution chart the best.

Kevin.

[JdeV]

Nope.
Medium format is not more like film than 35mm.

There is some variation between cameras though (rather than formats). I think the D3x is slightly more film-like because of the superior dynamic range to the Canons (and indeed to any of the medium format cameras up to the P65+. I haven't tested it against the 80Meg backs).

If you like scanned colour neg. stick to that. You really won't get it any other way (all the supposed film-effect simulations suck).

Jonathan

[amsp]

To a certain degree MFD files tend to look a bit more "film-like", probably because of the increase in dynamic range, but mostly the trick in getting digital to look more analog is in how you handle the files in post production to be honest. And I agree with JdeV that there are no shortcuts, plugins etc do a crappy job of simulating film. If you want the film look with minimal work stick to film. On the other hand, if you have a specific vision for your work and know your way around RAW-software and photoshop, then you can do more to achieve that goal with digital IMHO.

[KevinA]

I have looked at a lot of online digital made to look like film, I would not bet much on being able to tell the difference on a print to print basis. I would say in general though the digital made to look like film still has a hardness that comes through.

Kevin.

[lowep]

"Canon digital is like the colour is painted on glass, film is like it is dyed through the glass"

For me the higher resolution of MFDB digital increases rather than reduces this difference, as if the image is painted on glass and cut out in pieces -- like viewing a Burger King billboard through a stained glass window. However the flexibility of the big MFD file makes it more easy to manipulate in post so it looks like something else.

[Rob C]

Lately I have been going the retro route and shooting the odd roll of film on jobs just for my own pleasure. I shoot Canon digi and MF film, Portra to be exact on either Pentax 67 or a Rolleiflex T I just bought off ebay. I love it, the colour gradation and softer feel just looks more natural. The digital looks great on edges, in fact that's what I think it does best, sharp edges, colour is bright and bang in your face to. I like what film does between the edges more than I like what my digital does between the edges. I like the look of scanned negative film, my experience with MFD is not much. For those of you that have shot the latest colour neg films and MFD, do the backs give you that film like feel? the best way I can describe what my eyes see is my Canon digital is like the colour is painted on glass, film is like it is dyed through the glass, the same colours but different. I am not looking to start a film v digital debate, just curious if I bought something like a P25 wether the extra bit depth and greater DR would give me what I can see is missing from a 1DsmkIII. I'm not bothered which shoots a resolution chart the best.

Kevin.

Had both - the 3.5/75 Tessar was softer, but also gave nice b/w on TXP120 via D76 1+1. I preferred the 'blads with Ektachrome 64 Pro - but so much inevitably depended on the processing labs and the light; though I used the best pro labs available to me at the time, I'm fairly sure there were still noticeable variations. The Pentax was a huge disappointment to me for reasons already stated here before. I don't think you can hope to get one thing by using another. Go with the real deal, whichever one you want.

Rob C

[Graham Mitchell]

You will need to master certain aspects of post-processing with an MFDB to create the looks you want. Some people don't have the knowledge/patience for it. It's certainly more work than shooting film, but also vastly more flexible.

[Gigi]

Sorry to veer off on this one from the consensus, but I actually like some of the digital look with both Phase (older) and Leaf (currently). Finding shots that never would have made it on film, yet are captured in digital. That said, there are some film type shots that don't make it through MFDB setup, probably in part due to modest PP skills, and also because of the change to a different technology from a film understanding to a different one.

Some pictures don't work digitally - such as those in odd (very odd) soft lighting conditions - such as cloud/sunlight. I'm not sure that they aren't making it, and perhaps its that I don't know how to get that out. But others, such as soft landscape imagery or strong color ranges are pretty well achievable in high end digital. That isn't stated  lightly - as there is little appeal here with the Canon or other 35 mm based sensors - they just don't do it for me at all (note: Leica seems to capture it pretty well, tho as the exception).

In general, the film has a softness in its transitions that isn't easily emulated. Can't we have both technologies? and we do - it would be nice to have the qualities of both in a single work flow!

 

[KevinA]

Had both - the 3.5/75 Tessar was softer, but also gave nice b/w on TXP120 via D76 1+1. I preferred the 'blads with Ektachrome 64 Pro - but so much inevitably depended on the processing labs and the light; though I used the best pro labs available to me at the time, I'm fairly sure there were still noticeable variations. The Pentax was a huge disappointment to me for reasons already stated here before. I don't think you can hope to get one thing by using another. Go with the real deal, whichever one you want.

Rob C

I'm not worried about ultra sharp for this, I can get that with primes on the Canon, the 35mm f1.4 gives me moire. I scan  the negs myself, the film I send to Metro London for processing. I reckon they have a bigger turnover of chemicals, I am staying away from the "we process Tuesdays and Thursday" labs.
I have had many a 'blad the Pentax suited my main line of business better in the end. My Pentax, Corfield, Plaubel 5x7, Razzledog and others have been sitting in cupboards for sometime now. I try to ignore them, but whenever I look at my archives on screen, the film just looks nicer. Not sharper, not more detail, but nicer. The Rollei was an ebay impulse buy as was the Autocord, I just like TLR's. I let my daughter shoot some with the Autocord, I had to wrestle it out of her hand in the end.
I had hoped that a MFDB might save the trouble, pain and heartache of shooting film, I hate all that bother, then again I love it also.

Kevin.

[robert zimmerman]

film looks different than digital and it's hard to get that soft negative film look and feel with digital. it's too sharp, too harsh and handles contrast differently.
film can look contrasty without being harsh, that is really, really difficult with digital. it helps to shoot above base iso imo.

if you really, truely want to know, visit a good, professional retouch company and have them show you what they do and their interpretation of film like - you'll get a better picture of what is possible than asking a bunch of photographers with semi-good photoshop skills.
where are you located? there are some fantastic retouchers out there in most big cities...and they do answer questions.

[lowep]

"a MFDB might save the trouble, pain and heartache of shooting film, I hate all that bother"

different trouble, different pain, different heartache, different bother, nice photos  

[John R Smith]

Kevin

I made the transition from shooting MF film to a digital back in January 2010. I found it to be quite a bumpy ride initially, and I am only now getting reasonably comfortable with my digital output. I shoot very little colour, and almost all my digital RAWs are converted to B/W.

So far, I have been unable to get anything like the colour results that I was used to from film (mostly Portra colour neg). Like you, I enjoy the subtlety of the tonal transitions which film produces, and to be perfectly honest if I needed colour work for a magazine article or whatever I would just load up a film magazine with Portra, get the negs scanned and save myself a whole load of time and trouble.

For B/W, however, I can get results using Lightroom which are near as dammit to what I could produce in the darkroom using HP5 and T-Max. I'm not entirely sure why this should be the case, but I am very happy with the B/W conversions from my RAW files. It took me a while to get there, though, and perhaps if I put the same effort into colour I might get something I was happy with.

John

[Cineski]

I just got into MF film.  Even my 35mm film negs (shooting Portra 400) blows me away after struggling for years and years to perfect my digital 35mm output to look more like film.  If you go digital, prepare to spend more time in post.  A digital back is for absolute control in your images in post and during capture.  I still intend to get one for the conceptual advertising look I want SOME of my images to have (not all). 

[Doug Peterson]

So far, I have been unable to get anything like the colour results that I was used to from film (mostly Portra colour neg). Like you, I enjoy the subtlety of the tonal transitions which film produces, and to be perfectly honest if I needed colour work for a magazine article or whatever I would just load up a film magazine with Portra, get the negs scanned and save myself a whole load of time and trouble.

Have you tried C1 for your digital color work? Not all raw processors handle color (especially tonal transitions in areas of strong color) the same. At all.

[John R Smith]

Have you tried C1 for your digital color work? Not all raw processors handle color (especially tonal transitions in areas of strong color) the same. At all.

Doug

No, so far I have used Phocus (a little bit) and Lightroom only. To elaborate a little - if I had been primarily shooting colour film as positives on transparency film I think I would have been quite happy with my digital colour output. It looks a lot like slide film, and has that kind of very natural immediacy which looks, well, like reality, if you know what I mean. But I have never liked slide film, either 35mm or MF, for precisely that reason, although I had to use it a lot for work and for magazine colour work in the old days. For my personal work, I have always preferred colour negative film like Portra because it just looks more chalky and paint-like, and to my mind has a great deal more mood. And that is the look that I have tried to get with digital MF, but so far failed.

John

PS Reading the release notes, it seems that C1 does not support Hasselblad 3FR files, which LR does.

[EricWHiss]

In general, the film has a softness in its transitions that isn't easily emulated. Can't we have both technologies? and we do - it would be nice to have the qualities of both in a single work flow!
 

Rat's Geoff, I was just thinking about asking you if you wanted to sell your 6x6 back for the AFi....  oh well, I'll skip that now.  Yes you should use it.  I agree there are some things film still does better (or should I say more easily?). No doubt experts in P/S or other post work can do anything but I'd rather put my time into content and composition than post.

[mgrayson]

You will need to master certain aspects of post-processing with an MFDB to create the looks you want. Some people don't have the knowledge/patience for it. It's certainly more work than shooting film, but also vastly more flexible.

How does one acquire this knowledge? Experimentation?

[DeeJay]

While I love film, portra in particular, I shoot with a P65+ now. I don't really miss film except for some nostalgia. The first shot I ever took with the P65 I had my heart stolen. I used to shoot 5x4 and at times 10x8 and I thought with that first shot from the P65 that the look, the tonality, the colour the depth if field reminded me of large format, of 10x8. Once you spend a few days playing around with a decent MFDB and C1 you really realise how limitless it becomes. It gives me so much more than film. I was one of those that hung on to film for a long time for the colour, the tonality and now I have all that and more. I can make it what ever colour I want, I'm not limited by the stock. I can really mess the colour up too, cross process style etc and retain it's high quality. I can get that film look but have a clarity and sharpness I didn't have before. For me it's the best of both worlds. And best of all I can save it all as a preset and call it up at any time I want and then tweak it to suit the shoot and client exactly. I even have certain looks for certain clients.

Rent a P65 for a day and I assure you, you'll never look back. It opens the door to a whole new period of your photography and that, some day, is going to mean a whole lot of nostalgia for you. So what you lose in film is really not so much. I love film and I love what it has given me in the past and I love what it has taught me about colour and contrast and I take that an step forward into the future.

Finally it gives me something that film couldn't give me is the ability to experiment more freely, easily and precisely. And now you have complete control over everything. Once you develop your procedures you can have something, a look, that no one else can create. It's not like film in that regard where anyone can buy 10x8 polaroid and get that look exactly and instantly. Digital is limitless and provides us photographers greater ability to be unique through experimentation. There is a very, very great value in that.

Enjoy

[lowep]

"How does one acquire this knowledge? Experimentation?"

ask yourself how and how many years did it take you to acquire the knowledge you now have on working with film, even though so much work had already been done delving into this mature technology that most of the answers you needed about film were readily available.

  

[Graham Mitchell]

How does one acquire this knowledge? Experimentation?

There are all sorts of books, online tutorials, and third party filters available and of course practice helps.