Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => The Wet Darkroom => Topic started by: Digiteyesed on December 26, 2005, 11:56:32 am

Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Digiteyesed on December 26, 2005, 11:56:32 am
While everyone seems to be moving forward to digital, I'm going backwards. I've accumulated no less than five complete darkrooms from photographers who are making the transition to digital and have been giving all of their toys away. Some more stuff showed up yesterday:

- Seal Inc. 16x20 dry mounting press
- Arkay's Loadmaster Print Washer, model 1620-A (almost in mint condition)
- Arkay's Photo Drier - Print Drier, model A-25 (mint condition)

Needless to say, yesterday was a good day for me. :-)

It was digital technology that made me go nuts over photography, but the more I play with film -- especially B&W -- the more I love it. Go figure.

Anyone else around here feel the same way?
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: mikeseb on December 26, 2005, 03:11:30 pm
Did you notice the echoes of your keyboard banging around these empty halls here in "The Wet Darkroom"? Glad to know someone other than me pops in here from time to time. A wet darkroom person is like the Maytag repairman on LL.

I got my first "serious" digital camera in 2004 and was heading to an all-digital future. Sold the Beseler 45MXT, put the 4x5 Sinar in mothballs and prepared to sell my Nikon film gear. Then on a lark I bought a Contax 645 and rediscovered medium format. THose gorgeous negatives and slides....There is a "something" to film--maybe it's only foolish nostalgia--that I don't get from digital. I am also an inveterate tinkerer, and the alchemy of B&W processing always presents something new to try.

That said, if I could afford a Phase P45 or P25 or even find a decent DCS Pro 645 C for the right price, I'd go MF digital just to avoid the hassle factor of processing, cataloging, and storing film. Maybe I should have sunk the contax cash into a D2X with all the trimmings....(If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, it'd be Christmas every day....) But there is something, also, about that Contax that I dearly love. It fits my hand like it was molded for it, and all the controls are just where they are supposed to be. And did I mention those fabulous images?

THis is entirely un-rational, but it seems "wrong" to me to have to toss the entire camera whenever you upgrade a digital SLR. With the Contax, you keep the same camera and lenses and can shoot digital or film. Makes no sense, "feels" right. I might also be rationalizing my now-considerable investment in Contax gear.

I'm going home today to mix up some PC-TEA to try out on my B&W film; I have a few Christmas rolls to process. The grandparents get mad because they only get to see my kids in beautiful black and white.

Let's see if we can't get this forum humming again. Check out my website (see signature) for some of the B&W work.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Digiteyesed on December 27, 2005, 11:10:12 am
Quote
THis is entirely un-rational, but it seems "wrong" to me to have to toss the entire camera whenever you upgrade a digital SLR. With the Contax, you keep the same camera and lenses and can shoot digital or film. Makes no sense, "feels" right. I might also be rationalizing my now-considerable investment in Contax gear.

I don't see why creating art has to be an entirely rational undertaking. Surely there's some room allowed for emotion in the creative process? I've always thought that the best camera is the one that inspires you to get out and make images.

Have you seen Wanda Scott's work?

http://www.wandascott.com/ (http://www.wandascott.com/)

Absolutely outstanding, and all of it done using pinhole cameras. Some of the cameras were consructed from throwaway items. I make a point of visiting Wanda's site whenever I start feeling sorry for myself because I can't afford another L-Series lens.

Quote
Let's see if we can't get this forum humming again.

I'll try, but I have to admit to being a relative newbie at processing. I've reached the point where I can process and print, but anything beyond that (dodging, burning, contrast masks, etc.) is beyond me right now.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: David White on December 27, 2005, 01:44:10 pm
I've also noticed that posts in this forum are pretty rare.

My darkroom is down to a sink that holds my JOBO CPP-2 for developing film from my Mamiya 645 AFD.  Nothing like a 645 chrome on a light table.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: D White on December 27, 2005, 05:55:59 pm
I know the feeling. I built up a 7 lens Hasselblad system that I always wanted and had several years use making big chromes and negs. I processed all my work on a Jobo ATL-2 automated processor including E-6. Then one day I added a Canon D1s II to my Canon arsenal and suddenly the Blad became a nice paper weight. At almost the same time the Jobo died from years of use and is too costly to repair.

One absolute from my perspective, the results from scanning on a Coolscan 9000 and printing on a 7600, (soon to be a 7800), blow away any color I was able to conventionally print in the wet darkroom. I have been quite happy with the B&W output too. I would never go back to wet printing but I still like scanning film and printing it on the Epson. I also really like my Canon Ds II and the incredible output it can do. Sometimes the digital output dose give funny artifacts, (types of noise), but I can usually get rid of it with noise reduction or selective noise reduction without introducing a plastic feel. I love the dynamic range of the Canon compared to chromes but not to negs.

In practical terms, for reasons of image quality, exposure check, speed over scanning, etc, the digital has been a quantum leap. In terms of feel and nostalgia, I still like to get out the Blad.

I hope that a full frame affordable digital back for the blad may come at some point so I can continue to enjoy medium format in the years to come--it has a certain feel.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: gr82bart on December 29, 2005, 03:13:24 pm
Quote
While everyone seems to be moving forward to digital, I'm going backwards.
I wouldn't call it going backwards. I'd call it maturing!

Quote
It was digital technology that made me go nuts over photography, but the more I play with film -- especially B&W -- the more I love it. Go figure.
This really should not be surprising. There are elements and qualities of film that cannot be reproduced with digital. Wait until you try platinum, cyanotype, albumen, etc... printing. Better yet, wait 'till you get a 4x5.

Quote
Anyone else around here feel the same way?
I have a D2X and it has rarely seen the light of day. I was going to get a Hassey H2 as well, but I think I'll get a 4x5 instead. And another lens for my Hassey. And maybe another toy camera. And...there are so many possibilities with film.

Goto www.APUG.org (http://www.APUG.org) to meet thousands of film enthusiasts.

Regards, Art.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: gr82bart on December 29, 2005, 03:15:30 pm
Quote
Did you notice the echoes of your keyboard banging around these empty halls here in "The Wet Darkroom"?
Well, this site is owned and operated by a widely known anti-film guy.

regards, Art.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Digiteyesed on December 29, 2005, 03:51:32 pm
Quote
Well, this site is owned and operated by a widely known anti-film guy.

You honestly think so? I've never gotten that impression from reading Mr. Reichmann's writing. YES, his personal preference is digital for the creative control and turnaround it gives him, and YES, he is quite honest when he assesses the limitations of both film and digital, but I don't see this as making him anti-film. He is also quite fair about giving film lovers a chance to say their own piece, too.

He strikes me as an artist who is more concerned with the message than with the medium it is communicated through.

Quote
This really should not be surprising. There are elements and qualities of film that cannot be reproduced with digital. Wait until you try platinum, cyanotype, albumen, etc... printing. Better yet, wait 'till you get a 4x5.

Got myself a Shen Hoa 4x5 field camera. Haven't been doing a lot with it yet, I'm afraid. I guess I need to get off my butt, huh?

Quote
I have a D2X and it has rarely seen the light of day. I was going to get an H2 as well, but I think I'll get another 4x5 instead. And another lens for my Hassey. And maybe another toy camera. And...there are so many possibilities with film.

I've become enamored with pinhole photography as of late. I guess I need to put some of my recent work into my portfolio.

Quote
Goto www.APUG.org to meet thousands of film enthusiasts.

I will, and thank you! :-)
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: michael on December 29, 2005, 04:18:39 pm
Anti-film guy?

Humm. I've been called many things, but never that.

I no longer shoot much film – but being anti-film? Of course not. I shoot film when and where film will do a better job, and digital when and where its advantages are manifest. Who wouldn't?

And, since I've been shooting film for more than 50 years, most of these professionally, I figure that I've shot something over a half million frames of film. The only thing that I'm "anti" is the hundreds of thousands of dollars that I've spent on film stock and processing over that period.

I love the web. So much insightful commentary.

Michael
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: DavidRees on December 29, 2005, 04:58:02 pm
I've bought two new cameras this year -- a Canon 350D (my first excursion into digital), and a Wista DX (wooden 5x4 camera).

I like the 350D, and have made some fine images with it. However, for me, the Wista has won hands down in terms of sheer fun. I've built up a set of 5 lenses for it (a bit O.T.T., but they were ALL bargains! Honestly!). I've started processing B&W at home again, after a gap of more than a decade. Takes me back to my youth, and I find myself having more fun with my hobby/obsession than I have in a long time.

I accept that digital capture is the mainstream future -- but film, in 35mm, 120 and 5x4, is going to be with us (if we want it) for a long time yet. May no longer be the professional's choice - but since I do photography for the love of it, I'll choose the tools I like -- and I *like* film.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 29, 2005, 05:47:37 pm
Film shooters are no different than people who ride horses. There's nothing wrong with riding a horse to get somewhere instead of hopping in a Honda Civic, but few rational people would argue that equestrian transportation is faster, more efficient, and cheaper than the Civic, all things considered. There are some film buffs who would do well to keep that in mind.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: gr82bart on December 29, 2005, 06:29:39 pm
Quote
Film shooters are no different than people who ride horses. There's nothing wrong with riding a horse to get somewhere instead of hopping in a Honda Civic, but few rational people would argue that equestrian transportation is faster, more efficient, and cheaper than the Civic, all things considered. There are some film buffs who would do well to keep that in mind.
Interesting. This is the exact argument, albeit with a different 'focus', to outsource North American jobs to India and China. Anyway, I wasn't looking for a fight, but I've lurked long enough to know what buttons to push and which ones will respond...

Happy New Year, Art.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Digiteyesed on December 29, 2005, 07:22:41 pm
Quote
Film shooters are no different than people who ride horses. There's nothing wrong with riding a horse to get somewhere instead of hopping in a Honda Civic, but few rational people would argue that equestrian transportation is faster, more efficient, and cheaper than the Civic, all things considered. There are some film buffs who would do well to keep that in mind.

Interesting analogy! I live in the middle of cattle country here in Alberta, and the fact remains that there are certain jobs out here that more easily done with a horse. You can try and work cattle riding a quad or a dirt bike, but nothing beats using a horse for efficiency (with a well trained hound, of course).

We have people out here who can still rope and ride with the best of them even though their skills are not so much in demand as they would have been one hundred years ago. Still, they're keeping part of our heritage alive and passing it along to the next generation. That's important too.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 29, 2005, 07:53:31 pm
I'll grant you that herding cattle with a well-trained horse works better than an ATV, especially in rough country where wheeled vehicles are likely to get stuck. A good horse can apply its intelligence to the task, which is something a vehicle cannot do. When making my analogy, I was thinking more along the lines of general travel, say taking the family to visit relatives for the holidays, going to work, etc.

I have no issue with someone who shoots film for historical reasons, or because they like the smell of developer, or prefer working with an optical enlarger, or anything along those lines. The people I take issue with are the ones that tell me that if I don't use film to shoot the 75 college students waiting in line to have their yearbook photos taken, that I'm short-changing my customers with regard to the quality of the final product and the timeliness of delivery. Those folks are not very well grounded in reality, IMHSHO.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: gr82bart on December 29, 2005, 08:40:32 pm
I have no issue with someone who shoots digital for efficiency reasons, or because they like spraying and praying, or prefer working with a computer for hours on end, or anything along those lines. The people I take issue with are the ones that tell me that if I don't use digital to shoot what I like to shoot, that I'm a luddite, a technophobe, wasting my money, or tangentially a whole host of other condescending remarks. Those folks are not very well grounded in reality, IMHSHO.

Regards, Art.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: dbnm on December 29, 2005, 09:25:15 pm
I just love hearing how archival the digital stuff is.  That is until it accidently gets wet.

I too am tired of the same old rhetoric that I get "giclee'd" with everytime I mention I shoot film.

Oh well, at least my prints will be around in 100 years.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: michael on December 29, 2005, 09:38:52 pm
I'm sorry – but when did this become a DPReview forum?

Let's keep a somewhat more mature level of discourse, please.

One and only warning.

Michael
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: davidr805 on December 29, 2005, 09:56:12 pm
Well . I am not a professional .. (for that I mean .. that I don't know how to use my camera 100% )

And that's one reason I like digital .. I can play with settings and experiment till I capture something good.

But  one thing that I don't like about digital  is that  when I capture a nice picture and what a make a big print I am not able to (have the 10D) .

And in order to make them I would have to spend good money on equipment .
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Digiteyesed on December 29, 2005, 10:35:57 pm
Quote
I have no issue with someone who shoots film for historical reasons, or because they like the smell of developer, or prefer working with an optical enlarger, or anything along those lines.

I think part of the reason that I'm falling in love with film is that the journey (making the image) is as enjoyable for me as arriving at the destination (the final image). I find that using film slows me down and makes me appreciate each discrete step in the image making process that much more. I'm hoping that my adventures in my new darkroom will only add to my enjoyment of each image I create.

Quote
The people I take issue with are the ones that tell me that if I don't use film to shoot the 75 college students waiting in line to have their yearbook photos taken, that I'm short-changing my customers with regard to the quality of the final product and the timeliness of delivery.

I make no claims of superiority when it comes to film versus digital. The plain truth is that I don't care. I certainly wouldn't be playing with Holgas, Lubitels, Kievs, and pinhole cameras if LPM was my primary consideration.

I use film and I use digital and I'm equally proud of my work with both. I guess I've just developed a fascination with film and darkrooms in the way that some people have a thing for classic vehicles. I was hoping to connect with others who feel the same way. Starting a film vs. digital debate was certainly not my intention.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 29, 2005, 10:44:31 pm
Quote
I make no claims of superiority when it comes to film versus digital.
I never meant to imply that you were one of the people I was referring to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with riding horses just because you like to. Nor is there anything wrong with shooting film for the same reason.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: gr82bart on December 29, 2005, 10:48:52 pm
Amen Digiteyesed. There are no film or digital buffs, as some would label so hastily, just photography buffs. You're just starting on a great discovery, so I wish you all the best.

Regards, Art.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Digiteyesed on December 29, 2005, 10:52:54 pm
Quote
I never meant to imply that you were one of the people I was referring to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with riding horses just because you like to. Nor is there anything wrong with shooting film for the same reason.

Sorry, I guess I should been more careful with my phrasing. I never saw you as attacking my choice of film and I'm sorry if I seem to have singled you out in my reply -- I just wanted to clarify where I stand on the whole film/digital thing. :-)
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: lightandimages on December 29, 2005, 11:02:19 pm
Well.. I learned in a wet room and I truely miss the smells and the different papers etc. While I love digital, it's very "sterile" in the tactile department.

When it came time to teach my then 13 year old how to shoot real pictures, I loaded her up with my old CanonAE1 and B/W film. She took the film and into the blackbag we went with the reels and tanks. I bought a used enlarger and we went through how to develop negatives and print contact sheets. The look on her face when the blank paper started to fill in was priceless.

Even though she is digital now too, she talks fondly about learning how to develop film and make real prints.

I think it is as much as touching our roots as it is anything else.

MikeS
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Frere Jacques on December 30, 2005, 08:54:46 am
>It was digital technology that made me go nuts over photography, but the more I play
>with film -- especially B&W -- the more I love it. Go figure.

If you haven't already, order some Ilford Pan-F 50 -- beautiful film! The images captured have a rich, silky quality to them that I find extraordinary. I shot Kodak for years, but I really prefer the Ilford films below ISO 400. Now I am trying to hunt down an Efke distributor in France...
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: bob mccarthy on December 30, 2005, 11:26:20 am
Quote
>It was digital technology that made me go nuts over photography, but the more I play
>with film -- especially B&W -- the more I love it. Go figure.

If you haven't already, order some Ilford Pan-F 50 -- beautiful film! The images captured have a rich, silky quality to them that I find extraordinary. I shot Kodak for years, but I really prefer the Ilford films below ISO 400. Now I am trying to hunt down an Efke distributor in France...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you want to really get the sense of B&W, step up to larger formats i.e. 4.5x6 or better yet 6x7. Light years from 35mm.

4x5 is another huge step up from there.

I'm getting a .... never mind, thinking about it.

I am missing my darkroom. I just sold my home and moving to a smaller downsized townhouse. Kids are all gone. Guess what goes... groan. Like the end of an era. I don't use it much, but don't like the idea I can't.


bob
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Richowens on January 01, 2006, 02:12:54 am
Quote
I think part of the reason that I'm falling in love with film is that the journey (making the image) is as enjoyable for me as arriving at the destination (the final image). I find that using film slows me down and makes me appreciate each discrete step in the image making process that much more. I'm hoping that my adventures in my new darkroom will only add to my enjoyment of each image I create.

I like to think of shooting with my RB67 as "stopping to smell the roses".  My mind slows down and things are done in a more relaxed manner.

Enjoy shooting film and I look forward to seeing the results of your journey.

Rich
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Anon E. Mouse on January 17, 2006, 07:49:05 pm
I do understand your hesitation on posting on darkrooms. I get the feeling this is an "anti-film" site. Especially with the articles like "Clumps and Chumps." (Pretty derogotory title as well.) No offence to Micheal. He obviously has found some magic in digital photography, and that is fine. He can also do what he likes on his own site. Of course, with folks bashing themselves over the head to "prove" the "superiority" of their way of taking pictures, you can only expect each side to be defensive. But I don't think Luminous Landscapes forum is the place to come for information on film technology (just look at the cob webs in the Wet Darkroom forum), but it is a great source of information for digital.

I use both film and digital. Nothing wrong with either. It is a matter of what compromises you are willing to put up with - neither is a panacea.

I enjoy darkroom work, both color and black and white. I run my own darkroom at home. It certainly is not a step backwards and it can be lots of fun if you enjoy the work. I particularly like printing.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: mikeseb on January 17, 2006, 10:54:03 pm
Quote
I get the feeling this is an "anti-film" site. Especially with the articles like "Clumps and Chumps." (Pretty derogotory title as well.)

I respectfully disagree on this point. Since this is Michael's site and he's a confirmed digeratus, it's not surprising that LL focuses on digital photography. He has his opinions about the relative technical standing of either medium, upon which reasonable people can disagree. That said, there's a lot here that is helpful and interesting even to those of us who straddle both worlds, or <gasp> shoot film only. I have never felt that this site is anti-film, just pro-digital and live-and-let-live. As for Clumps and Chumps, I took it as a snarky quip, and find it insufficient to prompt panty-wadding.

However, I did mean to ask about the silver-halide-sniffing dogs at the Toronto Brickworks photo shoot....I thought Canadians were supposed to be polite!  They'll never guess where I keep the Plus-X hidden.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: dazzajl on January 20, 2006, 01:37:49 pm
Why couldn't I just stay out of here.    

I really miss my darkroom.

Oh and I'm one of the oddballs that still has room for both. Work is digital, 100% but when I shoot for me, it's film. Why? Because the journey is often more important than the destination.  
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: jeffball on January 20, 2006, 05:04:56 pm
I, too, am going back to the future.  For me, it is not about capture, it is about the  print.  While I love my color printing on Matte paper, I really enjoy the traditional BW silver/selenium toned print.  Now, BW is a recent endeavor for me.  I have two Wynn Bullock prints from the Brooks Jensen digital reproduction/silver prints and they are my benchmarks.  I recently viewed an Uelsman exhibit and was blown away by what he had done in the darkroom.  I am going to convert a 2200 to Peizography with QTR, but I am pretty sure that I will move to a darkroom.  Heck, darkrooms can be had for free!  I guess I am a little weary of the "technology chase."  My one-year-old 7600 is now inferior to the K3 inks and their BW capabilities with IP6.0 (another $1,500, not counting the maintenance contract).   I can make nice BW prints with QTR on the 7600 and Moab Entrada, but it is not the look I am going for artistically.  Yes, for color-inkjet/mat is wonderful and very appealing to me.  I am not sure about BW.  I value greatly the opinion of Joseph Holmes and he does write very favorably about the x800 series..more about its color potential, but still praises BW.  But is this the trend, trade up every two years for a new improved inkjet?  I am very concerned that it can become that way and I simply don't have the time or financial resources to engage in that pursuit.  The time I spend reading the internet about "what I am missing" with the latest technologies I could spend in the darkroom creating prints.  As I reflect on the photographers who's work I enjoy the most, it is the traditional darkroom artists that capture my mind and heart.  Just another photographer captured initially by digital and going backwards in time...for what its worth.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Graham Welland on January 22, 2006, 02:22:19 pm
Sometimes I enjoy the process of shooting film with my Wista DX - it's a much slower process, involves use of grads & filters, waiting for the results and lugging around a not insignificant amount of camera gear. However, as someone who doesn't do this for a living, it's a pleasant way of enjoying and improving my camera craft. I leave the colour chemical processing to others and I'm happy to pick up the finished slides.

For the other 99% of my photography, I enjoy the convenience and instant feedback of shooting digitally with the D2X and 645M or taking grab shots with the P&S. The results are at least as good and many more shots make their way to final print. However, I always carry the film outfit in the car and dual shoot when those special opportunities present themselves. (I think of my 4x4 as the camera bag   )

I think Jonathan's analogy here of horse vs. car/truck is spot on. In my case I'd probably also compare shooting film vs. digital to sailing with a sailboat vs. a motor cruiser, etc.

As regards Michael as anti-film: when did that happen? Anyone who has followed LL over the years would see that there's been a transition from all film through the adoption of ever better digital technologies and techniques but I've never seen anything to suggest an anti-film bias. A pro-digital bias sure, but never an anti-film one (and they are definitely different things!).
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: r42ogn on January 26, 2006, 12:14:41 pm
It's a tough one.  I loved getting back into the B&W darkroom over the last year, got me away from the computer I also work on and mixing with new people - but then I scratched several key frames in an unfamiliar negative carrier (it's not my darkroom) and got very annoyed that I hadn't used digital.  More than anything for me the alure of film is using a manual rangefinder with a single prime lens that is so different from the digital sports work I'd been doing, no batteries or lenses to lug around, little chance of being mugged for a $200 second hand camera, no choice but to take care over every shot.  As many people have said, once you get away from purely professional considerations, it's horses for courses (at the risk of bringing horses into the debate again).

One point of very slight issue, digital is not quite as cheap as it first seemed, at least for me.  I've had a microdrive pack up on me ($150 cost), a card reader fail ($30), I've had to add 120GB of hardfile to my PC ($80) plus a DVD recorder for back up ($70+a lot of media) and all my original 4 rechargeable canon battery packs are not holding their charge at all well after 2 years ($100+? to replace) plus the depreciation on the camera is pretty rapid.  Now for my 10,000+ frames of sports the digital is CHEAP, but not free.

Appreciate most of you are professionals working to a different beat, but that's my perspective.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: DonWeston on January 26, 2006, 03:34:01 pm
Cheap, heck no, not cheap. I recently looked back at my hobby expense over the last 5 years of going digital. Started with a D30 and many dslrs since and currently a D200 kit and lens, totalled out to over $30k. This being a paultry sum compared to many others in these forums I know. For me a hobbyist it is still a considerable amount. But it allows me to get quality that my Hasselblad and LF gear and many hours in the darkroom achieved only after much work. Don't get me started on getting a second perfect print after the first one, 12 hours later or 48hrs. But, and it is a big but, what else would I be doing.....hehe. Now I am totally smitten with digital darkroom and for me, health issues, stopped me from enjoying what was 35 yrs of wet darkroom fun. I would not, could not go back. That is to say to the darkroom, but film is another issue, and you certainly can still obtain some of the beauty of film even by scanning it and printing with my 7600. The consistency issue that occurred with the wet darkroom is now solved, file saved, backed up repeatedly, different format and media thanks to both dvds and LaCie External Hard drives in both my home and office. Security that never existed alone in the film and wet darkroom environment, now practically assured. Is digital perfect or the only object, NO, but nothing is, but with health issues, 50+ year old eyes, AF is certainly appreciated and the fun is back...now where is that spare 50 grand for the H2D and 39 MP back, lenses.....oh my poor back..well the wallet will be lighter, that will help.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Dil on March 24, 2006, 05:37:07 pm
Hey! My first post!  The past four years has seen me pouring time and finance into re-learning photography. "All is digital now, I'll never use my trusty Bronica ETRS or Nikon FE again" I believed.
A growing family had taken up the space formerly occupied by my darkroom while the benefits of Photoshop were being enjoyed by the children as well as myself.

But...a friend who is newly enthused by photography offered to house and use my darkroom gear in return for my having access to it (unless I wished to sell it to him of course). Suddenly the possibilities re-awakened all sorts of emotions in me. Once more I'll be able to experience the magic of a print appearing in the dev tray, the aroma of Stop Bath and being involved in a process the workings of which I can actually comprehend! This most wonderful of hobbies is blessed with great traditions and an exciting future. I have resolved to partake of both.

Now where did I put that Lightroom tutorial disc?
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on March 24, 2006, 08:47:10 pm
Yeah, I've sometimes thought of putting a tray of stop bath next to my monitor, just to have the smell of a real darkroom. Now, if only someone would come up with a Photoshop plugin that would first show your image as a blank, white screen until you jiggle the monitor back and forth ("agitate" it), whereupon the image would very gradually emerge, being fully "developed" in about 90 seconds . . .  

Eric
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Anon E. Mouse on March 25, 2006, 12:18:32 am
You would need a LIQUID chrystal display.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on March 25, 2006, 06:05:33 pm
Quote
You would need a LIQUID chrystal display.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ouch!

Yup. And I've often wondered how long I need to wash my LCD after making a print in PS if I want my prints to be archival.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 29, 2006, 11:36:56 pm
Quote
Ouch!

Yup. And I've often wondered how long I need to wash my LCD after making a print in PS if I want my prints to be archival.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wonder what happens if Windows crashes at that time?...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Orgnoi1 on July 10, 2006, 06:18:31 pm
Sorry for digging up the post a little... but I am somewhat in the same boat. I shoot a lot of digital as a part-time working pro. I recently got back into film a slight bit and decided to go with a MF camera to play around and slow down. This post isnt meant to bring up old arguments, or tell people how to think or what to shoot. Its meant to say that while I love shooting digital, there is just something that brings out the kid in me when it comes to shooting larger than 35mm frame film. Medium format was just the way of enabling those kid-like feelings, and anticipation. For those that down-talk film, I am sorry you feel that way.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on July 10, 2006, 08:34:15 pm
My own comments weren't meant to denigrate film or film users but rather to admit, with some chagrin, that I, too, have "gone over to the dark side" of digital. It is fun, and it lets me do things I never could with film. But film definitely let me do things I could never do with digital. I still have a Mamiya 6 which I expect to get back to any day now. And I have a terrific darkroom, which has been gathering dust for the past couple of years, while I play this new game of digital.

Many years ago I found film developing to be the most boring part of photography, but in recent years I have come to appreciate the quiet times in total dark, swishing neagtives in a tray or tilting a developing tank periodically. That gave me time for serious meditation, and I don't get that with Photoshop.

Digital and film to me are two different, but related, media. I hope and expect they will both have long and healthy futures.

Eric
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: mysterick on December 29, 2006, 08:17:56 pm
I too am returning to the "wet darkroom" for printing B&W. I like digital for some work  and use it often for newspaper photos. But I always liked the B&W print and 20 years ago worked in B&W almost exclusively. The subtle, hands-on control of the print itself is what I think I enjoy most. I haven't got it together yet (probably in about hree months), but I have found so far around $1500 of equipment on ebay for around $300. I am pretty much re-creating my old darkroom with Kindermann cans and a 23CIIXL enlarger, etc. I am psyched and a little unbelieving that i am doing this at my age, but hey, I need someting to keep me off the streets when I soon retire. (:->
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: larryg on December 29, 2006, 09:30:28 pm
I have jumped to digital and have no regrets   contax with digital back.

But I learned with a large format camera and I still yearn to do some of the things that gave me so much pleasure in photography way back when.  Like smelling the fixer and other chemicals and spending all that time in the dark.

I had a dark room built in our new house all equiped to process b&w medium to large format.

Reality I only did it once and quickly was reminded how tedius and time consuming etc. that it was. I haven't used the darkroom in five years or so but I still have it klinging on to the hope that I might want to return to it at some point.

The bottom line is I mostly enjoy getting the shot and at this point, for me at least, digital does it best.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Gregory on December 31, 2006, 06:46:06 am
is there a difference is the light response curve for digital and film? I find it extremely easy to blow out the hilites or the dark areas of a contrasty photo with digital and I don't remember having these same problems with film.

I too sometimes consider retrying film; positive (slide) film because it's easier to scan and the Ektachrome always looked great.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: dturina on January 08, 2007, 07:40:43 am
Quote
I too sometimes consider retrying film; positive (slide) film because it's easier to scan and the Ektachrome always looked great.

I never felt quite at ease with digital until I bought a film scanner and EOS 3 to complement my digital bodies. Now I can decide to shoot film if I feel like it, and I like the feeling. It's best to have both, I don't think digital should completely replace film. For instance, it's extremely expensive to have digital bodies as backup, while it's quite affordable to have film as backup to digital. Also, with film I don't have to carry an expensive scanner with me and risk damage in problematic environments (salt water spray etc.). I can use a cheap $50 body (EOS 650) for risky stuff while the expensive scanner is safe on my desk (where it's less likely to be stolen, too). That said, I still use my 5d for more than 90% of everything, because it's sharper, clearer and there aren't any film and processing costs involved. It's good to know that I have, what, five different slide emulsions in the fridge and I can take them out for a shoot any time I feel like it, but it doesn't happen all that often.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Rob C on January 08, 2007, 03:59:29 pm
Yes, it's a difficult theme to follow without going all partisan.

But, for what it's worth, my opinion sides with those who believe in the double (photographic!) standard. I too have one of each: Nikons both, an F3 and also a D200. I think that the film one uses the 24mm lens very well as a wide and the digital body uses the same optic very well too as a medium wide (circa 35mm) and thus, in a simple trick of the formats, we get the best of both worlds: wide angle on film and the rest on digital. The other lenses in the arsenal (only two more - I learned that lesson many years ago) are coped with well by either body.

Film or digital, then, as medium rather than as hardware: for black/white prints I find b/w film scanned gives very convincing results much as one would expect from film printed in the wet; from colour transparency scanned I seem to get darker skies than would be expected; from digital capture converted via Channel Mixer to b/w I get fairly similar results. Scanning old Kodachrome model shots makes for very nice skin in b/w prints whilst doing so from Ektachrome seems to be just as nice for skin and less dramatic on the skies.

Turning to the matter of colour prints, it has been years since I made colour prints professionally as most of my work was transparency; making colour prints now from scanned transparency or digital is so much easier and better-controlled than I found possible using wet chemistry. Colour direct from NEFs look so much 'nicer' to me (I'm speaking here of non-model shots because I haven't used digital for people pics) and I have to be very careful not to try and fix what ain't broke with unnecessary messing with what the camera has already given me. That, I think, says something pretty good for the D200.

Whether working in a darkroom is a pleasure depends on the individual. I used one every working day from '60 to '81 and the oft-quoted delight of seeing a print come up in the dish is a magic moment long spent! It doesn't strike you that way when you do it every day; it just means you have to protect your fingernails with clear varnish (I wouldn't advise coloured for obvious reasons - but then again, different strokes etc.) to stop them going brown if not falling off altogether - I never met a pro printer used tongs - and clearing the mess after the job's done is just one more chore which digital avoids.

So to sum up, perhaps we might think of film capture as the best way, for now, if we want to get the maximum out of very wide angle lenses with digital capture having the advantage in other respects. I have to say, using the Matrix Metering in the D200 has opened my eyes to just how accurately such devices can work! I find the Minolta Flashmeter does less and less...

And no, I haven't found our host anti-film at all; why should he be? Nobody is forcing him either way - he's just in the position to please himself what he uses.

On the other matter about the sound of echoes in this part of the forum - perhaps that's because there really isn't that much to say about wet printing; once you know how to do it, you have only to practise and practise yet again - it doesn't change much and there is no expensive technology to buy and master and to compare. In that sense, it is the purer artform. Yes, you can complicate it if you like by going into exotic chemicals beyond silver but you still have to apply a lot of self-delusion if you want to believe that anything can give the tones that a well-glazed fibre print can. White smooth glossy. D163.  

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Gregory on January 08, 2007, 10:05:24 pm
hi Rob and all.

I was planning to upgrade to the 5D from my 350D once the new 5D is released sometime this year, but I've had second thoughts.

most of photography is bird and animal photography. the 1.6x factor of the 350D is definitely useful, more of a requirement than a convenience. hence, I finally realised that the 400D would be a better upgrade for me than the 350D.

I have an EOS 5 gathering dust but in perfect condition. I have often been frustrated with the inability of the 350D to shoot wide shots and have decided to use the EOS 5 for wide shots instead, using slide film instead of negative film to avoid the colour conversion issues.

I have owned the Nikon 4000ED for a few years and have both the film roll and 50-slide adapters. I have also owned and used SilverFast Ai for the same amount of time so scanning the slides will be a piece of cake ;-)

as you said; the best of both worlds. I don't shoot a lot of wide shots and it would be difficult (impossible?) to justify spending so much money of the 5D if I didn't use it much. the EOS 5 will do fine!

regards,
Gregory
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: ZoneIII on January 09, 2007, 07:56:42 pm
Well, since I just registered today, I'll put my first two-cent's worth in.   I am a film photographer because I shoot almost exclusively large format and the nature of my work and the amount of work I do makes film a better choice for me.     Frankly, I get a bit tired of some comments made by both film and digital advocates.  I think digital is great but film suits my shooting better.    But that's just me.  

Sometimes I think that some digital advocates are not thinking things through when they claim that digital is cheaper.   Sure, it can be,  but that depends on the nature of one's work.    With film, you could shoot with the same camera for decades because the biggest advancements came with new films.   With digital, the advancements come with the equipment itself so, instead of simply switching films, you have to buy new equipment to keep on top.    Also, with digital, there is a constant back-tracking as you have to keep up on the latest software, etc.   As a matter of fact, when I think of how much money I would have to spend to fully transition to serious digital photography and printing... well, I hate to even think about it.   By the time I mastered all the software, my equipment would probably be obsolete.   In a very real sense, digital can require a much greater investment in time.    And people call that less expensive?!   And then the equipment becomes outdated so fast!    On the other hand, my 8x10" camera is about 50 years old and I really haven't had to buy any major new equipment for many years.   Try that with digital!  

I have two large format enlargers. One is a current model 45V-XL and the other is an Omega D2 that is probably 40 or 50 years old and I use that one for almost all of my printing.   Imagine using a 50 year-old printer (if there were such a thing!).   My point is that with film, the equipment you invest in can be used for many many years.   On the other hand,  I will probably switch to digital printing for b&w at some point in the future and I don't plan to do any wet color printing in the future.  Until a few years ago, I could justify darkroom color prints for permanence reasons but digital has overcome that problem.   Digital printing for color definitely seems to be the way to go and some even claim that the same is true for b&w but I have not personally seen digital b&w prints that I prefer over darkroom prints.... yet.    And the advantages of digital printing are wonderful.   No doubt about it.  

Don't get me wrong.... I think digital is great and, if it fit my style of work, that is the way I would go.   The only digital camera I shoot with is my wife's little compact camera and I have a ball using it.   There is no question that it is far more convenient for routine snapshots.   A pro-level digital camera would be OK for serious work.    But, for me, a digital SLR is no substitute for large format.   Not even close!   But, again, that's just me.  

For someone shooting lots of small format work, digital is, in my opinion, definitely the way to go.  But for someone like me who shoots very little small format work,  it is difficult to justify the large investment necessary for a top-notch digital SLR system that would hardly used and which will probably be out-of-date before many images are made with it.   Add to that all the software, the long learning curves, calibration, etc.    That's not a recipe for cheaper and more convenient photography for my type of photography.  

So, I really don't understand how anyone can say that digital or film is better.  To me, each is better for different applications and for different shooting styles.    I happen to love the LF process and I still like darkroom work.   In fact, I am expanding my darkroom right now.    I have almost 40 years of experience with traditional photography and it suits me.   With film, the learning process constantly builds on itself with little or no back-tracking.  I don't have to spend so much time learning the lastest software.   And anyone who thinks that the digital process is simple is in dreamland.    Professional level work requires a huge investment in time and money.  

Hey!  There is room for all of us!  

If and when digital backs for my 4x5" and 8x10" cameras become viable and affordable options at a reasonable price for a field photographer like myself, I would definitely consider going pure digital but, till then, I'm still a film guy.   On the other hand, I do scan film and fumble around in Photoshop. (I have to get around to actually learn what I am doing in PS, though.)  

I have no strong feelings either way about digital vs. film but I have noticed that it is generally the digital advocates who seem to get on the analog photographer's case rather than the other way around lately.   I simply can't understand that.   At the beginning of the transition to digital, I noticed comments being made by film snobs but now most of the negative comments seem to come from digital snobs including, most irritatingly, very young photographers who clearly never exposed film in their life and often don't know what they are doing photographically.  For some of them, photography simply means playing with fancy new high-tech toys.    I even had a young digital photographer ask me why in the world anyone would shoot b&w!    When they saw one of my prints, she insisted that it couldn't have been shot on b&w film because it had a slight color (tone) to it and it was too sharp!   They virtually called me a liar when I explained that fine b&w prints are rarely pure b&w and that big negatives mean sharp prints.   It's difficult to talk with someone who is so ignorant, especially when it is clear that they think they are somehow superior because they have a fancy new digital camera and my camera is made of of wood, leather, and brass.   (None of this applies to anyone on this board, though, because I think I can assume that everyone here is a serious and knowledgeable photographer regardless of what tools they choose to use.)  

One other thing....    I am a bit confused by the comment made by Mike, the man who runs this forum, I assume,  giving a last warning for people to act in a mature manner.    I may have missed something but I didn't notice any rude or immature posts here at all.   As a new member, I hope these forums aren't run as if by the Gestapo,  although I also know that forums can get out of hand and I certainly don't like to see that.    A good moderator does have to keep things in line.    But this is the very first thread that I have read so I apologize to Mike if I got the wrong impression.  

Anyway, what a wonderful site!   I'm so glad that someone told me about it.   I also just learned about APUG and what a great site that is for those of us who live in the past!
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Rob C on January 10, 2007, 01:36:11 pm
Zone lll

Welcome aboard - if it's correct for a fellow guest to assume the host's mantle!

The problems you have pointed out that do exist within digital are truly horific if you come fom a solid film-based background. I spent most of my pro life working with film - cutting it down to the minimum number of types that would do what I had to do with it. As you rightly say, equipment, if of pro quality, would be there for a lifetime and investment in Nikon, Leica, Hasselblad et al. would make sense. Today, with most of my pro life well behind me, I am trying to get it together with digital photography as a means to making a new life for myself out of art photography, something which was too esoteric an idea when commercial concerns were paramount.

Yet there are dreadful financial obstacles lying in the path of such a venture. Were one not aware of what film used to do for one every day, then fine, any old digital camera would do, expectations being dumbed down by the stuff that gets shown around the place (I await the defence experts coming in on this one...) but once you know how b/w can or should look, there is a tough time ahead if you want to do it on your desktop, which is, after all, the main reason for trying to get back into production!

Money money money. It all boils down to the same damn thing: if you want to make a small fortune in photography then best to start with a large one.

But that's the big difference between the pro and ams: for the latter it doesn't really have to make much financial sense at all - it's just about how much you can spend getting your kicks.

I'm delighted that so many out there can afford to invest pocket money into MF digital capture - I just wish I could look at the thing through similar eyes but I can't; it all has to make sense at the bottom line and I envy those without the need for one.

You see, there it is again - we are in a film section and there might be the expectation of much chat about film itself, but I think we have already illustrated the fact, in this current thread, that there isn't really a lot to say about film photography - you just do it to the best of your ability with very basic tools; there isn't the scope for lengthy debate about all the competing brands of software that are meant to get you from points A to B. So the echoes in the vaults are perhaps understandable after all!

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Kirk Gittings on January 10, 2007, 04:05:38 pm
I am currently shooting about half my commercial work in large format film and the rest with a DSLR. All my personal b&w work is LF film. I shoot the DSLR because of client needs. I personally have no need of it except to take snapshots of my grandchild.

There is something very satisfying about working within a long established tradition and LF film supplies that. Were the difference not obvious to collectors and museums, the difference would still matter to me in that sense of continuity and comraderie. This is a very personal standard by which I do not judge other peoples work.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: gr82bart on January 28, 2007, 08:23:32 am
Quote
You see, there it is again - we are in a film section and there might be the expectation of much chat about film itself, but I think we have already illustrated the fact, in this current thread, that there isn't really a lot to say about film photography - you just do it to the best of your ability with very basic tools; there isn't the scope for lengthy debate about all the competing brands of software that are meant to get you from points A to B. So the echoes in the vaults are perhaps understandable after all!
There is little discussion here because this is a digital based site. Goto http://www.APUG.org (http://www.APUG.org) and you'll have 20,000 film users with lots to say.

Regards, Art.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: KAP on April 30, 2007, 05:16:17 am
Digital is fantastic, it earns be a good living, I've built a business apon it. Now I find myself returning to film as well, I thought my Pentax 67 was there to stop the shelf getting dusty. After a couple of years shooting digital I can now see what film does better. A scanned 67 looks just better than a file from my 1DsmkII, it's not a resolution or grain thing. I have just added my name to the waiting list for a Cooke portrait lens and I don't do portraits, I've also just ordered a Razzle.
Film is beautifull.
Horses for courses.

Kevin.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: KenS on April 30, 2007, 11:11:13 am
Quote
...A scanned 67 looks just better than a file from my 1DsmkII, it's not a resolution or grain thing. ...
Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114964\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Kevin,

I use a Pentax 67 and scan my film (100 TMax, Velvia or Astia 100 f) with a Minolta Multipro.  I use Photoshop and print with an Epson 7800.  I really like the results I get with this setup but for a year or so have been wondering how the results compare images created with a high end digital camera.

I would be interested to know if you or anyone else could describe the difference in printed images from say a 1DsmkII and a scanned 6x7?  You say it is not resolution or grain?

Ken
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: KAP on May 01, 2007, 02:17:54 pm
Quote
Kevin,

I use a Pentax 67 and scan my film (100 TMax, Velvia or Astia 100 f) with a Minolta Multipro.  I use Photoshop and print with an Epson 7800.  I really like the results I get with this setup but for a year or so have been wondering how the results compare images created with a high end digital camera.

I would be interested to know if you or anyone else could describe the difference in printed images from say a 1DsmkII and a scanned 6x7?  You say it is not resolution or grain?

Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ken,
The Canon is good, but I think film just looks better. Highlights and gradation around them is better, I've been trying to think why I like the colour better, the best I can come up with is it's thicker, not more colourfull, but more of what there is. Stunning prints can be made from digital, no problem and you most likely would be happy. If there is no big commercial pressure to go digital I wouldn't be in a rush.
One other thing regarding 6x7 and 35mm, the shape, I think the 35mm ratio is awkward and unbalanced, plus you throw lots of it away to fit common paper sizes. I also like the way MF lenses record a subject. Commercially there is no contest, it has to be digital for me, for other things I like to shoot, I reach for the MF gear.

Kevin.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: KenS on May 01, 2007, 05:18:20 pm
Quote
Ken,
The Canon is good, but I think film just looks better. Highlights and gradation around them is better, I've been trying to think why I like the colour better, the best I can come up with is it's thicker, not more colourfull, but more of what there is. Stunning prints can be made from digital, no problem and you most likely would be happy. If there is no big commercial pressure to go digital I wouldn't be in a rush.
One other thing regarding 6x7 and 35mm, the shape, I think the 35mm ratio is awkward and unbalanced, plus you throw lots of it away to fit common paper sizes. I also like the way MF lenses record a subject. Commercially there is no contest, it has to be digital for me, for other things I like to shoot, I reach for the MF gear.

Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Your remark about graduation around highlights is interesting and I think something I can relate to.  Perhaps this is what people mean when they say "medium format has better tonality".  I know in my  prints I try to avoid abrupt transitions from the lightest tones to darker tones.  I wonder if digital capture which I believe has a straight line input-output response (instead of film's shoulder and toe response) is the reason for this?

I agree about the awkward 35 mm aspect ratio.  I used to shoot 35 mm film and did a lot of cropping before printing.

Ken
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: ZoneIII on March 14, 2008, 10:46:01 am
This is funny!  I was searching for some information on a specific topic and found a link to this thread.  I read the first post and became interested in the entire topic.  Even though the thread is old, I was about to post a reply when I found that I had already done so a couple years ago and pretty much said exactly what I would say today  so that saved me some time.   But with the passing of a couple years in this time of rapidly changing technology, I have an update to make.

Well, I'm still a film shooter!  As I mentioned in my original post, that's because it suits my shooting style and needs as I explained in my older post.  Even two years ago I recognized that digital printing was the way to go for color prints.   These days I make large display prints for hospitals, etc. and I am using a hybrid process to produce the prints.   I still shoot color on large format film because I believe it is, hands down, far better than digital for that purpose and most top fine-art color photographers that I know who produce large prints still shoot on film too.  But I now send my film out to West Coast Imaging to be scanned on their Tango drum scanner and, working with a consultant, I have Chromira prints made.  The combination of analog and digital in the workflow is a wonderful step up and, in my opinion, Chromira prints are better than digital prints made on the latest Epson printers.  For those who aren't familiar with Chromira, it is a process where traditional (wet) papers are exposed to a LED light source. No lens is involved.  West Coast Imaging also makes digital prints on their big Epson printers but their own tests have shown that the Chromira prints are far better.  (You can read about this at their website.)

I can't afford a Tango drum scanner or a Chromira printer so I just let the pros at WCI do that and the prints are spectacular.  So, for me, digital technology has melded in my color workflow in a wonderful way.  

As for b&w, I still prefer darkroom prints over digital prints. I have examined b&w prints made by fine b&w photographers and, in my opinion, the quality is simply not there.  In fact, I have shown some of my own prints to other photographers and non-photographers side-by-side with fine b&w prints made by well-known digital photographers (who I won't mention but they are photographers everyone here would know)  and everyone who has compared the prints, without exception, felt that the digital prints just weren't that good in comparison to darkroom prints.  The difference is obvious to me and was obvious to everyone who compared them. They lack the deep, rich blacks, brilliant whites, and overall luminoisity of darkroom prints.    On the other hand, for subject matter that only requires a short tonal scale, digital prints may be fine.  I am talking about digital prints made with the latest Epson printers and the finest special ink sets, not something that was used several years ago.  One well known photographer who is a contributing editor to one of the most well-known photography magazines published and who was a pioneer in digital technology, was almost obsessed with trying to get me to get rid of my large format cameras and darkroom and switch to a 35mm digital SLR.  His obsession was actually very odd, in my opinion, and I suspect that he felt some sort of guilt over switching to digital.  He was a large format photographer and a master darkroom printer at one time too so he knows the advantages of LF photography.  He actually got angry with me for not switching to digital!   To convince me to do so, he sent me a print that he thought would make me change my views.   Being an expert on the subject, he obviously sent me one of his best examples of a digital b&w print.   Although the subject matter of the print is wonderful, the print itself was very bad, quality-wise -  when compared to a darkroom print.   It was dead!   Also, that photographer apparently has forgotten all the other advantages that LF offers - perspective control, etc.    My guess is that he was lured into digital and traded quality for convenience and may be having second thoughts about that decision now. That's just a guess on my part, of course, but I can think of no other explanation for his stange obsession with trying to get me to switch to digital.

That said, I think he only makes small prints.  I make large prints.   Two weeks ago I went to the B&H website to read reviews on Canon's new 20+ MP camera.   There were raves, to be sure, but the one consistent theme of the reviews was that film was still the medium by which digital is compared and with this hot new camera, digital had still not achieved the level of quality that film can capture.  It's close, but still not there.  (I'm talking about information captured, not the other advantages and disadvantages of digital.)   Of course, medium format digital is a different story but it is also simply out of reach for me, investment-wise, and I still don't think it could match LF film.

My digital friend also tried to get me to switch by telling me that for only about $7,000 to $10,000 per year, I could pretty much keep up on the latest technology after I had made my initial large investment.  Of course, he also admitted that I would have to constantly keep up on the latest software, etc., including finally spending the time to master Photoshop and other programs like RIP, calibration, etc.   This man is independently wealthy and he doesn't seem to realize that many people simply can't afford having to constantly buy new equipment.   And, in the end,  if I did spend all that money and time, my images would actually be lower in quality!   I simply could not produce large display prints of the same quality that I can achieve with LF film even using the best digital SLR.  Even the folks at WCI mention the fact that prints made from LF film far surpasses what that can be achieved with a digital SLR and most of them shoot on LF or medium format film for their personal work.  

I shoot professionally.  My income depends on my photography.  LF film not only allows me to produce the best images possible, but it requires almost no continuing investment in equipment on my part.  I rarely buy equipment, in fact.  This is a factor that I believe many digital-only advocates often overlook.   My 8x10 camera is probably 50 years old!  I haven't bought a lens in years.

My goal is to make the finest large prints possible.  If I was to switch to a digital SLR, not only would it cost me a bundle of money, but the quality if my product would suffer.  It's a no-brainer for me.

That said, digital would definitley be my choice if I was a photojournalist, sports photographer, wedding photographer, etc.  Each technology has it's place.  It's a mistake for someone to assume that everyone else should use the technology that they choose to use.   For my type of work, LF film is the best, hands-down.  And I can even do all the wonderful Photoshop manipulations that digital photographers boast about as being so great about digital (and it is!).   For me, I have the best of both worlds.   If you don't believe me, just put a 30x40 print made using a digital SLR next to one of my prints made using LF film.  Then tell me that I should go digital!    
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Rob C on March 14, 2008, 03:44:30 pm
That´s a very good way of looking at photographic life, and I have no doubts at all it´s because you are a pro. The temptation of the new is, in my view, a rather newish vogue in photography, where tools used to be just that: tools. Yes, there were always some for whom a camera equated with male jewellery, but in general, and with pros in particular, you aimed for that ´blad, Nikon or Leica or even a Sinar or Linhof, and once you got there you relaxed and stopped being pushed. When Everest had been conquered, it stayed conquered.

However, as you wrote, it does depend much in which field of the business you find yourself ploughing.

Today there isn´t really all that much choice for some of us. For example, in Mallorca it seems that E6 is now done in a single lab, the leader of such labs having given up on it, the only alternative being sending to Barcelona. As a result, the almost new, just-before-they-stopped-making-them Nikon F3 that I have, along with a freezer of film, is pretty well useless to me, the only tool left being a D200. Fortunately, I am retired and so can shoot or not shoot as I please, but had I still been active in the business it would have been a nightmare and the D200 would have not been on my radar, something far more expensive being essential for the FF capability if nothing else.

But as much as I liked film, it was never a perfect solution either. I have recently been working on a Velvia 35mm shot which I scanned and turned to b/w some months ago. Having got to what seemed a very nice picture on the screen, I did the usual test run on A5 last night and realised that the dark sky had been hiding a series of very thin processing streaks... Yes, they do show up on the screen now that I know where to look for them, but even at 100% (or perhaps because of that) they are damn hard to spot. Guess the answer is to cut the sky and produce a make believe Hasselblad picture...  revealing that the printer makes such faults more obvious.

Like you, I also did a lot of darkroom printing, and there is no doubt that the two, wet and digital, are far apart. There can be much more precise local doctoring in digital, but my problem is the paper. I use Hahnemuehle Photo Rag Bright White (I mostly do b/w), but looked at as a straight, unglazed (as under glass) print, the look is not pretty. Neither was it pretty for me using wet chemistry and matt papers - I hardly ever did, all clients required WSG - but I would sometimes try, just to see how it looked, and it looked awful, so limited in tonal range. The only saving grace about the digital offering is that it improves no end once it gets its glass covering! I would love to find an archival digital glossy paper that doesn´t bronze with the B9180, but nobody really seems to have found one - there are the enthusiastic first claims, and then the truth seeps slowly out.

I hope you continue to find E6 services ...

Rob C
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on March 27, 2008, 01:06:39 pm
Oh I am sure out there shooting medium format film, 35mm film, as well as MFDB and Canon digital.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: KevinA on March 31, 2008, 07:20:14 am
Quote
Oh I am sure out there shooting medium format film, 35mm film, as well as MFDB and Canon digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My new camera arrived last week, a 1950's Zeiss box camera, I'm on my third film with it. I'm being a bit stupid as I have not processed one yet to check it's working OK. It's such fun walking around with it. Sit at a table in a coffee shop and someone will ask you about it, pick it up and point it at them and they grin, the idea of being photographed by a 1950's relic AND an old camera is amusing. Try and get that from a plastic digi bells and whistles gadget.

Kevin.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: barryfitzgerald on March 31, 2008, 04:23:29 pm
I think that film still has a place, and people can make up their own minds on it.

I enjoy using both formats, and will continue to do so, not a die hard film fanboy..its a more balanced view.

Is this site anti film? Well least there is a place to talk about it, more than can be said for some other forums. Not seen any film v digital tests for a while though, maybe LL has given up on that one ;-0

I always found them hilarious anyway, because crop shots and resolution testing, is not a good way to judge overall image quality. (tones, hues, latitide, colours etc etc) all these areas are of importance to film, and in most cases superior, hence the reason all the film v digital tests are avoiding them.

It never was this V that, just using what you liked. Digital AND flm are both great, in their own unique ways...

More important still, is just going out and doing photography, we often overlook the obvious here..that is what counts the most.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on May 02, 2008, 12:00:43 am
I just was using this photo as an example on another forum. But I think it really fits the conversation here. What specifically seems to me to be a big point on this is the reflective sunlight on the surfaces. On this film shot it looks right. But I can't help but think on digital it would just be blown out highlights...
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: barryfitzgerald on June 08, 2008, 06:04:03 pm
Quote
I just was using this photo as an example on another forum. But I think it really fits the conversation here. What specifically seems to me to be a big point on this is the reflective sunlight on the surfaces. On this film shot it looks right. But I can't help but think on digital it would just be blown out highlights...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Aside from the fuji S5 (not used one..but hear its good), I would expect most digitals if not all to blow that out. Point is you can underexpose to try to hold the highlights, but its a pain for when you need to get a shot quickly.

Digital is terrible with highlights, IMO..my little trip out the other week, shooting side by side, and the negative film stuff just walked all over the digital for DR and highlights.

The other point is that digital gets colour and hue shifts, and that nasty "cyan" sky effect when the highlights are going. Not nice. Don't get me wrong, I like digital, but this area never gets mentioned in the "film v digital" articles, why? Because one wins hands down...and we dont want that do we?? lol
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Plekto on June 09, 2008, 02:36:49 pm
That looks very nice.  what camera/lens/film?

I really like how he sky in the background is realistic.  And, yes, the overall seamlessness and correctness of the colors is something that you'd have to go nuts with digital for an hour in some some software program to come close to.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: jjj on June 09, 2008, 05:00:28 pm
Quote
I just was using this photo as an example on another forum. But I think it really fits the conversation here. What specifically seems to me to be a big point on this is the reflective sunlight on the surfaces. On this film shot it looks right. But I can't help but think on digital it would just be blown out highlights...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The superb quality of that image is not something I've seen in digital shots. Film certainly wins on that sort of image. And that sort of lighting is anything but unusual.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on June 09, 2008, 10:51:22 pm
Sorry guys, I just saw that you asked me a question. I guess I didn't do e-mail notifications on this thread.

Anyway this was shot on the new formulation of Fuji 160c medium format. I used a Mamiya 645AFDII with the 45mm 2.8 lens.

Thanks for the kind words!

Quote
I just was using this photo as an example on another forum. But I think it really fits the conversation here. What specifically seems to me to be a big point on this is the reflective sunlight on the surfaces. On this film shot it looks right. But I can't help but think on digital it would just be blown out highlights...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on July 08, 2008, 07:36:15 pm
Something a little different for me outside of my usual assignments of bodybuilders and mostly naked hot women with great bodies; Bombay Beach at Salton Sea in Southern California.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: sergio on July 09, 2008, 09:42:14 am
You know what is starting to bother me about digital cpature? I am having this feeling that someday all the images will be lost due to excessive volume and storage issues. I still have my first negs I shot 34 years ago and all the maintenance it has needed is just a change of sleeves.

Now tell me about duplicating hundreds of thousands od gbs from HDs or DVDs every couple of years. The other thing is that we need a fairly large amount of technology to access our images.

I think I'll start shooting daguerreotypes. At least till now they have been proved to be the longest lasting photographic medium ever. No fancy technology needed to look at it
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: wolfnowl on July 09, 2008, 10:31:45 am
Quote
I think I'll start shooting daguerreotypes. At least till now they have been proved to be the longest lasting photographic medium ever. No fancy technology needed to look at it
 

Or tintypes, then you wouldn't have to worry about the glass plates.  There is that whole mercury vapour thing in the processing though.

I know what you mean, though.  We have books that are hundreds, even thousands of years old (including papyrus).  We're confronting several issues today, and not just with photography - the amount of information being created, the ability to archive it, and the technology to access it.

Mike.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on July 09, 2008, 10:44:02 am
I somewhat agree.

About a year ago I was on assignment in Dallas and took an extra day to wander around. I went to the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealy Plaza which is a museum dedicated to the assassination of JFK and also to a general museum nearby.

As I looked at the the photographs from just 40 years ago and then at the other museum from over 100 years ago, maybe 200 years, I wondered exactly the same thing. Will what we are doing now be as readily viewable and reproducible 200 years from now?
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Rob C on July 09, 2008, 12:40:54 pm
Quote
Something a little different for me outside of my usual assignments of bodybuilders and mostly naked hot women with great bodies; Bombay Beach at Salton Sea in Southern California.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ian, look as I might, not a single naked hot lady with or without great body; possibly one or two disembodied ones, but that ain´t much fun and certainly isn´t fair.

Rob C
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on July 09, 2008, 11:59:29 pm
Quote
Ian, look as I might, not a single naked hot lady with or without great body; possibly one or two disembodied ones, but that ain´t much fun and certainly isn´t fair.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I will see what I can dig up for ya!
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: dalethorn on July 10, 2008, 08:57:51 am
Quote
You know what is starting to bother me about digital cpature? I am having this feeling that someday all the images will be lost due to excessive volume and storage issues. I still have my first negs I shot 34 years ago and all the maintenance it has needed is just a change of sleeves.

Now tell me about duplicating hundreds of thousands od gbs from HDs or DVDs every couple of years. The other thing is that we need a fairly large amount of technology to access our images.

I think I'll start shooting daguerreotypes. At least till now they have been proved to be the longest lasting photographic medium ever. No fancy technology needed to look at it
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I quit with the discs years ago - I just use multiple external hard drives - one hard drive has everything, extras are just add'l backup.  Archiving?  Simple.  First lesson: Organize your images into directories by what's logical long-term.  Then, I use dirmatch and batch files to *intelligently automate* the backup process.  I can manage a million images as easily as a thousand.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: sergio on July 10, 2008, 07:11:36 pm
Quote
e.  First lesson: Organize your images into directories by what's logical long-term.  Then, I use dirmatch and batch files to *intelligently automate* the backup process.  I can manage a million images as easily as a thousand.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could please explain this to me in a more step by step process?

Thanks.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: dalethorn on July 10, 2008, 08:29:01 pm
Quote
Could please explain this to me in a more step by step process?

Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure.  First thing is to have a plan.  The plan may change later, but the better it is to begin...  Either name every image such as (Bird_Sparrow_01.jpg) or create folders with names like (Bird_Sparrow_20080712) and put all the sparrows from the 7/12/2008 shoot into that directory.  You could begin the folder names with the dates, but then to find the sparrows would require additional work.  Another option is to create a document (or spreadsheet, or database) and keep a log of each image there with the filename and foldername and comments.

The disadvantage of not naming the individual images is that they're harder to find when you don't, in fact nearly impossible to get to.  You can read all of the questions and comments here on LL to see how many people just can't get to their images of a particular subject because their file management is done by an image editing program (very bad), or worse, no management at all.

Once you have a plan that allows you to search for the files you want to see, get a copy of the DIRMATCH program, or whatever the latest equivalent is from the Internet.  My copies are highly customized and would not be suitable to hand over without tutoring.  With Dirmatch, you can easily compare folders on your working computer with folders on your backup external hard disk.

If you have a *lot* of folders, then you need to consider two things:
1) Try to have "archived" folders that you do *not* need to compare, back up to, or otherwise examine frequently.  Then the remaining folders are your "current" folders that you will Dirmatch frequently.  This saves time folder-matching.
2) If there are a lot of current folders you make changes to (changing, adding, or deleting images), then (on Windows systems) you can create a "Batch" file that will execute the Dirmatch program for a whole range of folders, one by one, so you don't have to manually specify the source and backup folders for each folder in your current list.

I don't know if Mac computers have such a thing as a Batch file, or any user automation at all, sad to say.

A Batch file may look like this:
Dirmatch C:\Folder_A  E:\Folder_A
Dirmatch C:\Folder_B  E:\Folder_B
Dirmatch C:\Folder_C  E:\Folder_C
Dirmatch C:\Folder_D  E:\Folder_D
............ and so on

With this batch file, all I have to do is click Exit when I'm done with each compare, and the computer executes the next line automatically.

I maintain about 30,000 current files in about 300 current folders, with approx. 100 different files changed each day.  Since I don't know at the end of the day which folders have the changes (they're somewhat random), the 300 Dirmatches I execute take care of all that, and the backup takes only a few minutes.  In fact, I have about 6 or 7 backup drives, all identical, and all get updated within the course of a week.  And each backup session is just a few minutes.

**Important note: I cannot use a totally automated backup program, because those programs always copy the newer file to the older file, or the computer disk file to the backup disk file.  This is not acceptable to me for reasons you will discover when you get to that point.  Dirmatch allows you to easily copy the new to the old (or to a folder on the backup drive where the new file doesn't exist yet), and copy many files with one click.  But you can also decide when not to do that and go the other way when necessary.  Sometimes I may copy just one or two old files to the newer copies on the computer drive, and then copy all the rest with one click the normal (new to old) direction.

Intelligent backups and file management observe one extremely important principle that should never be abrogated: Never copy a file over top of the same file on a backup media if the file hasn't changed.  You could be copying a corrupt file over top of a good one.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: sergio on July 10, 2008, 08:42:54 pm
Thanks a lot, I'll study this method. I want to think this very since it has to be a very long term solution.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on July 10, 2008, 11:44:51 pm
From July 4th at "Muscle Beach". Mamiya 645AFDII, Mamiya 105-210AF lens, Kodak 160VC film and this is just a 10 mb roll scan.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: daleeman on July 14, 2008, 06:59:43 am
This is an ok photo, so now give the great looking women equal time

Quote
From July 4th at "Muscle Beach". Mamiya 645AFDII, Mamiya 105-210AF lens, Kodak 160VC film and this is just a 10 mb roll scan.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on July 16, 2008, 06:04:10 pm
Quote
This is an ok photo, so now give the great looking women equal time

Are you one of those guys always looking at women
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: barryfitzgerald on August 02, 2008, 08:23:11 pm
I like it, I mean the composition is very intersting indeed ;-)
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Imaginara on August 12, 2008, 12:01:53 pm
Nice shots SecondFocus (oh and hi, always nice to see people you recognise from other forums

well i thought i'd join the film-shooting choir aswell.

When i was 15 years old (about 20+ years back) i shot medium format and 35mm, had my own lab and everything and stopped because it just became too expensive for a poor student and not enough time to play with it.

Then i fairly recently took up photography again after a long stint in the moving pictures world and started with a Canon EOS D30. This quickly became a D60, then a 40D (yeah, a bit of a leap) and a 450D (for fun .

Then i got the brilliant idea to try to start shooting medium format again as i did miss my old RB67 something fierce so i got me a 645 Pro... then a 645 AFD dropped by... and now im getting a RZ 67 aswell.

I dusted off my old EOS 500 and the darkroom gear and let me tell you. It's dang fun! I develop B&W myself, color through a lab. I usually scan the negs but give me enough time and i'll start doing the B&W prints aswell  It's just a whole lot of fun shooting film. And not very expensive these days either (especially if you do the scanning yourself)

I do not have to live off my photography right now however and that does help me play around with all this. A big benefit i'm holding on to for a while longer =)

so today i ordered a Holga 120N

It's all good =)
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on September 04, 2008, 11:32:11 pm
Mamiya 645AFDII, 80mm AF lens, Tri-X 400 pushed one stop. This is just from an under 10 meg roll scan.

[attachment=8228:attachment]
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Photo_Utopia on September 06, 2008, 12:54:29 pm
I like the shot with the lady and gent, for Portra its quite a rich colour with skin-tones reminiscent of Fuji RDP.
About me;
 Although I use both digital and film, I prefer film for most 'projects' as the whole image making chain is more satisfying for me.
I think that generally the mis-information on some site about film and the use of film are actually quite shocking.
We have people who seem to be out to prove 'digital is better' film has poor colour, lower resolution, is binary with only black specs and clear base etc.

In reality it's all about achieving your personal vision, whatever the chosen medium
P
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: barryfitzgerald on September 23, 2008, 02:26:33 pm
I agree with Photo_Utopia, many places often mistake image quality as pure resolution. I bet most film users just like the look of the stuff printed, and don't shoot res charts!

I have not done much testing, but film doesn't stack up badly res wise compared to digital. Only once did I take my 6mp DSLR out and film. I just used up some bog standard ISO 200 print film, and it thrashed the pants off of the DSLR in just about every dept. Rather goes against the thinking of some places when they do testing on stuff like this.

And I have yet to see a digital shot show the uber fine levels of tonal variations, that film does. Despite the so called tech experts suggesting digital colours are better and more accurate. In my own experience, the real world, leaving aside the cost and time element of film, digital files require far more work in pp to even attempt to get near the level that film is at already.

It is IMO easier to just pick film for some subjects. Digital has a place, so does film, both are great in many ways.

But what I mostly like about neg film is the good highlight headroom, which is pretty poor on digital. I spend more time working the composition, than worrying about highlights shot to bits. This is the bane of digital, so poor in the highlight area, it isnt very funny.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on September 23, 2008, 03:13:35 pm
Barry I agree very much. Shooting res charts and newspapers just strikes me as missing the whole point of photography. Does anyone think Helmut Newton ever shot charts to see what copy of what lens was the sharpest.

And since I have been shooting more film I have indeed rediscovered the print. I have a hard time not filling wall after wall with 17x22 prints from 50mb drum scans. Some of them I just stare at, disbelieving that I actually created these photographs.

Anyway here is another, and this is just from an under 10mb roll scan. Mamiya 645AFDII, 80mm AF lens, Tri-X 400. The drum scan should be pretty spectacular.


[attachment=8453:attachment]
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Rob C on September 24, 2008, 03:59:43 pm
I don´t know if it can still be found anywhere or processed, but if you can get your mits on some Kodachrome 64, shoot your usual subject(s) and then scan and convert to black and white through channel mixer, you will be stunned by the magnificent sense of beauty that the skin tones take on.

By far the best skin tones I ever got, even compared with the results from the many years when I shot b/w film almost every day. Having said that, a lot depends on the material you use for printmaking... No easy answers, ever.

Rob C
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Photo_Utopia on September 24, 2008, 05:21:12 pm
Rob
 Kodachrome is a black and white film that has the colours added at the development stage, the correct term is non substantive as it has no colour couplers but rather uses 3 layers of mono emulsion sensitive to different parts of the visual spectrum.
If you can't find a mono film that gives you a good skin tone it may well be that you need to try a different film/dev combo.
I get pretty good skin tones with most films in Rodinal at 1:50
(http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/92264555.jpg)

This is with T-Max 400 although I feel Ilford Delta is just a good, strange as Rodinal is not first choice for tabular grain films by conventional wisdom.

PU
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on September 24, 2008, 05:29:01 pm
I think the quality of skin tone is very subjective especially in black and white. It is also your vision, what do you want it to look like?

For me anyway, that is why I might use Tri-X for some shoots and some films for others. I do shoot Kodak and Fuji films and some Ilford, but lately I seem to be leaning back to Kodak more and more.

But this one is Fuji...


[attachment=8479:attachment]
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: barryfitzgerald on September 24, 2008, 05:55:50 pm
This is a very interesting thread. I guess it is down to taste, if you should convert colour to b&w, I don't see a problem with that, done it a few times myself.

On the other hand, something very unique about real native b&w films. Whatever make or type you pick.

Some nice shots guys..enjoyed looking at them
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on September 24, 2008, 06:44:00 pm
The issue of converting color to black and white is something I am comfortable doing with photos shot in digital however for film I would rather shoot the black and white film.

But for sake of comparison, this is a photo shot with a Canon 5D in RAW. I must tell you that I don't remember if I did the conversion in PhotoShop or Capture One.


[attachment=8485:attachment]
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Rob C on September 26, 2008, 05:53:02 pm
With respect to a previous post, I´m not saying that I can´t get good results from original b/w film at all; I´m just saying that though I was perfectly happy using them when I was in the business, using Kodachrome slides of original colour subjects from the same era has given me skin texture that I find wonderful. That´s not to say that the same shots, had they been done on b/w material wouldn´t have looked as good as I wanted, it´s that the shots I´m working with are already in colour and will never happen again. And they still give me everything I´d have expected from b/w material too.

However, it´s academic: I no longer have a darkroom and never again will. Life, you see, has it´s own way of imposing on the person and his choices.

Rob C
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on September 26, 2008, 06:08:15 pm
Rob..

For sure, what you said about Kodachrome is really interesting and I would have liked to have tried it!
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Photo_Utopia on September 28, 2008, 06:50:03 am
Quote
With respect to a previous post, I´m not saying that I can´t get good results from original b/w film at all; I´m just saying that though I was perfectly happy using them when I was in the business, using Kodachrome slides of original colour subjects from the same era has given me skin texture that I find wonderful. That´s not to say that the same shots, had they been done on b/w material wouldn´t have looked as good as I wanted, it´s that the shots I´m working with are already in colour and will never happen again. And they still give me everything I´d have expected from b/w material too.

However, it´s academic: I no longer have a darkroom and never again will. Life, you see, has it´s own way of imposing on the person and his choices.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224746\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry Rob for the misunderstanding, my point is that Kodachrome IS a B&W film, when you load it and use it to all purposes you are using a mono (with narrow latitude) emulsion.
I have been working on a series of colour images from B&W film here is an image taken on Agfa APX 100:
(http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/90950122.jpg)

With the right subject, you can get pretty accurate colour not unlike KR64. It is a time consuming process and one that doesn't lend itself to fast moving subjects I call it a Trichrome.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Rob C on September 28, 2008, 04:00:54 pm
Just think of the wonderful pics you could get from that beautiful area of rust at the front of the barge. Close-up heaven... but I´d go with Velvia on that one!

Rob C
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Photo_Utopia on September 28, 2008, 05:26:22 pm
Quote
Just think of the wonderful pics you could get from that beautiful area of rust at the front of the barge. Close-up heaven... but I´d go with Velvia on that one!

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes I took quite a few shots but as I was making trichromes at dawn -5°c I shot back home for a hot coffee and porridge before my fingers dropped off.

I like working when its warmer like last week..
(http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/103683360.jpg)

Mark
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on September 29, 2008, 11:25:06 pm
I really do like Tri-X...
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on September 29, 2008, 11:25:27 pm
I really do like Tri-X...


[attachment=8601:attachment]
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on October 09, 2008, 11:12:35 pm
Pro sales rising, Kodak in it for another 10 years, new camera from Fuji.

Photokina Film Report on APUG (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/54564-photokina-positive-news-film.html)

Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on October 11, 2008, 03:48:32 pm
There is a fabulous portfolio of photos of famous personalities in the magazine shot by photographer Dan Winters. It is all shot on Kodak Portra 160VC.

Here is a link to it online...

http://nymag.com/anniversary/40th/50659/ (http://nymag.com/anniversary/40th/50659/)

But I must tell you that the online photos do not come near the quality and detail in the print edition.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on October 14, 2008, 08:54:12 pm
Along the line of this topic, there is a brand new online "radio" show about shooting film at...

http://www.insideanalogphoto.com/ (http://www.insideanalogphoto.com/)

I listened to an episode this morning and thought it was excellent.

Title: Going backwards...
Post by: Doug Peterson on October 19, 2008, 01:44:09 am
I just poked my head into the thread for inspiration since I'm printing cyanotypes the traditional way (though from digitally created negatives) tomorrow.

Quote from: SecondFocus
Does anyone think Helmut Newton ever shot charts to see what copy of what lens was the sharpest.
[attachment=8453:attachment]

No, but I would bet dollars to pennies that Ansel Adams did. Different styles of photography demand more or less attention to underlying technicals.

Photo_Utopia: LOVE that tree root shot.

Doug Peterson,  Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com)
Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on November 09, 2008, 10:03:28 pm
There is just something about these I like. Ilford 3200 120 film in a Mamiya 645AFDII in mid day sun...


Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on December 10, 2008, 11:38:17 pm
Well I can't help myself, my favorite photos still seem to come from medium format and Tri-X.

Now don't get me wrong, I do shoot a lot of digital. In the last two weeks I have done editorial and advertising shoots with my Canon 5D and also a Leaf AFi7.

The Canon is a great lightweight camera, perhaps the best value out there. The Leaf produces amazing images. I will try to get around to posting my views of the Leaf and some pics in the appropriate forum here later in the week.

But for now, this is the Mamiya 645AFDII, 80mm AF lens, Tri-X 320 pushed two stops and roll scanned at approx 10 mb.


Title: Going backwards...
Post by: lovell on December 12, 2008, 01:16:52 pm
Quote from: dbnm
I just love hearing how archival the digital stuff is.  That is until it accidently gets wet.

I too am tired of the same old rhetoric that I get "giclee'd" with everytime I mention I shoot film.

Oh well, at least my prints will be around in 100 years.

Your prints will be around 100 years.  My digital files will be around 500 years.  I don't why anyone would seriously think of archiving a digital print.  The print is good for a fraction of the time a digital file could last.  Both wet and dry prints are not long for this world.  If you want your picture to last beyound 100 years, regardless if you made it with film or digital means, get the picture to a digital form (if not already there) and back that up many times and store in many places.  Refresh those back ups ever few years and transfer to newer better media as required.  This is very cheap and very easy, and this recipe for archival will last 500+ years.

As to film vs. digital?  I shoot B&W film all the time, averaging 5-10 rolls every week.  I prefer film for B&W and I love darkroom work.  I think B&W film is better then digital B&W film.  As to color, I prefer digital and that is why I shoot color with two fullframe 5D's.  So you see, I love both and think both have their uses and strengths beyound religion and emotion.

As to archival issues, I scan all my B&W negatives to digital files.  To archive a print is exceeding foolish IMHO.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: tomhamp on December 13, 2008, 10:11:57 am
Hello to Mark,

Mark have admired your trichrome work and would like to take a try at this myself...Would you be willing to share the names of the RGB filters you use so I would know what I need to purchase?

Many thanks!

Tom
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: dwdmguy on February 12, 2009, 10:00:07 pm
Very nice thread.

I don't think it's going backwards at all, I happen to think, for me, it's moving forwards when it comes to my craft and art.

After shooting some pretty niffty dSLR's and Med Format Digi backs I was finding the pictures just too clean, too sharp and too "digital" this of course works well for some (a lot) of applications but not for where I'm going.

I was also becoming very dismayed at what I was seeing in the digital community. There was a whole base of "photographers" grouping togeather and making a huge business on the Photoshop bandwagon. Yes, PS is a good thing, but it was bringing in photographers that were very good at marketing and esp. cross marketing between each other. One photographer, an outdoor and wild life photographer, had his Canon P6000 on top of his dSLR and would shoot videos at the same time as pointing and shooting 9 fps. It was clear that the scene was completely different then the Photograph in just so many ways. This person is an amazing Digital Artist but he touts himself as an amazing photographer. (yes, he'll be the first one to tell you that) When a new product was announced you can be sure they would review it and their links of course had their code in it to let the vendor know, hey, I get paid on this. Then they would and still do, tout the other guys site in their blog by saying "hey, Joe Blow did this amazing review on his blog, go check it out" There was no real photography at all being done. It's clear to me that these reviewers "never met a product they didn't like" I call this "The great Light Hype"

Anyway, I am just so glad to be back in the dark room. The results are amazing and what even more fun, is that it is forcing me to think more about my subject and camera.

There is room for everyone here, but I'm simply not liking the one's riding the digital train and not really being subjective.

t
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: teo.karp on February 13, 2009, 07:38:13 am
hello everybody,
a while ago a friend gave me this old russian made enlarger(sorry about the crappy mobile pics and the mess..couldn't be bothered to clean up)  i have no idea how i should proceed and i couldn't find any info on the net about this kind of old enlarger model; i figured out the controls by using a standard light bulb and a piece of old film i had but i don't know what kind of light bulb i should be using...the socket is the standard house light bulb. i'm guessing that the red filter is used for composing/adjusting    
i found a lot of instructions about developng film  and the only thing missing is a developing tank ..the suitcase included trays prongs etc
thinking of getting some film and paper along with the neccesary chemichals and intend on giving it a go..just for fun

the problem is that i can't seem to find a local source for thse kinds of suplies and since i' not from the us i am forced to order these things on line..i found a german shop called make direct so i need to know what i should be ordering...which at the moment i must confess i have not a clue

any hints or tips would be welcomed  especially about the type of light bulb i should be using  .. i read someone mentioning that a  150 watt light bulb should be used but wouldn't that melt the film?    
 
ps:i'm impressed by the fact that,despite this being a budget hobbbyist model (and probably a leitz copy) everything is either machined,precision cast or powder coated.it had a real solid feel to it and despite being in an attic for the past 30 years it was in top shape..after a good clean and a few drops of oil here and there it looked like new
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: dwdmguy on February 13, 2009, 07:44:53 am
Your best bet is posting on apug.org
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: sperera on March 10, 2009, 07:10:14 pm
count me as one....just bought a 2nd hand Sinar F2 with a Schneider 150mm lens and will be shooting T-max 100 with it....you gotta love the bokeh on the 5 x 4 format and those tones on B+W film....I think within 5 years we'll see a significant a film renaissance in our hands.....after all...Ken Rockwell says so too! heh heh
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on March 16, 2009, 08:59:48 pm
One of the things I like about film is the almost total lack of work required in PhotoShop. This is Kodak 160VC photographed with my Mamiya 645AFDII and roll scanned at processing at Icon in Los Angeles. It has been resized and some unsharp mask for online viewing.


Title: Going backwards...
Post by: David Mantripp on March 17, 2009, 03:55:41 am
Quote from: SecondFocus
One of the things I like about film is the almost total lack of work required in PhotoShop. This is Kodak 160VC photographed with my Mamiya 645AFDII and roll scanned at processing at Icon in Los Angeles. It has been resized and some unsharp mask for online viewing.

well yeah, but if it came from digital you wouldn't have needed to have it processed, or scanned.  I find a well exposed digital shot can often require very little PP too, but generally when PP is required, digital tends to have more latitude than film - especially positive film.

Having said that, I'm also going through a bit of a personal film revival. I actually find it more fun, apart from anything else. But of course I'm not doing it for a living.
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: barryfitzgerald on April 02, 2009, 05:55:24 am
Really depends on the subject and film used. But I too have found less pp required (in some cases none after the scan), than some digital files.

I would also say, skin tones are a strong point of film, very consistent..and very good even with bog standard film. This is from a roll of donated jessops ISO 200 neg film



[attachment=12668:Untitled_3_2.jpg]




Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on May 21, 2009, 07:40:38 pm
I am always so amazed when I get back film scans. No work on skin tones, not much work at all.

Mamiya 645AFDII with the 45Af 2.8 lens and Kodak Porta 800

[attachment=13888:Eric_Jess_047.jpg]
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: JustinWaldingerPhoto on June 08, 2009, 01:24:42 am
Hey Everyone! Ive been a member on this forum for a bit, but never posted here before as I was once a digital back user...now those days are long gone as I have returned to film
I stumbled upon this thread forum and I admire a lot of the work that is posted here. So I have posted a
link to my latest work for all to enjoy. Everything with the exception of a few images were shot with medium format film.  Nightshots were
done in provia 100f, B+W made up mostly of tmax and ilford panf plus films.

So without further delay, please check out my site:
http://www.justinwaldinger.com (http://www.justinwaldinger.com)
Title: Going backwards...
Post by: SecondFocus on July 20, 2009, 03:28:44 pm
More film, Kodak 160vc Mamiya 645AFDII and the 105-210 AF lens. I shot side by side with my Canon 5D and just really thought the film photos were standout. This is for a magazine feature, this girl used to weigh 235 pounds.