Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: EricWHiss on October 28, 2007, 04:34:51 pm
-
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.
-
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.
-
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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=149216\")
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 (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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
I might consider putting film through my Rollei if I go to a particularly dangerous location where I'd be uncomfortable with a digital back.
-
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes I get good results with the Pentax or else I would not use them and for aerial work they beat the Hasselbladi n many areas. But I get better results from a Makina and Corfield, no mirror and a between the lens shuitter makes for a smoother exposure.
Kevin.
-
One thing was not mentioned in this thread before: the new generation Kodak Portra 160 and 400 films are way better to scan than the older version, at least on my Howteks when wet scanned. If you have older films in stock give them away or throw them away but don`t use them anymore for scanning. The difference is enormous.
I got my H3D39 today and I might say from my first impressions that a drum scanned Pentax 67 Portra 400NC is by far superior to a H3D at iso 400. That means something in the digital era. But don´t ask me how many days it takes to get a simple portrait job finished. That´s why I bought the H3D.
-
Bernd, I did use my Pentax 67 ll on a Gitzo so heavy I can hardly carry it anymore! I did have brand new lenses and though I tried everything I could think of not to have to admit to myself and my bank account that I´d made a boo boo, there was no alternative but to cut my losses. (I had the 55 and 200 lenses, if I forgot to mention that earlier.)
Hasselblad 500 cameras also have issues with mirror bounce - all such heavy objects do, it´s an unavoidable fact of both physics and life - and Hasselblad were honest enough to admit as much in their own Newsletter once and showed the difference between two shots, one with MU and the other without. But their lenses (okay, Zeiss´s lenses) never showed shutter problems converted into blur. About all that ever went wrong with them was the delayed action thinggy on the C series, which I think was discontinued on the later lenses.
But the Pentax has another, additional problem, and that´s caused by the mass of the shutter blinds. I always used the darn camera on that Gitzo, MU employed. Can you tell me what else I could have done, as you suggest one can do better when one has ´learned how to use it´? There might be a case for hand-holding, insofar as the human body might absorb some shock, but that´s only after the camera has suffered it first! Also, not on for slow shutter speeds.
With respect, bokeh counts for zilch if the edges of an intentionally crisp image are not up to an acceptable standard. In most commercial work I can think of, bokeh would be an intrusion - clients want product or subject as clear and as sharp as possible and have little interest in out-of-focus areas which would take up precious space.
Maybe I missed something in my search to convince myself that it was a great buy. Or maybe it suffered from the same flexible QC that today´s digital products all seem to do.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Bernd, I did use my Pentax 67 ll on a Gitzo so heavy I can hardly carry it anymore! I did have brand new lenses and though I tried everything I could think of not to have to admit to myself and my bank account that I´d made a boo boo, there was no alternative but to cut my losses. (I had the 55 and 200 lenses, if I forgot to mention that earlier.)
Hasselblad 500 cameras also have issues with mirror bounce - all such heavy objects do, it´s an unavoidable fact of both physics and life - and Hasselblad were honest enough to admit as much in their own Newsletter once and showed the difference between two shots, one with MU and the other without. But their lenses (okay, Zeiss´s lenses) never showed shutter problems converted into blur. About all that ever went wrong with them was the delayed action thinggy on the C series, which I think was discontinued on the later lenses.
But the Pentax has another, additional problem, and that´s caused by the mass of the shutter blinds. I always used the darn camera on that Gitzo, MU employed. Can you tell me what else I could have done, as you suggest one can do better when one has ´learned how to use it´? There might be a case for hand-holding, insofar as the human body might absorb some shock, but that´s only after the camera has suffered it first! Also, not on for slow shutter speeds.
With respect, bokeh counts for zilch if the edges of an intentionally crisp image are not up to an acceptable standard. In most commercial work I can think of, bokeh would be an intrusion - clients want product or subject as clear and as sharp as possible and have little interest in out-of-focus areas which would take up precious space.
Maybe I missed something in my search to convince myself that it was a great buy. Or maybe it suffered from the same flexible QC that today´s digital products all seem to do.
Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149862\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rob, did you have the latest versions? The 55mm with the almost flat front element? This lens is absolutely fantastic. Ok, I´m a people photographer, so I´m mostly interested in the perfomance on axis, but I also did shots where I needed the performance in the field (of the image).
The only older lens I have, a 75/4,5 shows the typical QC problems of the later 70s: you can use it only when stopped down to 8.
The newer 200mm ist also fantastic.
The procedure you describe is absolutely right. Heayy tripod (I use a Gitzo Carbon 1549) and of course MU. I do MU with almost every SLR I have (RZ + Hassy 500), but not with 35mm cameras. Handheld only with 1/500 or 1/1000 with the 200mm.
But that´s only the way it works for me. If you have better results with you solutions it´s fine. I have to admit that the mirror slap of the 67 and 67II limits the usability for handheld shots. So a non retrofocus system without any mirror as a plaubel makina might be better for your work.
About bokeh: there are lots of jobs where bokeh doesn`t count, for example when shooting with a white background in the studio. But for my portrait work the background blurr is important. A lens with a good bokeh makes a point that`s out of focus look uniform. A lens with a bad bokeh might ad a lighter ring arround the very same point. This way the background draws too much attention. You feel disturbed when looking at the subject. You client may not find words for this, but when he sees pictures of another photographer, he might feel that this other photographer did a better job.
Bernd
-
I got my H3D39 today and I might say from my first impressions that a drum scanned Pentax 67 Portra 400NC is by far superior to a H3D at iso 400.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, here I was wrong. After comparing again, I would better say they are equal.
-
Now, lets wait another month and see how you feel about it. By that time you should be able to draw every bit of quality out of your files.
-
Sorry, here I was wrong. After comparing again, I would better say they are equal.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150280\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Try turning off ALL sharpening in Flexcolor, processing out the files as TIFFs and then using Smart Sharpen in Photoshop on the files. Bump the Amount up to 500%, adjust the Radius to taste, and then fine tune the Amount. I generally find an Amount of 100%-250% and a Radius of between 1.0 and 1.5 to work well, at least with landscape images. I then use another round of sharpening with Photokit Sharpener before printing.
-
Now, lets wait another month and see how you feel about it. By that time you should be able to draw every bit of quality out of your files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150288\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I spent almost an entire week to get the color negatives of one two hour portrait session developped, make my own contact sheets, scan them on a flatbed, send them to the client for selection and then make six drumscans. I like that kind of work, but I hope the H3D gives me more time for other things soon.
-
I might consider putting film through my Rollei if I go to a particularly dangerous location where I'd be uncomfortable with a digital back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Could you explain this? Are you talking about something like dropping it in the ocean? Or going to Iraq? Just curious...
JC
-
my film days were over when I met my now wife....she pushed me into digital about 5 years ago, with a shitty D100...she was sick and tired of me spending days in the darkroom. I loved it..it was my getaway. I loved the smell and collaboration with other photographers/printers....I always saw the images before the ended up in the mags. But this was when i was living in NYC.
I switched from the D100 to the ds1 MKII about 1 1/2 years later (now over 2 years ago) and it was like switching from a snap shot to a real camera...but I still missed the film days....about 1 yr ago I made my ds1mkII into a backup camera when I purchased a Leaf 65 back....with an Mamiya AFDII and a 67proII........this was the first time I felt like I was back! (like in my film days).
I think that I would be very afraid to shoot film right now...since I will have to give the film to a LAB to develop...can you imagine..having no backups!??!? You just drop off a $50K job and have nothing but a piece of paper telling you just dropped of 20-30-40 rolls??? And what if they screw it up in processing??? Man I can't sleep tonite thinking about going back to film!!
Anyways now I am a sucker for instant gratification (like my clients!) and I bought 10 packs of polaroids about 1 yr ago....to shoot with my 67...guess what?? Yes used 1 pack! can't even remember where I stored the other 9.
Sorry for my blah blah blah....but reading about film makes me feeling nostalgic!
Quality right now is better with digital (depending what you are shooting with) then film.... especially now with all the new software out there.
Just my .2 cents
-
I spent almost an entire week to get the color negatives of one two hour portrait session developped, make my own contact sheets, scan them on a flatbed, send them to the client for selection and then make six drumscans. I like that kind of work, but I hope the H3D gives me more time for other things soon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150306\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not counting time to create image content and ideas, I'd say using the H3D doing the same type work (two hour portrait session) my timeframes would look like this:
Rigging light: 1/2 hour.
Session: 2 hours.
De-rig: 20 min.
Modifying in flex for preview: 15 min.
Saving preview files: 2 min.
Creating a .pdf contact sheet for mailing to client: 15 min.
Waiting a day or two for client to decide: a day or two...
Returning to flexcolor and performing RAW file processing on image selection: 1/2 hour.
Editing up between one and six images: sometimes 1 hour for six images, sometimes 6 hours for 1...
Burning and sending off a DVD: 20 minutes.
-axel
-
Creating a .pdf contact sheet for mailing to client: 15 min.
-axel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you create the .pdf contact sheets in flexcolor? Usually I send small preview jpegs to the client.
Bernd
-
Do you create the .pdf contact sheets in flexcolor? Usually I send small preview jpegs to the client.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I automate it using the Contact sheet II and PDF Presentation automation scripts in Photoshop. (Can also be started from within bridge.) Exporting small .tif previews from Flexcolor is a snap, you can convert these to .jpg when using the PDF presentation in Photoshop, if not the .pdf you send off will be huge!
I set the page size to fit within an A4 page in the Contact Sheet function, this lets the client print sheets at his/her location, making everything quick and easy. Only thing that is difficult sometimes is judging small details on the contact sheets when printed, so I have to make sure no shots that are out of focus or have similar goof's follow through to the client...
If the number of images is not too great, and the client is in a hurry, I sometimes just use the webpage funcionality in Photoshop and upload a small gallery to my site based on the flexcolor previews.
-axel
-
Yes I'm still using films whose look are very difficult to replicate digitally such as Tri-X.
Also I'm using 4x5 slides again because I miss the viewcamera possibilities in MF and 35mm.
It's a sight to behold on a lighttable.
Well scanned and post processed it still has more details than 39MP backs, and a quality which is simply different from digital.
In addition, it is a good way to keep skills and creativity sharp: just shoot 4x5 with one sheet film per subject and no bracketing. It's another rhythm than digital and it's quite fun too.
-
Well this weekend I played a bit more with the Ilford 400 and 3200 delta pro B&W.
In the states I did some shots with the Portra400VC from Kodak.
I scan the negatives with the Epson Perfection V700 on 3.5mm distance from the glass (VERY important otherwise the scans look way too soft).
It's not BETTER than digital in color, sharpness, cleaness etc.
HOWEVER I prefer the look above digital for the more gritty stuff and it gives me the possibility to shoot at ISO800 and up with my Mamiya
I have made several prints on A2 and A3+ and the results really struck me, they are razorsharp and the LOOK and FEEL of the black and white film is just what the doctor ordered for the more gritty stuff I love to do sometimes.
With the Leaf I can get ultra clean and sharp shots in the studio with amazing dynamic range and an almost clinical look.
With film I can just put in the film and shoot outside and get a wonderful look and feel also.
I have ordered more film to just keep experimenting.
I don't see myself doing alot on film but for my personal stuff and just to play arround I love it (more than I expected to be honest).
-
Exactly my own experience (except the wife and shitty D100 part). I can still remember the anxiety, worrying that the lab would fuck up the film. I would also like to add that digital files hold up much better when enlarged.
my film days were over when I met my now wife....she pushed me into digital about 5 years ago, with a shitty D100...she was sick and tired of me spending days in the darkroom. I loved it..it was my getaway. I loved the smell and collaboration with other photographers/printers....I always saw the images before the ended up in the mags. But this was when i was living in NYC.
I switched from the D100 to the ds1 MKII about 1 1/2 years later (now over 2 years ago) and it was like switching from a snap shot to a real camera...but I still missed the film days....about 1 yr ago I made my ds1mkII into a backup camera when I purchased a Leaf 65 back....with an Mamiya AFDII and a 67proII........this was the first time I felt like I was back! (like in my film days).
I think that I would be very afraid to shoot film right now...since I will have to give the film to a LAB to develop...can you imagine..having no backups!??!? You just drop off a $50K job and have nothing but a piece of paper telling you just dropped of 20-30-40 rolls??? And what if they screw it up in processing??? Man I can't sleep tonite thinking about going back to film!!
Anyways now I am a sucker for instant gratification (like my clients!) and I bought 10 packs of polaroids about 1 yr ago....to shoot with my 67...guess what?? Yes used 1 pack! can't even remember where I stored the other 9.
Sorry for my blah blah blah....but reading about film makes me feeling nostalgic!
Quality right now is better with digital (depending what you are shooting with) then film.... especially now with all the new software out there.
Just my .2 cents
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
It's not BETTER than digital in color, sharpness, cleaness etc.
HOWEVER I prefer the look above digital for the more gritty stuff and it gives me the possibility to shoot at ISO800 and up with my Mamiya
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=152241\")
Frank,
Good to hear of your shooting with film . For COLOR: try FUJI SLIDES. Negative film per my experience is flat in comparison. The colors will likely amaze you... and likely beat your Leaf. Care to bet??
For lanscapes and scenery, nothing may beat Fuji Velvia 50 and its true magic. There is a new Velvia 50 that is very identical to the classic Velvia 50 that was discontinued a few years before. My first rolls: simply awesome.
I just found some Fuji Astia in Hong Kong. That one is for portraits but should be good at capturing landscapes with the flim's low contrast abilities. Read here: [a href=\"http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2814.htm]http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2814.htm[/url]
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professio...astia_100f.html (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/astia_100f.html)
Up to ISO800??? How about these:
Up to 4800 ISO - Provia 400F can be "push-processed up to +3 stops, and even up to +3 1/2 stops depending on the scenes" per Fuji http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professio...rovia_400f.html (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/provia_400f.html)
Up to 1600 ISO - Provia 400X. http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartn...oductProvia.jsp (http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductProvia.jsp)
Regretably they do not fit in my ZD camera, but... I can ensure that Velvia 50 ISO is truly lovely in 6x7 from my Mamiya 7II .
Regards
Anders
-
There's a "like new" Mamiya 7 II on e-bay right now with bidding at a bit over $900 for the body with an 80mm lens. For the price of a top-end Nikon digital body you could get a couple of 7's and a range of lenses...I once hungered for one of these, and now, I just can't see myself doing film again -- and that's after doing it for forty years.
JC
-
I still shoot film in MF and digital in 35mm.
And I love the mood of film. There is something else. I don't know what exactly. A feeling.
I loved the Mam7. Compact, light, good lens. That makes me think that Mam have/had a good range of camera.
-
And I love the mood of film. There is something else. I don't know what exactly. A feeling.
I agree. Not being a professional photographer I can still enjoy it as a hobby, and while I love the creative abilities of Lightroom for example, I still have a connection to film. I recently found four rolls of Provia 120 in the freezer and sent them off for processing, and that meant I had to find the box that had my loupe, and set up the light table and everything, but there was something more tangible about it - a different feeling than holding a CF card. That's not to knock digital - I also shoot digitally and I imagine people who were just getting into photography in the digital age won't have that same feeling or connection to film but it's still there for me.
Mike.
-
Great to hear from all of everyone on this.
One thing that hasn't been discussed too much is what do you do after you shoot....meaning if there is an advantage with film or a certain look, is it retained when scanned and printed digitally or is only preserved when printed in the darkroom? I'm pretty sure a C print can still do more colors than the latest epson or HP inkjet. In fact I am always totally blown away by the look of big film prints in the galleries. MFDB may have more resolution, but I think film still rules for color, especially when it comes to prints.
What do you all say?
-
I don't think films win in resolution.
When I compare the film shots with the 22MP digital back the digital back wins with EASE, there is much more detail in the 22MP files (sharper).
I have blown pictures from the 5D up to billboard size without problems so I don't think that (without the need for crop) you will need more resolution.
As mentioned before the main difference for me is the look and feel of the shot.
-
There's a "like new" Mamiya 7 II on e-bay right now with bidding at a bit over $900 for the body with an 80mm lens. For the price of a top-end Nikon digital body you could get a couple of 7's and a range of lenses...I once hungered for one of these, and now, I just can't see myself doing film again -- and that's after doing it for forty years.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John,
I got my Mamiya 7II with 80mm and 43mm lens in Hong Kong earlier this year. All of it new. Going from memory I paid around 1500 USD for the 7II with 80mm and around 1000 USD for 43mm. That was at Man Shing store in Mong Kok, but... I now know I can buy Mamiya from the agent directly... possibly a little less. Pricing of the 7 is way high on Ebay due thanks to the USA agent selling it at rip off prices. It can be worth a travel for some people considering it... .
Regards
Anders
-
Rob, did you have the latest versions? The 55mm with the almost flat front element? This lens is absolutely fantastic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hello Bernd, I just had to let go a used Mamiya ZD, I was about to buy it, but in the last second held back because as a non pro I could not justify the cost, at least not right now. I'm trying to get over it in going to learn more about that old Pentax 67 which has been lying unused in the corner for years. I certainly have not learned to use it to its best. I only have a 45mm right now, but will try to find that 55mm - is there a way to recognize the lates versions other than the flat front glass? Are all the lenses that read "SMC" new versions?
I don't have access to drum scanning and getting it drum- scanned is too expensive, but I have a dedicated MF film scanner (Minolta Multi Pro) which gives, when used correctly, very good results.
Thanks, bernie
-
I experimented with some 35mm slides scanned at 3800 dpi (shooting at just under the scanners's rated 4000dpi produced best results - no idea why) with a Nikon 5000ED 16x sampling, usig Silverfast, etc., etc - in short, the best the scanner could produce.
I was sadly disappointed in the loss in acuity and detail vs. similar 5D or even 30D files. This with scnas that knocked the socks off the local lab's Frontier scans of the same slide.
I can't imagine it being any different comparing MF film scanned vs MFDB. Some acuity and resolution in the film is lost during the scanning process, being a second-order file (lens-to-film, film-to-CCD) vs a straight from digi 1st order file.
A wet mount scan would produce a better scan, but second order derivatives will always cost some detail/acuity - and cost you in the file size generated re: storage & required memory and processing power for PP'ing.
-
I experimented with some 35mm slides scanned at 3800 dpi (shooting at just under the scanners's rated 4000dpi produced best results - no idea why) with a Nikon 5000ED 16x sampling, usig Silverfast, etc., etc - in short, the best the scanner could produce.
I was sadly disappointed in the loss in acuity and detail vs. similar 5D or even 30D files. This with scnas that knocked the socks off the local lab's Frontier scans of the same slide.
I can't imagine it being any different comparing MF film scanned vs MFDB. Some acuity and resolution in the film is lost during the scanning process, being a second-order file (lens-to-film, film-to-CCD) vs a straight from digi 1st order file.
A wet mount scan would produce a better scan, but second order derivatives will always cost some detail/acuity - and cost you in the file size generated re: storage & required memory and processing power for PP'ing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I shot 35mm Fuji slides before but nearest processing lab one hour away put scratches on them two years ago. That got me into Nikon digital (50, 3 months & 200, 15 months). Well, scanning best shots from 80 rolls of film traveling rond the world in 2003 took loooooong time, another reason. Yes, DSLR beats 35mm slides in detail. Colors. No. Colors even of 35 Fuji Velvia 50 that I got back from shooting in Sichuan in China one year ago were amazing.
35mm is too small for me now. I wanted more. And, MF makes me more selective. Less photos to have scanned.
Now I shoot 6x7 Velvia 50 slides in my Mamiya 7II and ZD for MF digital. Velvia 50 in 6x7 really got me amazed and thinking. Very impressive looking at those slides. In many ways it sure beats my ZD. Assuming I do not scan all slides, as an amateur, it sure would save me lots of computer time processing. Colors are very good on ZD, but the slides are supreme in colors. I had one 6x7 scanned on a high class Epson dedicated flat bed and printed about 50cm wide. Looks awesome. Yes, it looks a little different than the slide in colors and all else, but... it sure by far beats 35mm. MF slides is different than digital, but the ZD still looks film like. Photos from other DMFBs can look more plastic. Digital does have advantages and some I much like... but it still feels as a technology still under rapid development, and not to mention that as an amateur it sure is very costly. I like capturing images for a future house... I sure am thinking if it is necessary with digital for that.
Archival is another side. I read somewhere that Fuji Astia has a color that is supposed to last three hundred years. Now that would leave something for future generations! Can you imagine that with digital? Not to mention being able sit less infront of computer...
Regards
Anders
-
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?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149216\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have not yet bought an MFDB - I shoot 4x5 tranny and a Canon 5D - but I can say with certainty that my little 5D properly handled (by that I mean properly exposed and handled RAW files captured on a tripod, and using the Mirror Up/Custom Function 12. i.e. I don't touch the camera during exposure) blows my Mamiya RB67 film clean out of the water. No question about it.
D.
-
the difference between the film feel and the digital feel....is that you got to do a lot of post-production to get the film feel in your digital images...but it can be done and when you master that part you got the best of both worlds..
a. no more waiting for someone else to develop your film
b. feel film and total control over output...no 3rd party involvement with their professional 2cents
-
I just wish affordable scanners delivered a better product.
I love the look of Velvia 50 and 100 slides (storing them however is a PITA). The simplicity of the cameras is also nice - small batteries that last forever, slow depreciation, no chargers/laptops/harddrives to lug around, etc, can focus more time and $$$ on the shots and glass.
-
Will add a little.
Today I got my first Reala film back I shot in the studio in a VERY high contrast setting, and that is were digital really outshines film I now strongly believe.
The whole role can be dumped due to almost clipping highlights and muddy shadows, the digital had perfect highlights and great shadow detail.
I also shot a Tmax400 film outside and those shots are stunning again (like the illford delta 400).
For me it's still a mood thing, I will also try a 100ISO film in a more beauty setup soon but for now it was a bit of a letdown to be honest.
-
Will add a little.
Today I got my first Reala film back I shot in the studio in a VERY high contrast setting, and that is were digital really outshines film I now strongly believe.
The whole role can be dumped due to almost clipping highlights and muddy shadows, the digital had perfect highlights and great shadow detail.
I also shot a Tmax400 film outside and those shots are stunning again (like the illford delta 400).
For me it's still a mood thing, I will also try a 100ISO film in a more beauty setup soon but for now it was a bit of a letdown to be honest.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153600\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
Maybe silly questions; did you control the available stops in scene to match the film and likewise set expsoure proper on scanner?
Perhaps check Fuji Astia for film detail in high contrast situations. I have read it is good and finally found some I will try. Slides gives you an orginal to match with scanner... Changing 'sensor' in back with film is cheap
Personally I just bought a Pentax digital spotmeter (found it new ), back to the zone system with my 7ii .
Regards
Anders
-
I know what I did wrong I think
I shot this with the leaf:
Film is a learning process for me at this moment, I hardly shot anyfilm in the studio I started digital right away.
And outside I mainly use AV for the normal work.
-
I know what I did wrong I think
I shot this with the leaf:
Film is a learning process for me at this moment, I hardly shot anyfilm in the studio I started digital right away.
And outside I mainly use AV for the normal work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
I am getting deeper into metering for film. Before two years ago I shot only film, trusting F100 matrix metering, mostly landscape and people on travels. For more exact control spot metering with Zone system can be essential. For that posted photo you would be able to control exact with that. For slides textureless black is -2.5 stops and textureless white +2.5 stops. For negative film you have more exposure latitude when making prints. Completely different than histograms. One of my first rolls from my Mamiya 7 last year was of a model infront of store windows at night. No spotmeter, only the 7's meter that requires some learning and which was rather useless in that situation... so all trash...
Regards
Anders
-
I feel like a inverted dinosaur.
I can measure for digital to the last minute detail but for film somehow I have to learn to think alot more backwards.
I use a 758DR at the moment because I use 3 bodies, the Leaf, the 5D and a film back.
When I'm shooting my next roll of film in the studio I will include a grayramp in the shot to make absolutly sure what the film is doing and store that in the 758.
On the other hand I'm not using film in the studio, it's just for location work where digital is not usable, like B&W 3200 or color on 800.
I did bought some ISO100 rolls just to test how that works, I want to be as complete as I can be in my workshops and once everytime there also is a film shooter in the audience and I also want to answer him correctly.
It is fun however
-
I feel like a inverted dinosaur.
I can measure for digital to the last minute detail but for film somehow I have to learn to think alot more backwards.
I use a 758DR at the moment because I use 3 bodies, the Leaf, the 5D and a film back.
When I'm shooting my next roll of film in the studio I will include a grayramp in the shot to make absolutly sure what the film is doing and store that in the 758.
On the other hand I'm not using film in the studio, it's just for location work where digital is not usable, like B&W 3200 or color on 800.
I did bought some ISO100 rolls just to test how that works, I want to be as complete as I can be in my workshops and once everytime there also is a film shooter in the audience and I also want to answer him correctly.
It is fun however
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=153780\")
Film is fun
Zone system - [a href=\"http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html]http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html[/url].
Color? Fuji Provia X pushed 1 stop. In negative film my favourite was Fuji Press 800, but I am not sure if they still make it . Somehow it was different than Superia 800, although supposedly same emulsion. Provia is finer grain.
Awaiting your film posts .
Rgds
Anders
-
there are already some online on www.htforum.nl/fotofrank in the USA2007 folder and on www.doorhof.nl/models under Vlada and Monique (B&W shots).
-
I know what I did wrong I think
I shot this with the leaf:
Film is a learning process for me at this moment, I hardly shot anyfilm in the studio I started digital right away.
And outside I mainly use AV for the normal work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
you have to understand how the film works in terms of contrast before shooting. Most film acts like a file that already has a curve thrown on it.
In the ol' days of C-printing we had high contrast film and high contrast paper for maximum high contrast, you don't just shoot 5 stops over for a highlight + 5 stops under for a shadow to get the effect you want (ok I exaggerate), because you'll end up with a muddy mess
In other words I find it misleading to compare your leaf files with film files without an understanding of how film handles.
Also I'm not sure how dynamic range is explained but there's more to the comparison than how many stops of darks and highlights a film can handle. You'll also have to take a look at the tonalities within those stops. A midtone in most films of medium format size easily blow away the tonalities in a 5D
-
That's why I call it a learning curve.
But the fact stays that the leaf handles the contrast in THIS scene with ease.
I will adapt for my next roll of film, don't worry
Tonallity is beter without a doubt than my 5D.
But the leaf is master in my opinion for the dynamic and detail.
Film has a certain feel I love but I don't see me use it for critical commercial work, I love the direct feedback with digital.
-
Frank,
Thats a nice image of a nice looking model.
Film has a certain feel I love but I don't see me use it for critical commercial work, I love the direct feedback with digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is sort of why I posted the question in the first place. Since its so easy to pop of the digital back and pop on a film back, I wanted to know if anyone was say dialing in lighting using the digital back as a polaroid if you will, one that you can shoot tethered and zoom in etc, then when its all set up, pop on the film for the shot and the effect you want. I'm probably going to start doing this for certain art projects, but man I have not shot film since 2000, and not developed or printed anything since 1990 - the year I got out of Berkeley. Just wanted to know if anyone was doing it and could say Yes its worth the trouble.
-
Worth the trouble for what, that's the question.
If it's work why not shoot digital right away.
There is no print size a 22MP back will not handle I guess.
There is more dynamic range in the digital backs, color is super acurate when you know what to do.
Film is wonderful for a certain feel, or if you want to shoot for example ISO3200 B&W it's great.
For color I have mixed feelings, I love to play with it, but as mentioned before when it counts I use the leaf.
-
you have to understand how the film works in terms of contrast before shooting. Most film acts like a file that already has a curve thrown on it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
An excellent point and very well made.
That is, fundamentally, why all of us are seduced by transparencies.
However, you can't remove the 'curve' afterwards.
And that's the real beauty of digital. You get to input the curve afterwards - and as much or as little as you like.
The digital file looks flatter and boring, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
D.
-
That's sums it up nicer than what I tried to explain