Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: David Watson on June 08, 2013, 03:28:23 am
-
I haven't used a film camera for ten years or more until very recently. Intrigued by the number of pro photographers I have met who, whilst they have gone digital for their professional work, still use film for their personal projects. I wonder why?
To find out for myself I have wound the clock back and bought a Fuji 680 outfit and I will be using these for a variety of jobs over the next few months in parallel with my normal MFD camera. I will take the same image with both cameras and then compare them. By the way this camera on the second hand market must be the bargain of the century if you like film. I obtained a complete outfit in mint condition for less than £1500. I have run a test roll through it and before I get it back I am very impressed with the build and operating characteristics of this camera. It is like a view camera with SLR facilities. Michael did a review on this site some years ago which prompted me to try and find one. There are a lot out there across the world but mostly in Japan and some are very very cheap.
Anyway back to the topic. I am interested to know what other photographers are doing in terms of medium to large format film and digital and why they would choose one medium over another for a particular job.
-
Digital is great, especially for color. I would never go back to color film. However, I still feel digital lacks when it comes to black and white.
I use to shoot 4x5 using Tri-X at ISO 80 and under develop by 30%; this got me some very rich negatives, which I would tone to completion with selenium as well. I then printed on Berger warm tone paper, which was a very silver rich paper, and toned the highlights with Selenium and the shadows with Gold. This created a very 3-D looking print that had so much depth, not the mentions the blacks where amazing. If I had the space (and the time), I would defiantly install a darkroom in my place. I don't see that happening though.
Funny thing about toning with gold is that it is heavier than silver. Berger paper was 330 g/m2 weight and would flout, a little annoying until you got use to it. After being toned with gold to completion, it no longer flouted.
Also, I use to do a lot of alternative printing, like platinum and palladium printing. This just can not be replicated by digital, or come event close. I am thinking about getting an used 8x10 field camera and doing some of this work in the near future. I may also fool around with the Chrisotype (Gold printing), but have read it is extremely difficult to master. Plus, you do not need to the space or a separate darkroom since the solution is only sensitive to UV light. Just print at night. :D
-
Film is still the biggest sensor available, so one can use film when one wants the specific look that comes from using a very large sensor. Film also has a specific way to render colour, contrast and grain, so that may be another reason to use it.
About the "large sensor" option: I did not buy a Fuji 680, but a Mamiya RB 67. It is very cheap for the kind of machine it is and the lenses are also quite affordable. One needs to invest some time to change the light seals on old film backs, though.
Edit: I forgot to add that some people use old film cameras as a way to get people to ask about the "strange camera" and get them to pose. Street photography with an old wooden view camera is (reportedly) a very interesting experience. Sometimes it is better to be conspicuous than hidden.
-
Film is still the biggest sensor available, so one can use film when one wants the specific look that comes from using a very large sensor. Film also has a specific way to render colour, contrast and grain, so that may be another reason to use it.
About the "large sensor" option: I did not buy a Fuji 680, but a Mamiya RB 67. It is very cheap for the kind of machine it is and the lenses are also quite affordable. One needs to invest some time to change the light seals on old film backs, though.
Interesting point. I will compare my "test" shots (scanned) with the same shot on my 60MP MFD back. thanks for the response.
-
I've been bringing a MF film camera (Mamiya RB67) to my interiors shoots for a while, and more recently a 4x5 as well. I build my shots with a DSLR (and that's what I intend to deliver) but when it seems suitable, I then duplicate the exposure with the film camera and shoot a couple of brackets. The job has usually been delivered before I even get the film back from the lab, but I often send the results to the clients anyway. In a couple of cases, they've preferred the film versions, despite what we might otherwise call "flaws" in color or toning.
All of my clients are totally intrigued by this new, wonderful thing called "Film".
I do it because I really learned most of my photography shooting digital, and I feel like I'm lacking something because of it. I think of it as knowing how to do long division, even though there's a calculator on my desk. Also, it's fun. And, the results can be startling!
-
Interesting point. I will compare my "test" shots (scanned) with the same shot on my 60MP MFD back. thanks for the response.
You will probably find out that the MFD back has more detail, less grain and a bit different colours. You will probably not find much difference between the rendering of the different lenses. But some people only have a small digital SLR and using an old medium format film camera is, for them, an easy way to explore a different rendering.
-
I shoot MF and LF now, maybe 2-3 rolls/yr of 35mm... Digital has really "overtaken" that realm of my photography :D
MF:
The GX680 system is a wonderful kit to work with. All the front movements are available, and the big 6x8cm negative/transparency allows for wonderfully detailed scans, even from a pro-sumer grade flatbed like a V750.
LF:
For LF I use 5x7", for both bw and color. Color film I cut down from 8x10, so a 10sht box of 8x10 now becomes 20 sheets :). I don't print very big(20x35" at max usually, generally in the 11x14 range most of the time), but drum scanning my film allows for the best technical scan possible. Owning my own scanner helps keep costs down long-term as well, and really get the best scan, since I'm the operator.
Post/Scanning/Printing:
TBH, I actually *like* film grain. It adds a "sharpness" to the shot, without looking flat and boring. Also, moiré is essentially NEVER possible, unless you have a collimation of certain variables that essentially never come together in the real world, anyhow.
I can also make b&w contact(Azo/Lodima, in amidol) prints from my bw 5x7 negs, and they're still big enough to display pretty much anywhere(matted to 11x14 usually), even tiny little apartments/studios. I used to shoot 8x10, and love the "presence" of an 8x10 contact print(or larger), however the sheer bulk started getting in the way for me. 5X7 is still a nice size negative, and I know I'm not using a point-n-shoot :P. The 5x7 proportions to me are also more pleasing than the 45/810 ratio.
I'm not shooting commercially(YET, still cutting my teeth as an assistant here in LA, I'm 25), so getting files to clients asap isn't a necessary evil in the workflow. I'm just shooting for my own enjoyment at present. When I start shooting for others/pay, I'll for sure offer digital 1st, but make it known that I want to squeeze in a few rolls of film, when/if possible. Just as an "alternative" for the client.
-Dan
-
I'm still shooting film exclusively. I have an excellent 67 kit with six primes, along with the requisite polarizing and ND filters for each. Provia 100 has been my choice for more than a dozen years. I shoot multiples at each set-up, including brackets for exposure or for wind. I tripod every frame. Most of my captures are made during the "magic" hour: yes, I like the quality and directionality of the light, but that's also when dynamic range begins to compress, and that's critical when working with transparencies. I drum scan the best of the best at 400 mb and edit with PS for a master file. I frequently print very large pieces. I would like to ease into good digital (envious of that 10-12 stop dynamic range, ability to change ISO each frame, and instant visual verification), and have addressed a number of questions to this forum the past year about possible systems. The issue remains -- my kit is paid for. A comparable digital kit (if possible) would go $10K or much more, and that would be comprised of good used components. So, I'll work through the 15 pro-packs I stockpiled in March, check my Lotto ticket this evening, and continue assembling an idealized DSLR kit in my mind each night instead of counting sheep.
-
Aloha,
I don't shoot film anymore but I do develop to film. At least My color lab develops to film, I just don't think inkjet prints have nearly the quality of developed film.
-
...and continue assembling an idealized DSLR kit in my mind each night instead of counting sheep.
You and every other shutterbug in the universe!
Tony Jay
-
I continue to shoot my b&w personal work on 4x5 film-going on close to 100 exhibits since 1972. I just hiked into an archeological site on the Ghost Ranch with it yesterday. All my commercial work is digital color. When I travel by car or plane to out of state shoots I can't bring both so I have trained myself in a pinch to do a decent b&w via stitching files with the DSLR, but I still prefer film. I can do a DC b&w that will hold its own next to a great traditional or digital b&w print but frankly you have a lot of artifacts to deal with if you push the tonalities a lot as I do. I get a better file from filtered film. Also I just like the contrast in methodology to what I do everyday for a living.
-
I am toying with the idea of putting a 11*14 set up together for the fun of it...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm shooting a lot of film these last two years, 120 and 4x5 but added a 5x7. I have really enjoyed it and sort of have caught a bug or something. I'm now also messing with digital negatives to print my digital files. All for personal work, as the turn around is not fast enough for my paid work. I was just shooting mostly tmax 400, but realized I can sometimes do better with portra than my digital backs can do with color at higher iso's anyhow and the look nice - skin seems nicer.
To answer the question about why? Well film is a lot more work in some ways, but then there are no batteries to deal with, no memory cards or laptops to lug around. Film can do things that digital can't easily and I think the larger formats have a look that can't be easily recreated. Black and white analog prints seem to have tone and feel that I can't quite get with digital and inkets too.
-
I shoot both colour negative and slide film on my 617 camera and haven't used my digital medium format for a long time, this is because the only way to obtain the same quality from a digital camera is by stitching (80mp digital backs possibly excluded, although I still think film holds up better when printed larger) and the shots I take require straight lines and most of the time it to be taken in one shot that just is not possible yet on digital. Even the digital 617 from Seitz has it's limitations.
It's just the best way to get the best quality in this format in one shot, I can shoot street stuff with this camera!
I also have a specially made cone for a 55mm lens on my 617 which allows me to capture very wide distortion free shots, which is wider than the widest 28mm lens available for the phase one system.
-
I don't shoot film anymore though I still have a freezer with a lot of film in it; the reason? I live on an island where film and required chemistry is now as rare as interest from your bank account, where water is in short supply and expensive. But I would if I could.
Just this week, for the hell of it, I shot two digital pics of a red pepper. One I worked up for b/white and another for colour, both for viewing on Internet/computer. In neither case did the result excite me. Both versions took lots of manipulation to look even remotely presentable, and I know that had I shot film the results would have been much more as I'd hoped when I started on the project. There is just something missing in the b/white that takes the guts out of the picture, and the colour one looks stupidly electric. For a veggie? The feeling I get from both pics is that they display the same 'look' with vegetables that digital is renowned for giving to skin in too many model photographs: plastic.
You can see the results in the Hasselfake Fotografs over on the 'critique' section - I won't post them here.
For anyone living in a big city with the facilities, then I'd suggest staying with film for the personal work; it gives you the time to play, and you end up with something that's very versatile after the event.
Anyway, the film cameras are so much more sexy! And organic; if you say organic, then everything is cool.
Rob C
-
I posted this last year in a different thread and it still holds true to me. In fact I've invested more into film gear in the last couple of years than digital...
Well, if convenience is your priority then digital no doubt is hard to beat, for me the priority is the end result no matter what. There are many reasons I'm enjoying film again, but the major ones are:
1.) "The look". I see a distinct difference in my film shots, colors are strong but muted (if that makes sense), skin tones are more flattering, and they have an overall more "organic" look to them. There's more really, but it's all very hard to put into words. This is why I think it's impossible to do any film vs. digital comparisons, because people look for, see, and value different things. It's all very personal.
2.) "The experience". For me the experience when shooting film or digital are two very different things, I just enjoy and feel more connected to the craft when shooting film. You could say I'm making images when shooting digital and creating photographs when shooting film, but I'm sure that only makes sense to me. Either way, enjoyment is something that should not be disregarded as it seeps into the image more than you might think.
3.) "The final image". All of the above would not really matter if the end result did not reflect it, but I see results that for me are worth every inconvenience in the world, and then some. And in the end that's all that matters. For me there are things that digital excel with, where for example high volume, speed, and exact reproduction is key. Then there are other things where "feel" is more important and I prefer using film.
Anyway, this is all just my own findings only really applicable to me. I just challenge people to break out of the mindset that digital must be better in every way and replace everything that came before it. I don't really see people in other art forms thinking this way, in fact most other "artists" relish choice and the unique aesthetics it might offer to them, be it a technique, tool or material. But for some reason our field seems hellbent on going the other way, and that worries me.
-
Earlier this spring I ran into a large format photographer who was shooting black and white film which he would then scan. I asked if he would have better control shooting color film and converting, but he still preferred black and white. So if you wanted to scan your film and make b/w prints would you use b/w film or color negative? I still have my minolta multi scan pro.
-
Earlier this spring I ran into a large format photographer who was shooting black and white film which he would then scan. I asked if he would have better control shooting color film and converting, but he still preferred black and white. So if you wanted to scan your film and make b/w prints would you use b/w film or color negative? I still have my minolta multi scan pro.
I'd go for b/w film. It's what it's designed and made for doing best.
Having said that, were I looking to hedge my bets and were Kodachrome still alive, that's what I settle upon for people shots.
After I left the industrial photo unit where I was trained, I seldom used colour negative film. People say it is much improved, but old prejudice dies hard.
Rob C
-
I wish Astia was still in production.
-
Buy a back brace at the same time :P
I had a 11x14 for a while. Fun to work with. Not fun to carry!
-
I only shoot film nowadays, after starting out on digital. I have a couple of reasons for doing it. Firstly, I feel so much more at ease when working with film. There are no memory cards, or batteries to worry about all the time, and the camera isn't in the way. Its complete simplicity is appealing. It's just a light-tight box with a lens on it, with dials for aperture and shutter speeds. That's it. Manual focusing. The lack of a screen is liberating. It makes me look closer before taking the picture, rather than mindlessly taking a shot and checking it on the screen for improvements, as I would when using digital cameras. It becomes more deliberate.
Secondly, I much prefer how an image draws on film, than on a digital sensor. I like my photos very straight and calm, and I find that the tonality and colour palette of film enables me to work along this aesthetic much better than I ever could on digital. The photographs that I get from larger format film has a presence that I couldn't get before, that suits my environmental portrait and landscape work.
I almost exclusively shoot colour negative film. My favourite is Portra 400 and I develop it at home in a Jobo CPE-2+. I also scan at home on an Epson V600. At my university we have Flextight X1 and X5 and they really make the 6x7 negatives from my GF670 come alive if I decide to make large prints. I chose the GF670 because I wanted a simple 6x7 rangefinder with a normal lens. The simplicity of the camera was appealing, and I am getting along with it very well. The fact that it looks elegant and folds down to the size of a book and weighs only a kilogram is a bonus.
-
Buy a back brace at the same time :P
I had a 11x14 for a while. Fun to work with. Not fun to carry!
Hum... I have a few concerns that have prevented me from moving forward:
- Annoyance of having to load sheets of film,
- Lack of suitable scanner at the moment. The Creo seems to be the only option able to tap into the resolution potential, but their drivers don't work with recent iterations of modern OS,
- Weight indeed,
- Cost of the whole operation.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wish Astia was still in production.
Me too!
-
I shoot medium and large format film when and if I can. i prefer the look of large and medium format film over digital. Its sharp without being clinical. The colors are nice and the B&W tones are in my view unbeatable, just about. Its also about film size, and the larger the film, the better, all things being equal.
The problem with film today is that the infrastructure supporting film exists only in large cities. I relied on labs for C41 and E6, and even B&W if I had volume. Now most of that is gone, which is a shame, as film makes for, in most cases and again, in my very humble opinion, better color and an organic contrast that is hard to match, if at all, with digital.
-
Hum... I have a few concerns that have prevented me from moving forward:
- Annoyance of having to load sheets of film,
- Lack of suitable scanner at the moment. The Creo seems to be the only option able to tap into the resolution potential, but their drivers don't work with recent iterations of modern OS,
- Weight indeed,
- Cost of the whole operation.
Cheers,
Bernard
When it comes to scanners I think that is not the only Creo. Pretty good are Imaon / Hasselblad with certain restrictions as to the size of the scanned material. Heidelberg is very good, also there is no problem with the new systems. (OS)
-
I am going back to film as I found a good deal on a Tango drum scanner. I have a large collection of film to scan.The way I look at it when a potential buyer of one of my film based photos is standing there in the gallery looking they are not thinking "gee, if that was just captured with a digital camera instead of film I would have bought it". I was using a Contax 645 a few years ago so I will probably go back to this camera.
Mike
-
I am going back to film as I found a good deal on a Tango drum scanner. I have a large collection of film to scan.The way I look at it when a potential buyer of one of my film based photos is standing there in the gallery looking they are not thinking "gee, if that was just captured with a digital camera instead of film I would have bought it". I was using a Contax 645 a few years ago so I will probably go back to this camera.
Mike
or vice versa......
-
I still prefer the look of film, especially Portra, scanned well it's really nice.
I shot some aerials on a Rolleiflex last year. A month or two back a Architect ordered 3 images from my site of over 10,000 online pictures.
I mentioned to them that they had chosen 3 film images. They said they liked the look better, it looked sunnier.
If I could turn the clock back and stop digital from being invented we would all be richer and valued.
I bought a Linhof 5x7 last year, I'm still to give it a real go. I still own 3 Pentax 67 plus lenses, 2 Rolleiflex, 1 Minolta Autocord, 1 Razzledog, 1 Plaubel peco 5x7 and others.Plus lots of Canon digital and L lenses.
Apart from anything else film is actually fun.
-
I still prefer the look of film, especially Portra, scanned well it's really nice.
I shot some aerials on a Rolleiflex last year. A month or two back a Architect ordered 3 images from my site of over 10,000 online pictures.
I mentioned to them that they had chosen 3 film images. They said they liked the look better, it looked sunnier.
If I could turn the clock back and stop digital from being invented we would all be richer and valued.
I bought a Linhof 5x7 last year, I'm still to give it a real go. I still own 3 Pentax 67 plus lenses, 2 Rolleiflex, 1 Minolta Autocord, 1 Razzledog, 1 Plaubel peco 5x7 and others.Plus lots of Canon digital and L lenses.
Apart from anything else film is actually fun.
From the point of view of my pro days, I would say that I am with you 100%. But, now out to grass, digital has allowed me to continue playing with photography to an extent that film would have not permitted due to cost.
A very mixed blessing, then.
Rob C
-
I've really started to fall in love with Portra 400 lately. And of course Velvia 50 is just amazing. Nothing like having Lightroom and Photoshop built right into your camera for $7.99 a roll.
-
I've really started to fall in love with Portra 400 lately. And of course Velvia 50 is just amazing. Nothing like having Lightroom and Photoshop built right into your camera for $7.99 a roll.
Thing about Velvia 50, you'll spend more time in PS than you thought.
Rob C
-
Thing about Velvia 50, you'll spend more time in PS than you thought.
Rob C
I always hated Velvia 50 and its mandatory crushed blacks and magenta cast.
Now Portra, yeah, that is my favorite film ever made.
-
I always preferred chrome, not sure why, but I always have. Negatives wet-printed are one thing, but scanned and then printed digitally? Never gave me that "zing" that a well-done transparency did. Especially 4x5 or 8x10. Heck, even a MF one had a wealth of detail and depth that I never could replicate with digital(even MF backs).
Velvia 50 is a PITA to scan IMO, it's "crushed" blacks and magenta(ish) cast most of the time makes for slow(er) going when setting up a drum scan. Sometimes though, it just works. Other times, I want to chuck the roll once I've got it back from the lab ;)
Ektachrome 64 is probably my favorite film emulsion, ever. I was getting into photography as Kodak was phasing out most of its E-6 "traditional" emulsions in favor of the E100(...) line(G, VS, GX). Ektachrome 100(EPN) and Ektachrome 64(EPR) were almost completely color-neutral, and that made it great for being able to judge filters and their strength, by eye.
Alas, E-6 from Kodak is now all gone :(, so re-learning a new film(in my case, Provia 100F) can be a bit daunting. Its a nice film, but for the majority of what I shoot, Kodak delivered exactly what I wanted on the film, right out of the camera. Fuji takes a bit more work.
-Dan
-
Thank you everyone for a most interesting and varied set of responses.
As I said in my original post I was tempted to try film again by the comments of another photographer. So here is what happened:-
I bought a mint used Fuji 680 with some lenses and accessories. Bought some Fuji film and took the usual test shots I take when I get a new camera. Sent the film to a pro lab in London for processing, waited a week with no response and then rang them. Oh yes we have done that job but for some reason it has not been sent out. On receipt I had a look at the trannies on a light box. Exposure looked fine but they were very (and I mean very) contrasty.Put them through my scanner (bought second hand for the test) and confirmed the hard and unattractive look of the images.
Was my exposure wrong? Was the processing wrong? No idea as it is more than ten years since I went through this loop and I had not appreciated just how much I had forgotten about the whole process and its frustrations. In particular the very long (if you didn't take a polaroid) delay in finding out if the shot was successful
Nostalgia is great but just like revisiting the hard hungry streets of 50's Glasgow where I grew up it wasn't fun, it wasn't easy and it wasn't forgiving or comfortable - just like film. In the nice modern world of MFD with tethered capture, immediate review and the possibility of correcting and improving the shot at the time I now feel very comfortable. Film? That's for the birds and those photographers who have retained the skills and enjoy the process. Me? I guess I will put my feet up and open a bottle of a nice dry wine whilst I review my latest digital captures on my lap top.
No disrespect to all those guys who still use and love film. My hat is well and truly off to you
-
Here's my Velvia 50 in MF before digital. It's not that bad to scan (Epson V600 flat bed) once you get use to it although people shots are hard to color correct.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia/
I notice that Portra is much easier to scan and flesh tones are better.
-
The film I used most of the time for medium and large format was Fuji Astia 100F (colour transparency). Extremely fine grain (RMS 7) and a wide exposure latitude. It is not a contrasty film and was a dream to scan.
Cheers!
-
I don't have personal projects. I have never bought a stand alone digital camera. The look I get with film- printed or scanned- is not being duplicated by sensor based cameras with or without a whole lot of post.
There is simply no reason to change when there is nothing to fix. Not to say I don't get a flawed frame once in a while, but I have never seen the equipment as the answer to a lack of style, vision or substance. All one has to see is the furniture Amish craftsmen create without modern technology to see the fallacy in the quest for next years's camera model. Digital may be expedient, may allow photography to be widely accessible in an egalitarian sense- may be any number of things- but when it comes down to the final product- to me, it is not better, so why bother.
-
It doesn't sound like you make your living from photography. I couldn't make a living these days shooting film. The delays cause by sending film out for processing and then getting it scanned would have me missing every deadline. I tried that juggling act for a few years before switching to digital. I was the last architectural photographer in my area to switch. There are also problems I can fix via layering for example that there is simply no budget anymore to fix in the field and clients would think you were an idiot for even trying. So yes I save the film for my personal work where there are few deadlines and no clients looking over my shoulder.
-
Here are the two main reasons why I still shoot (some) medium format film.
Interestingly, none of the other film users have cited these reasons yet:
1) Clean multi-minute long exposures, at any ISO, with no dark-frame delay. No MFD system can deliver this. Smaller formats with CMOS sensors can, more or less.
2) With the right film, broader/different spectral response. Digital cameras (of all types) tend to have IR-block filters which also block deep red and near-UV light. Hacking (modding) the camera can cure this, but it's usually a non-reversible change. It's nice to leave the camera alone, and just pop in a different film (or change the film back).
BTW, spectral response is not to be confused with colour balance corrections and colour accuracy; you can always rebalance or recalibrate what's there, but you cannot rebalance what was never captured in the first place.
So for deep-sky astrophotography, I have a lot of Kodak E200 in my freezer. Since it also has very low reciprocity failure, nothing captures the 656 nm red colour of hydrogen nebulae as well as it. Shame that it was discontinued! My stock 5DII captures far more stars in a given exposure time, and is sharper, but the film wins for colour and nebulosity.
Ray
-
I am no pro and I’m on a rather small budget, so my situation differs a lot from other members. I started with 35mm as a kid, mostly Canon & Nikon SLRs. First color negatives, then b&w negatives, then color slides. I went where I could save some money. But besides that I always felt locked in in terms of format: sharpness, depth of field, differentiation of colours. Then enter early digital. Bought a 6MP Casio with Canon lens and was finally free of film costs. Had fun a couple of years and upgraded to a d80 later on with which I could use my Nikon lenses. But still I felt locked in. Finally I bought a Mamiya RZ67 and three lenses on eBay for rather little money. Now, that looked quite different. Shot b&w and slides. What fun! But what a PINTA to get film, development and decent scans! My bank account never could hold up to the costs of film – I realized that hadn’t changed from back then. And what a weight! I had easily 10 kilos of camera, glass, reflex finder, film- and polabacks in my backpack on bike tours, not to mention the tripod. That did not work in the long run. I had a brief encounter with a Mamiya 645AFD then, but that did not change a lot. Then enter the first rumors about the d800. That might be it! I sold all my MF film gear and ordered a d800E when you could still read all those warnings about moiré. But it worked fine. Actually pretty much all my files looked a lot better to me than anything I ever got from the RZ67. Currently I have settled with a workflow with RPP and Photoshop that gives me the "feel" that I was looking for for a long time. All good now? Well … I still feel locked in when it comes to shallow depth of field compared to 4x5 or 8x10 … ::)
-
I use both, or should I say ALL
started with film some 40 years ago and mastered the processes
then jumped in on digital day one 0.9mega pixels and further
used the first imacons 96, 132, later P20, P45, and now CFV-50, beside nikon D's
to be honest, I MUST use digital on commercial jobs, for financial, budget, reasons
but quality wise, Film is not do worse than digital
I use hasselblad V system, Mamiya RZ and Bronica RF and ETRSi
a nice 6x7 negative or slide holds sooooo much beauty and detail
you can't do better
I even bought a brandnew nikon f6
Digital however, limited my camera's in several ways,
using only the sweetspot of my beautiful lenses
only f8 is realy usable in the field
lower f stop is a pain to get in focus
higher f stops result in poor image quality and noise
so what's the point
beside the commercial work, I still print black and white on fiber base paper from 4x5, 6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5
you can't compare it with digital and epson prints
it's alive, digital is ... different,.... flat
but digital convenience is fun offcourse using computers to get the job done
when clients see my film work, they love it, until I mention the cost ...
that's where it ends most of the cases
I'm Happy to use both
beside this all, I still use film on Gum Bichromates for personal work
so film, YES
FUJI ACROS 100
FUJI NEOPAN 400
KODAK TRI-X 320
ADOX CMS-20
FUJI NP-400, 800
FUJI RDP-III slide
self developed in paterson tanks
-
When I grew up my parents and grandparents had their own darkroom, color and BW.
In school I did a course on developing and printing (very basic)
When I turned pro it was all digital, so no analogue, but I still loved the old cameras (I'm a bit of a vintage nut).
When I got the chance to buy an RZ67ProII very cheap I bought it to shoot film and actually hardly did it, I just connected the digital back to it :D
After making the switch to the A99 for DSLR I needed a lot of lenses quick to replace my Canon gear so I bought some Minolta glass which were sold pretty cheap and I was blown away by the quality, so I went one step further back and started buying M42 lenses, thanks to the EVF and focus peaking it's very easy to focus them on the A99. I don't buy the M42 for quality by the way, commercial work is all done with the Zeiss or Sony lenses (or MF) but I want the weird lenses, like the Petri 55mm 1.7 which screams lensflare as soon as it sees the sun :D
When I bought one of the camera's with lenses there was film with it B&W and I decided to just shoot it, in the back of my mind there was always this little wish of shooting some film, but I never gone for it, digital is just sharp, colors are natural etc. so why film ?
I'm shooting film (and I'm starting up again) for the unique look, rolls of film that are way over date, I'm going to develop myself and see what happens, it's for the "special look" the "things that go wrong" as soon as I see something I like I will recreate it in PS with Alien Skin or DxO film pack and add the look to my digital files.
And..... let's be honest it's just a different experience.
-
Most of my work calls for digital because of cost and time limitations. But I still like shooting film for the look of film and the simplicity. Pay attention to what you are shooting and not the back of the camera. And when I shoot film I typically will use available light only. So no strobes, extra gear and often no assistants. The subject, a camera and myself like here with a Mamiya 645AFDII and Tri-X 400 pushed two stops.
-
LOVE THIS THREAD!!!! I use Film for personal cause I love it.
But I mostly shoot 35mm film cause my scanner makes MF hard to scan.
-
BTW: there is nothing better for shots in the fall than velvia 50. nothing. love it.
-
Digital for almost all commercial work, but I shoot the new Portra 160 and 400 for personal work. Mainly, I shoot it because the combination of film and lens are different from the digital equivalents that I own. I also just like handling film. Digital feels ephemeral.
Finally, nobody is ever going to break into my place and steal a bunch of negatives, but they will steal hard drives, computers, etc. Yeah, I have backups offsite, but still....
-
I've just returned to film.
I'm a landscape photographer but do some commercial architectural and interiors work. I've been using dslrs but wanted a new challenge.
I saw a Linhof Technikardan 23 come up for sale and liked the idea of it being compact but having movements (I enjoy using my 24mm TS-E).
I'm going to shoot some film with it and see how I get on, if, as I suspect, I love it I'll look at getting a digital back.
-
Interesting. I bought a TK23S about 15 years ago, and I'm still using film with it. Partly because I love using it so much, but also because digital backs are so expensive! Anyway, until one comes out with proper live view, I'm not sure the TK would be suited to it - it's designed as a film camera.
However, I don't have a quality problem and scan with a Nikon 9000 when I need to - 56x72mm @ 4000dpi actually gives very good results at around 100MP, although you need to be careful with film choice and developing to minimise grain. Workflow is slow, but that's not a problem with me - I just plan ahead and think more carefully about each exposure. Actually a very satisfying way of working - I feel no real desire to go digital at all.
-
I started shooting 4x5 film (transparency) about 3 years ago after shooting digital (DSLR) for 6 years or so. I find film much more satisfying. So much so that I'm now ramping up for 8x10.
Bob
-
Interesting. I bought a TK23S about 15 years ago, and I'm still using film with it. Partly because I love using it so much, but also because digital backs are so expensive! Anyway, until one comes out with proper live view, I'm not sure the TK would be suited to it - it's designed as a film camera.
However, I don't have a quality problem and scan with a Nikon 9000 when I need to - 56x72mm @ 4000dpi actually gives very good results at around 100MP, although you need to be careful with film choice and developing to minimise grain. Workflow is slow, but that's not a problem with me - I just plan ahead and think more carefully about each exposure. Actually a very satisfying way of working - I feel no real desire to go digital at all.
You should try having some of your best frames drum scanned. BIG difference IMO. That's why I bought one, and it's leaps and bounds better IMO for small formats like MF.
The TK3s is a wonderful little camera though. A friend has the TK45s, and its a real treat to use the few times I've operated it :). Albeit, I still prefer the metal clamshell master-technika 2000/3000. They're all good though!
-Dan
-
The Nikon 9000 is a fine scanner, but a professionally-done drum scan at the recommended resolution is a step up in quality, clearly visible if you're printing large, i.e. 3'x5'.
-
The Nikon 9000 is a fine scanner, but a professionally-done drum scan at the recommended resolution is a step up in quality, clearly visible if you're printing large, i.e. 3'x5'.
Yes, the Coolscan 9000 IS a fine scanner, and can definitely deliver great results, but it still has limitations. I've never owned one, but have used one a few times in the past. Scans were great, but IMO, the best results are always delivered via a wetmount scan. Even with the 9000, whose wetmount adapter is a ROYAL P.I.T.A. to use, again IMO ;)... Loading up a drum with selected negatives and transparencies(of varying sizes, I routinely mount 4x5's alongside 35mm slides, and MF film on the same drum, AT THE SAME TIME. Being able to make a "batch", where scans are in the queue, each with its own settings and curves adjustment applied. Yes, drum scanning takes time. But the time invested mounting each frame of film into the (again, IMO) sub-par designed wetmount tray for the 9000, then previewing/adjusting, etc. each individual frame, THEN performing the scan, it's a time-suck as well.
But drum scanning also has other benefits, even with smaller print sizes(I routinely make 12x16 or so enlargements as "soft proofs" to see if the color is where I want it, saturation, essentially anything pertaining to the image itself. Definitely a "labor of love", but that's why I shoot LF primarily(5x7 in my case now for both color & b/w, having essentially forgone 4x5 and 8x10). MF(6x8 and 645) is another great tool in the arsenal.
But the files can get BIG, REALLY QUICKLY!
A drum scanner also allows you to adjust the aperture size for each scan, so you can match the working aperture to the grain size of the film being scanned(no other scanning technology can do this, other than apply USM, which IS NOT the same technically). A drum scanner is, essentially, doing color separations IN THE MACHINE, so each color channel is separated out and separately read by an individual PMT, then the software puts it all back together. Too much tech for me, but that's the gist of it :D.... It's the tool that I've found has allowed me virtually unlimited potential of bringing my film into the best "light" in digital form.
but it takes a lot of work, time, and loads of patience(all of which I'm still learning with this wonderful machine) to get splendid results. But the best part for me is this: LESS DUSTBUSTING. The Kami mounting fluid also incorporates anti-static properties, so most surface dust on the film, or the drum gets pushed out to the edges. I usually spend 15-30mins(at minimum) working @ 100% to dust-bust a 6x8 frame of film when scanned on one of the Imacon's, or even with the Nikon using the drymount film holders.
horses for courses, just felt like sharing some of the reasons why a drum scanner has really opened my eyes to the real advantages of continuing to shoot film (despite being 25 and having grown up in a digital world :P)
-Dan
-
The Nikon 9000 is a fine scanner, but a professionally-done drum scan at the recommended resolution is a step up in quality, clearly visible if you're printing large, i.e. 3'x5'.
Disagree. Backed up by years of working with both. What you need is an oil mount tray for your Nikon, then you will have truly flat film, and then you will get the most from your scanner. Any use of MF film in a plastic holder unsupported on both sides means it is not truly flat. That is the principle reason people think drums are so much better - their film was scanned with it all in focus. Fix that with the Nikon and you will be shocked at the quality of the results, every bit the equal of drum scans.
-
I spent the day adjusting balance gyros and platform so I can shoot some slow speed Pan F with long lens from a helicopter and a Linhof 5x7 with FP4.
I just like film.
-
You should try having some of your best frames drum scanned. BIG difference IMO. That's why I bought one, and it's leaps and bounds better IMO for small formats like MF.
The TK3s is a wonderful little camera though. A friend has the TK45s, and its a real treat to use the few times I've operated it :). Albeit, I still prefer the metal clamshell master-technika 2000/3000. They're all good though!
-Dan
Apologies folks - I really didn't mean to start a scanner debate in this thread! I've had some drum scans done of several of my best frames, and the results were certainly superb. However, in practical terms the difference really only seems to come in to play at much larger print sizes than I normally use, so a drum scan is a special occasion for me.
Used carefully even in standard mode the 9000 actually seems pretty ruthless at exposing deficiencies in film choice and processing - I have found sometimes that people who blame the scanner are not quite getting the film stage right. Not so long ago I had a conversation with a photo bore who assured me with great confidence that I was actually using 5x4 film because it was not possible to get this kind of quality and camera movements on roll film. It's taken me a long time to reach this stage, but I think there is a lot to be said for really getting to know your materials, equipment and workflow before upgrading to a newer or more expensive piece of kit. I can't say I will never want to upgrade, but things are going quite well for the moment!
-
I still shoot a good bit of film professionally (weddings). Nothing beats opening up your gear case on a work day and that wonderful film smell wafts from your cameras ;-). Dealing with film in post is rather painful and why I charge a good premium over digital to shoot it. Although I scan my own on a Nikon 9000 rather than relying on a lab to do it. But I still shoot it because of the look I get with it. There's just something ethereal about it that cannot be duplicated with digital. Color, highlight retention, tone curves are all very different from Digital. Not better, just different. Although after doing a film job, I always like to come back to a digital job and the post flies by.
My biggest complaint with scanning is that I can't set a native color temp while scanning with my Nikon 9000. It does an auto white balance which is always wrong and then I have to go image by image and attempt to match the set. It's like shooting JPG with the camera set to auto WB. It's infuriating and I wish there were a better option while retaining the Nikon 9000's image quality.
-
I wonder if any photographer has ever sued a film company for distress caused by the constant licking of glue on film roll tabs...
Injury Lawyers For U: your time has passed! Go chase another ambulance.
Rob C
-
I wonder if any photographer has ever sued a film company for distress caused by the constant licking of glue on film roll tabs...
Injury Lawyers For U: your time has passed! Go chase another ambulance.
Rob C
That's why I like Fuji's idea: peel-n-stick adhesive backing on their roll films. Not to mention the EZ-Load "hook and hole" leader on their 120/220 films. Brilliant idea when you need to change film fast, and don't have multiple pre-loaded backs, or a fast-handed assistant ;-)!
-Dan
-
Always have 5 rolls of 220 and a filmback in your bag!, digital will runout of batteries :p
-
Always have 5 rolls of 220 and a filmback in your bag!, digital will runout of batteries :p
You've been sabotaged: some film cameras need batteries too unless you accept running on default mechanical speeds. Nothing is left virgin for long.
;-(
Rob C
(In yet another fine, pessimistic moment.)
-
I still use film (MF and LF) mainly for the colour rendition but also because with the right scan even medium format outresolves any 35mm DSLR and nearly all MFDBs. The follow are Mamiya 7 photos compared with D800 and IQ180.. The prints from the IQ180 and Mamiya 7 are virtually indistinguisable up to 30" x 40" and I have some Velvia 100F shots that hold even more detail (Portra 400 is capable of about 100 lp/mm and Velvia 100F about 140 lp/mm)
e.g.
(http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/iq180-mamiya7-adoxcms20.jpg)
(http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/D800E-vs-Mamiya7-including-colour.jpg)
p.s. All of the scans were done with a flatbed scanner
-
Sharpened?
-
Sharpened?
Focussed?
Rob C
-
Tim,
Thanks again for sharing those comparison tests you did. They were extremely useful and certainly the most extensive and well done that any I have seen. Others, Tim had posted some of these tests a while back (1 year, 2 years?) and published an article on his website. The tests were very carefully done and results very interesting and a lively debate occurred here on the forums.
-
These tests are right on but understand the Mamiya 7 is one of the sharpest MF camera/lens combos ever made and the scans Tim does are top tier-like I would pay $135-150 for each on an Aztec Premier done by a great tech.
I still shoot a lot of 4X5 b&w film and pay to have it scanned. I use first class lenses and work carefully and generally speaking I cannot match what a primo lens and a 160 MFD back can do. I also use an old Hassleblad with some of the better lenses and I can do better with a simple 2X or 3x flat stitch on my 5DII than can be done with my Hassleblad combo.
So this is only true depending on specific equipment and operator comparisons. There is no proof that says any of such comparisons are universally true for anything other than the specific equipment tested by that technician.
-
There is something about film that's hard to quantify. Sure if I shoot my 80mp back, I'll get fine detail that sometimes won't show up on 4x5 film, however the presence of the subject may be more palpable. It's just a different look. I am so happy I have the choice to use either or both.
-
No batteries for me with my 617 :P
-
I've unwillingly tapered off my film use. Now that I'm only occasionally shooting professional work I just don't have the time to deal with processing and scanning, and the infrastructure to support film use is dead in smaller markets, such as the one I live in now. There is a good lab, but their prices are stupidly high. Small volume, no competition = high prices. It ends up being $55 a roll (Roll, processing, contacts) whereas I was paying $25 in NYC. I still shoot a Pro Pack of T-Max, and a Pro Pack of Portra a month, but the rolls pile up until I send them to NYC for processing and contact sheets, and pay upwards of $500.
I am thinking I should set up a dark room again, as that would cut out the scanning problems and leave me with process only charges, + expendables for the dark room.
-
I still use film (MF and LF) mainly for the colour rendition but also because with the right scan even medium format outresolves any 35mm DSLR and nearly all MFDBs. The follow are Mamiya 7 photos compared with D800 and IQ180.. The prints from the IQ180 and Mamiya 7 are virtually indistinguisable up to 30" x 40" and I have some Velvia 100F shots that hold even more detail (Portra 400 is capable of about 100 lp/mm and Velvia 100F about 140 lp/mm)
p.s. All of the scans were done with a flatbed scanner
I find the illustrations difficult to interpret. None of them appears sharp. Film does have a high resolving power, but does so at a relatively low MTF. By way of contrast (pun intended), digital has better MTF below Nyquist. For another comparison of digital vs film, see this post (http://diglloyd.com/articles/GrabBag/photographic-film-was-not-much-of-a-performer.html) by DigLloyd.
Regards,
Bill
-
I've unwillingly tapered off my film use. Now that I'm only occasionally shooting professional work I just don't have the time to deal with processing and scanning, and the infrastructure to support film use is dead in smaller markets, such as the one I live in now. There is a good lab, but their prices are stupidly high. Small volume, no competition = high prices. It ends up being $55 a roll (Roll, processing, contacts) whereas I was paying $25 in NYC. I still shoot a Pro Pack of T-Max, and a Pro Pack of Portra a month, but the rolls pile up until I send them to NYC for processing and contact sheets, and pay upwards of $500.
I am thinking I should set up a dark room again, as that would cut out the scanning problems and leave me with process only charges, + expendables for the dark room.
T, my own processing problems are the same if not as expensive.
Why not simply create a film-tank-loading facility in a toilet with Velcro and light-proof cloth? Then, if you want to do b/whites, at least the loading part is made easy and the film processing is simple enough in a bathroom or kitchen. (Colour film is something else, and I'd leave it alone unless there is a good lab available at reasonable cost, which seems not to be the case.) Scanning b/white yourself isn't difficult - you can do all your colour with your digital, probably as nicely as with film.
Anyway, I guess it comes down to whether there really is anything for you that's better on film - you have nice equipment in digital and I guess it's as good as film gets, and even filmic look is something that you can often achieve in Photoshop just by tweaking your files at the end of the process. Eggs and sucking, I know, but effort and time in don't always equate with results out!
;-)
Rob C
P.S. This, from cropped D700, is as 'filmic' as I got with film! Grain's easy to add, should you want it...
-
Rob, for me its down to black and white, on the Blad. There is something to those images that I rarely get with any digital. Its not just tones and contrast and renderings, its all of that in addition to the way I shoot the Blad that does it for me. I can get a desperate, spontanious quality to images shot with the Blad in black and white. I'm not saying it isn't possible with digital, but I've always done better when pushing up against teh natural limits of a camera and film, and frankly current digital is a little too good, and when you hit the limits its usually just ugly. I think the Leica M9 can get closest because it is limited in many ways yet is incredibly capable.
I used to process black and white in my basement but I've developed skin allergies to many of the chemicals. I still do it, but I get hives and rashes where the gloves stop.
T, my own processing problems are the same if not as expensive.
Why not simply create a film-tank-loading facility in a toilet with Velcro and light-proof cloth? Then, if you want to do b/whites, at least the loading part is made easy and the film processing is simple enough in a bathroom or kitchen. (Colour film is something else, and I'd leave it alone unless there is a good lab available at reasonable cost, which seems not to be the case.) Scanning b/white yourself isn't difficult - you can do all your colour with your digital, probably as nicely as with film.
Anyway, I guess it comes down to whether there really is anything for you that's better on film - you have nice equipment in digital and I guess it's as good as film gets, and even filmic look is something that you can often achieve in Photoshop just by tweaking your files at the end of the process. Eggs and sucking, I know, but effort and time in don't always equate with results out!
;-)
Rob C
-
Rob, for me its down to black and white, on the Blad. There is something to those images that I rarely get with any digital. Its not just tones and contrast and renderings, its all of that in addition to the way I shoot the Blad that does it for me. I can get a desperate, spontanious quality to images shot with the Blad in black and white. I'm not saying it isn't possible with digital, but I've always done better when pushing up against teh natural limits of a camera and film, and frankly current digital is a little too good, and when you hit the limits its usually just ugly. I think the Leica M9 can get closest because it is limited in many ways yet is incredibly capable.
I used to process black and white in my basement but I've developed skin allergies to many of the chemicals. I still do it, but I get hives and rashes where the gloves stop.
I've added an image to my last post above; please don't praise the M series right now - Keith is already doing that - and as my family has gone back home after a couple of weeks with me, I feel temptation to be rash quite strongly! I can buy but can't justify... ;-(
Rob C
-
I've added an image to my last post above; please don't praise the M series right now - Keith is already doing that - and as my family has gone back home after a couple of weeks with me, I feel temptation to be rash quite strongly! I can buy but can't justify... ;-(
Rob C
The thing about the M is that you either dig it or you don't. Its all down to whether you like a rangefinder. If you didn't like it in 1970 you won't like it now. Some people can't focus them at all. My wife can't. I've never had a problem. I just look for the highest contrast within the patch. It is much more intuitive to me than trying to match the overlaping images, and much faster.
-
Rob, for me its down to black and white, on the Blad. There is something to those images that I rarely get with any digital. Its not just tones and contrast and renderings, its all of that in addition to the way I shoot the Blad that does it for me. I can get a desperate, spontanious quality to images shot with the Blad in black and white. I'm not saying it isn't possible with digital, but I've always done better when pushing up against teh natural limits of a camera and film, and frankly current digital is a little too good, and when you hit the limits its usually just ugly. I think the Leica M9 can get closest because it is limited in many ways yet is incredibly capable.
I used to process black and white in my basement but I've developed skin allergies to many of the chemicals. I still do it, but I get hives and rashes where the gloves stop.
Have you seen prints made with the Leica Monochrom? They remind me of 8x10 contact prints.
-
I've unwillingly tapered off my film use. Now that I'm only occasionally shooting professional work I just don't have the time to deal with processing and scanning, and the infrastructure to support film use is dead in smaller markets, such as the one I live in now. There is a good lab, but their prices are stupidly high. Small volume, no competition = high prices. It ends up being $55 a roll (Roll, processing, contacts) whereas I was paying $25 in NYC. I still shoot a Pro Pack of T-Max, and a Pro Pack of Portra a month, but the rolls pile up until I send them to NYC for processing and contact sheets, and pay upwards of $500.
Want to keep your film costs to $15/roll? (For 120.) I have The Icon (here in L.A.) process my film as processing only (no contacts). $8/roll. Then I sleeve and make digital proofsheets on my Epson 4990 at home. Very easy.
I shoot 100% of my jobs digitally, but for personal work I shoot mostly film. It renders things completely differently, between the lenses and the gorgeous range and tones of color negs. I also find I compose and shoot differently when using film (MF, LF, panoramic) cameras. It's a combination of the process of using the cameras themselves, the thought that goes into the shots, the viewfinder mechanisms, the larger ground glass, the square format, etc.
The three major personal projects on my site would have been difficult to create digitally. Night Cars and Night Trees were very long exposures, and the Aerials have a soft feeling that I haven't been able to get digitally:
Night Cars, shot entirely with Hasselblad SWC:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/night%20cars/1/thumbs
Night Trees, shot entirely on 4x5:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/night%20trees/1/thumbs
Aerial L.A., shot on Hasselblad V and Linhof 612:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/aerial%20l.a./1/thumbs
-
I have never stopped shooting film although have alongside shot various digital. I am now shooting 80% of my work with film on Kodak Portra with various cameras, Hasselblad, Mamiya 6 & 7, Pentax 67 and Plaubel Makina 67, all of which kick the butt of my Leica S2 in terms of aesthetic and quality, and the S2 is quite a bit nicer than the Phase i had. Digital sucks.
Epines, your 5x4 night trees series is particularly nice.
-
When I was in NYC I shot mostly on film, because the infrastructure is there, just like in LA. I had an arangement with Dugal where they would process only my 120 for $1 a roll when I brought in 50 rolls of editorial work. Not to mention analogue printing at Print Space and cheap Imacon scan time.
I use my V750 for contacts and still use it for small 6x6 proofs, anything really for letter size pages. Its great for B&W. I'd really like a Flextite X1, but realisticly, scanning takes too much time now that I have a job type job.
The digital I like is really the M9. The M Mono is impressive. The majority of M Mono pics on the web look digital or like a C41 B&W. I shot some with the Mono and processed to my taste. The files can look like HP5, TMax, Delta 100. Very impressive. A thick textured file like a silver emultion. The only issue with the mono is how the highlights blow, very sharp and digital.
Want to keep your film costs to $15/roll? (For 120.) I have The Icon (here in L.A.) process my film as processing only (no contacts). $8/roll. Then I sleeve and make digital proofsheets on my Epson 4990 at home. Very easy.
I shoot 100% of my jobs digitally, but for personal work I shoot mostly film. It renders things completely differently, between the lenses and the gorgeous range and tones of color negs. I also find I compose and shoot differently when using film (MF, LF, panoramic) cameras. It's a combination of the process of using the cameras themselves, the thought that goes into the shots, the viewfinder mechanisms, the larger ground glass, the square format, etc.
The three major personal projects on my site would have been difficult to create digitally. Night Cars and Night Trees were very long exposures, and the Aerials have a soft feeling that I haven't been able to get digitally:
Night Cars, shot entirely with Hasselblad SWC:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/night%20cars/1/thumbs
Night Trees, shot entirely on 4x5:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/night%20trees/1/thumbs
Aerial L.A., shot on Hasselblad V and Linhof 612:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/aerial%20l.a./1/thumbs
-
What an incredible deal -- I love that Dugal did that. My first editorial shoots (12 years ago), for a free weekly in L.A. that no longer exists, paid $75 per shoot, and $250 for the cover (including all expenses); still the lowest fees I've ever heard of. It was a labor of love for all involved, and it got me access to great subjects and enabled me to build a portfolio. I limited myself to three rolls of B&W per shoot, processed them myself, chose an image, scanned it and sent it to the magazine. They let the photographers choose. (I'm under no illusions that they were doing us a favor, but the people who ran the art department were talented people with a terrible budget.)
A few years ago I bought a drum scanner from a fellow photographer here, and I still scan my own film. It's a 4-foot-long, 200-pound beast (Howtek 7500), but the results are tremendous. I know what I'm trying to get while I'm scanning, and I barely do any work in post to my film shots.
I've heard the M9 is different from other digitals. It just hasn't been a priority for me. My money mostly goes into marketing, testing, lighting, and fleshing out my H system (which has been a great system).
-
Rob, the joy is I no longer have to. This is just for me.
I probaby share the other side of the coin with you: pretty much everything digital was 'for me' with the good old F3 being the final, commerce-driven decision I ever made. It's a finer thing, making commerce-driven decisions. Of course, I made many such bad ones, too.
;-)
Rob C
-
Nice work. The Night Cars is great, shows what film can do. I've been shooting something similar (not night, but cars) on and off for 15 years. Its not a project so much as a hobby.
Kodak doesn't publish (or I haven't been able to find) reciprocity failure info for the New Portra. Would you happen to have this info?
Want to keep your film costs to $15/roll? (For 120.) I have The Icon (here in L.A.) process my film as processing only (no contacts). $8/roll. Then I sleeve and make digital proofsheets on my Epson 4990 at home. Very easy.
I shoot 100% of my jobs digitally, but for personal work I shoot mostly film. It renders things completely differently, between the lenses and the gorgeous range and tones of color negs. I also find I compose and shoot differently when using film (MF, LF, panoramic) cameras. It's a combination of the process of using the cameras themselves, the thought that goes into the shots, the viewfinder mechanisms, the larger ground glass, the square format, etc.
The three major personal projects on my site would have been difficult to create digitally. Night Cars and Night Trees were very long exposures, and the Aerials have a soft feeling that I haven't been able to get digitally:
Night Cars, shot entirely with Hasselblad SWC:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/night%20cars/1/thumbs
Night Trees, shot entirely on 4x5:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/night%20trees/1/thumbs
Aerial L.A., shot on Hasselblad V and Linhof 612:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/aerial%20l.a./1/thumbs
-
I sent a lot of work to Dugal. They are good people, after you break through some of the counter staff. They make great prints and do great scans. For B&W Lamount is incredible. They inkjet B&W lab is unreal. All HP's with custom RIPS and people who know what they are doing. They printed Annie L's big museum show a few years back. I prefer analogue prints but not at large sizes.
What an incredible deal -- I love that Dugal did that. My first editorial shoots (12 years ago), for a free weekly in L.A. that no longer exists, paid $75 per shoot, and $250 for the cover (including all expenses); still the lowest fees I've ever heard of. It was a labor of love for all involved, and it got me access to great subjects and enabled me to build a portfolio. I limited myself to three rolls of B&W per shoot, processed them myself, chose an image, scanned it and sent it to the magazine. They let the photographers choose. (I'm under no illusions that they were doing us a favor, but the people who ran the art department were talented people with a terrible budget.)
A few years ago I bought a drum scanner from a fellow photographer here, and I still scan my own film. It's a 4-foot-long, 200-pound beast (Howtek 7500), but the results are tremendous. I know what I'm trying to get while I'm scanning, and I barely do any work in post to my film shots.
I've heard the M9 is different from other digitals. It just hasn't been a priority for me. My money mostly goes into marketing, testing, lighting, and fleshing out my H system (which has been a great system).
-
I have never stopped shooting film although have alongside shot various digital. I am now shooting 80% of my work with film on Kodak Portra with various cameras, Hasselblad, Mamiya 6 & 7, Pentax 67 and Plaubel Makina 67, all of which kick the butt of my Leica S2 in terms of aesthetic and quality, and the S2 is quite a bit nicer than the Phase i had. Digital sucks.
Gary,
Since your Pentax 67 kicks the butt of your Leica S2, I'll do you a favour: I'll take that nasty useless S2 off your hands for the price of a Pentax 67. Howzat for a fantastic deal? :D
Ray
-
I have never stopped shooting film although have alongside shot various digital. I am now shooting 80% of my work with film on Kodak Portra with various cameras, Hasselblad, Mamiya 6 & 7, Pentax 67 and Plaubel Makina 67, all of which kick the butt of my Leica S2 in terms of aesthetic and quality, and the S2 is quite a bit nicer than the Phase i had. Digital sucks.
Epines, your 5x4 night trees series is particularly nice.
Personally I think statements like this are a bit silly (best word I can think of right now) and say more about the prejudices and/or inadequacies of the photographer than about any truth about capture methods. As both a full time fine art and commercial photographer I use both film and digital from 4x5 to FF DSLR depending on the requirements of the images and the final product or client. BUT at this point I have no problem mixing the two into a seamless final product whether that be for a magazine spread or a museum show. Any statement that proclaims the universal superiority of one over the other is a statement that the person has not mastered both capture methods.
-
Kirk, I don't think that his statement necessarily says anything about his skills, its his aesthetic preferences. I like the way film looks, and think that you can get close with digital. I can match Digital to film, or rather, film to digital. I find it easier to match LF to digital, but find the post for digital to be time consuming, not as time consuming as dealing with film. Its also subject dependent. I find film to be much nicer than digital for my style of portraiture.
I love Leica S files, by the way, but a good print pr scan of a 6x7 negative just looks so good it hurts.
Any statement that proclaims the universal superiority of one over the other is a statement that the person has not mastered both capture methods.
-
T, Kirk,
In a way I'd love to go back to film, but today I don't see that as possible for my work, even when we do an editorial and I shoot and process in one city.
it's just too much effort in the front end. I love the fact that with film, that film was kind of stupid. Once you zoned in on a film stock, you knew how it would react regardless of ambient colour bounce, but with digital, it just seems like it's always hit and miss and like T says, the back end on digital is a monster.
I'm amazed I can shoot 10 subjects on white and have to adjust skin tones (usually a lot) to stop casting, red in shadows, yellow in transitional areas, etc. etc.
You see it in cinema and television also. Watch someone set at a desk and drop their head. The brown (red) of the desk just throws their faces red in the medium shadows) and then they go back up to the key and they go yellow, because the colorist probably working on lack of time and budget had to make a middle of the road decision.
Film doesn't do this as much (it can), but digital, is too sensitive.
In fact the prettiest way to work digital is to desat the whole image and paint back the saturation where you want it. Slightly, but it does give more of a film impression.
IMO
BC
-
We need a revolution; let's all burn our bras!
As luck (or stupidity) would have it, I went to the local superstore to buy some caustic soda for attacking bathroom scale - lots here with the very hard water - and I knew the girl behind the check-out. She used to work as a PShopper for her dad's old high street wedding/portrait business, long sold. I asked her if they had sold off their 500Cs to the new snappers, and she said no, she and her sister still had them... I asked her to give me a price if they want to sell. Perhaps it's just the heat and humidity.
Rob C
-
When I first started seriously working with digital (1ds) I would look at the files and wonder where the light pollution was coming from. I was looking for slow shutter and wide apertures and wondering if my modeling lights were polluting teh shadows, making them red(ish), yellow transitions in different frames, wondering if my packs were bad or flash tubes were bad. I spent money at Flash Clinic and shot in blacked out rooms and realized its just different than film. An easy fix in any case, but man I enjoy just picking up a yellow box from Duggal with my perfect yellow prints.
T, Kirk,
In a way I'd love to go back to film, but today I don't see that as possible for my work, even when we do an editorial and I shoot and process in one city.
it's just too much effort in the front end. I love the fact that with film, that film was kind of stupid. Once you zoned in on a film stock, you knew how it would react regardless of ambient colour bounce, but with digital, it just seems like it's always hit and miss and like T says, the back end on digital is a monster.
I'm amazed I can shoot 10 subjects on white and have to adjust skin tones (usually a lot) to stop casting, red in shadows, yellow in transitional areas, etc. etc.
You see it in cinema and television also. Watch someone set at a desk and drop their head. The brown (red) of the desk just throws their faces red in the medium shadows) and then they go back up to the key and they go yellow, because the colorist probably working on lack of time and budget had to make a middle of the road decision.
Film doesn't do this as much (it can), but digital, is too sensitive.
In fact the prettiest way to work digital is to desat the whole image and paint back the saturation where you want it. Slightly, but it does give more of a film impression.
IMO
BC
-
Well Kirk, can't say your response surprises me, this is after all a digital biased website. As for your comment about my skills as a photographer, i won't comment, suffice to say i don't see any digital from anyone that does it for me. In my opinion it sucks, simple as that, bit like your superior position.
-
Your "digital sucks" comment was trolling and I guess I shouldn't have been sucked in by it. You could have said something like digital doesn't do what I want it to but instead said something intended to try and get a rise from people on this forum. So now you are offended? Please.
FYI I spend far more time on the Large Format Forum as I shoot as much 4x5 film as digital. Though most of my living comes from digital architectural photography, I'm coming up on my 100th museum/gallery exhibit since 1972 (99% film based) and have taught it at 5 universities. So I think I know something about the capabilities of film and digital.
-
When I first started seriously working with digital (1ds) I would look at the files and wonder where the light pollution was coming from. I was looking for slow shutter and wide apertures and wondering if my modeling lights were polluting teh shadows, making them red(ish), yellow transitions in different frames, wondering if my packs were bad or flash tubes were bad. I spent money at Flash Clinic and shot in blacked out rooms and realized its just different than film. An easy fix in any case, but man I enjoy just picking up a yellow box from Duggal with my perfect yellow prints.
It's all a semi easy fix. What changed with digital to film was with film, when we sent contact sheets they had to be semi close, but not perfect, with transparencies they had to be spot on (remember buying cases of the same emulsion?), but with digital with the 1ds, I'd just use the jpegs out of camera for the galleries and nobody seemed to mind, though I still think the 1ds transitioned better from film to digital than most of the newer digital cameras.
I think digital like the 5d3 is just too everything. Too smooth, too color receptive, too . . . I dunno . . . digital.
Then again I like the mft cameras because they don't have a huge ambient color range, they do noise up after 800 iso and they look t me like film . . . but I shot epr transparency film that even at 64 asa was still grainy, so what d I know?
I do know that I have seen beautiful digital images, beautiful film images and at the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter.
IMO
BC
-
Kirk, i am far from offended, nothing you could say would offend me really. I have also spent the last 22 years earning my living shooting mostly film images, so you are in no better position to offer a superior judgement.
-
Right and "digital sucks" does not come from a superior judgement. LOL.
-
But i did not and would not intimate that someone who thinks film sucks says more about their skills as a photographer.
-
But i did not and would not intimate that someone who thinks film sucks says more about their skills as a photographer.
Don't worry about it. I'm still getting kicked in the teeth by the recession in my industry and I've lost my sense of humor and perspective of late.
-
Kirk, i am far from offended, nothing you could say would offend me really. I have also spent the last 22 years earning my living shooting mostly film images, so you are in no better position to offer a superior judgement.
Hmmm. No website for you listed on LL. Googled your name and found a bunch of photos, though I am not certain they are by you. Saw some on Flickr that say done with a Leica S2. Whether it is you or not,
some of the photos I saw on the Web with the S2 look great (technically and aesthetically) and I don't really care what medium was used. On the other hand, there was a lot of stuff that looked very ordinary to me. In any case, seems to me that if you are going to be so opinionated and make such provocative statements, you might at least make it easy for readers to judge your photographic capabilities.
-
'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'
or so I thought....
Who cares if someone doesn't have a website? We're not 15yr olds comparing d*** sizes in the locker room guys ;)
We're photographers. It shouldn't matter to others what tools we use to create/take our photographs. If film gives US(the photographers/image makers) that 'feeling' we need in our photographs, or if those of us that disdain film in all of its form/function prefer to sit in front of a computer, so be it. If it allows us to work in the way we WANT/NEED to work, whether to meet the needs of our own workflows, or those of clients then use it. If it WORKS, use it.
I know of a few photographers who are still shooting big stuff who don't have a website of their own, or if they do, don't maintain it religiously. They are shooting enough that their name is getting 'out there' without having to maintain a website. Take Peter Lindbergh's site (http://www.peterlindbergh.com/) for instance.
I'd venture to guess that many photographers probably don't care about what other *photographers* think of their work, but if their clients keep calling and they're booking jobs, then they're doing something people want.
Shoot film if you like it, shoot digital if it works for you
BOTH have their place IMO
-Dan
-
'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'
or so I thought....
Who cares if someone doesn't have a website? We're not 15yr olds comparing d*** sizes in the locker room guys ;)
We're photographers. It shouldn't matter to others what tools we use to create/take our photographs. If film gives US(the photographers/image makers) that 'feeling' we need in our photographs, or if those of us that disdain film in all of its form/function prefer to sit in front of a computer, so be it. If it allows us to work in the way we WANT/NEED to work, whether to meet the needs of our own workflows, or those of clients then use it. If it WORKS, use it.
I know of a few photographers who are still shooting big stuff who don't have a website of their own, or if they do, don't maintain it religiously. They are shooting enough that their name is getting 'out there' without having to maintain a website. Take Peter Lindbergh's site (http://www.peterlindbergh.com/) for instance.
I'd venture to guess that many photographers probably don't care about what other *photographers* think of their work, but if their clients keep calling and they're booking jobs, then they're doing something people want.
Shoot film if you like it, shoot digital if it works for you
BOTH have their place IMO
-Dan
I am sorry if I gave the impression that is what I meant. These days, it seems like standard practice for professional photographers to have some samples of their work on the web, whether on their own website or that of their agency. If it is someone at the top of the profession who doesn't need that kind of marketing, then I would expect a fair number of people in this forum would recognize the name.
There are an awful lot of people spouting opinions on the Web these days with no evidence that they have any experience or capabilities to support their opinions. It is not about one photographer being better than another, if that is even something that can be quantified. I think it is about one photographer demonstrating reasonable proficiency with his or her craft.
-
Well David, my judgement is from using the S2 alongside film, and my conclusion is as written.
As for the 'personal' bit.
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?assettype=image&artist=Gary+Yeowell
Anyway, you won't get any clue from thumbnails in terms of 'quality' whatever that means.
-
To Kirk, i hear you, and getting tougher.
Best,
Gary.
-
This is what I'm digging about C1 7 and M9 files. At around 800 the limits of the sensor show noise, but C1 let's me dial it in so it looks grainy and, well, analogue. Dial the luminance noise up or down, the noise looks like soft grain. Combined with the 70's lenses that have nice texture and a cool cast , a rounded rendering, sharp but not too much contrast. I've never been happier with digital files.
T
Then again I like the mft cameras because they don't have a huge ambient color range, they do noise up after 800 iso and they look t me like film . . . but I shot epr transparency film that even at 64 asa was still grainy, so what d I know?
I do know that I have seen beautiful digital images, beautiful film images and at the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter.
IMO
BC
-
For people who don't have a lab close or if it's expensive, just do it yourself
I've been doing c41 and e6 for a few weeks now and both MF and 35mm come out great.
When scanning I can correct small colorchances but I have to admit that up until now (15-16 rolls) I've had no problems yet.
Next week I will try some BW. Somehow I started with color developing because I heard it was next to impossible, well after destroying roll 1 all have been good so I think it can be done, do remember I'm scanning not printing so I don't know how critical it is when printing in the darkroom, but with scanning it looks more than good.
-
For people who don't have a lab close or if it's expensive, just do it yourself
I've been doing c41 and e6 for a few weeks now and both MF and 35mm come out great.
When scanning I can correct small colorchances but I have to admit that up until now (15-16 rolls) I've had no problems yet.
Next week I will try some BW. Somehow I started with color developing because I heard it was next to impossible, well after destroying roll 1 all have been good so I think it can be done, do remember I'm scanning not printing so I don't know how critical it is when printing in the darkroom, but with scanning it looks more than good.
Color processes(c-41 and E-6) are "standardized" across the board. So Provia 100F's "normal" time according to Fuji is the same "normal" time for Velvia 50, etc...
Same for C-41. The "normal" time is 3:15, however if you DIY, you can adjust it for how YOU want it, exactly. A friend of mine was rating Portra 400 @ asa 100(so a 2 stop overexposure), but PULLING(reducing developing time, especially dangerous w/ c-41 since it's a very short dev time, 3:15min) development so his "normal" time for the look he wanted(low contrast, low saturation) was 2:50. Those 25sec were a HUGE difference time-wise, but after some experimentation, it achieved the look HE wanted, not how Kodak decided it should be. Of course, breaking out of these 'boundaries' that many film photographers impose on themselves can allow them to achieve something that sets their work apart.
I've encountered photographers who used to shoot certain films a special way, color filtration(like an 81C(very warm filter) and a 10R. I tried it and "yuck" said I .... Toooooo garish for ME. But for them, it worked. Oh, they also rated the film @ 1/2 box speed, then pushed it 1.5stops. IDK why, I haven't seen any shots from that particular setup(the film in question, Fuji's MS100-1000) is/was disc'd already.
I personally like the look of Portra 800, rated at 400, then pushed 1/2 stop. Add a slight warming filter(like an 81A) and I have negatives that scan extremely well, the color is nice and inviting(great for shooting people on 6x7/6x8) and it achieves the 'look' *I* want IN THE NEGATIVE(not doing excessive post work after the fact).
long-winded reply I know, but it seems many a photographer are afraid to "step outside the box", even now with digital. But that's their decision, not mine :)
Frank, I just wish Fuji would sell their 5L E-6 6bath kits here in the USA like they do in EU. I'd be going through more E6 film if I could DIY w/o having to buy lab-sized cubitainers of chemistry designed for labs....
cheers,
Dan
-
At the moment I'm following the rules.
I use the tetanol 5ltr packs.
-
Hi,
Tetenal, I presume.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Frank,
you develop your films in the Tetanus vaccine "Tetanol"? I know of Caffenol and Xtol but never heard of a alternative process which uses the vaccine "Tetanol".
Best,
Johannes
-
Widelux and SWC is why. But I prefer digital.
-
Oops, I could say "yeah dude the look I get from analogue is SICK" but this was auto correct from my phone :D
Tetenal indeed.