Returning to film

Barrie Davis · Oct 10, 2008

Barry Fitzgerald said:
Barrie Davis wrote:
So tell me, what is real about this??? Aside from selling a load of
mags to people who want to spruce up their photoshop skills, or
continue to sell cameras based on some misleading marketing spin
(megapixels), or cameras that tout ISO 6400 and cannot produce a half
decent print (compacts)

I am sorry that these developments in the photo marketplace don't suit you... Perhaps you should do what I do, and ignore them.

Member said:
Now people can do what they like..PP isnt a crime, it's "just another
tool" But don't stand there and tell me everything before digital was
not real photography. What Cartier Bresson would be that much better
with a Leica M8, or Richard Avedon could have a bit more edge with a
5d Mk II. It means..NOTHING AT ALL!

If those illustrious forebears were around to enjoy digital working, I am sure they would have done so.. why ever would they NOT?.... just as Beethoven would have grooved with a Moog or Korg synthesiser, if he had got half a chance... (probably the Moog, actually, because the bass would cut through his deafness better... but I'm guessing here!;-))

Member said:
Great photography has been around for ages..

Yeah... and?

Member said:
Getting back to real photography is ignoring all this nonsense we see
nowadays, res tests, charts, ISO tests...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzz

Member said:
It's about taking the shots. No messing about, out there, you and
camera v scene. That is real photography, using the skills to see the
shots..

Skipping the platitudes, real is exactly what I mean with regard to digital.

That crude film stuff, highly developed as it was towards the end, was just a makeshift technological blip in the history of image making. It will soon seem as the tall ships like the Cutty Sark crashing through the waves off the Horn to bring you your cup of tea.....

......very impressive while it lasted, but not practical in the long term.

We know this is true. We also know that everything you see in modern film images will also be available from the digital method, only this time it won't take 170 years to get here!

Edit: Film.....

Member said:
Won't ever die, because there are enough people who want it. And you
can count me in. Give me 3 grand I would rather ebay a film leica and
a few nice lenses, than get a super duper FF digital. 20 years down
the road the leica will still work!

Yeah... just like my Braun Super-8 sound cine camera with magnificent Schneider Krauznach Super-Variogon zoom lens still works..... or it would if the Super-8 sound cine film that fits it was still available, (which it isn't)...

.... and, leaving the demise of cine film out of it, neither is there a lab anywhere in Europe processing Kodachrome stills.

Member said:
The problem with digital is people are looking for technology all the
time, when they should be looking at taking photographs!

I think what film photographers are gonna be spending most of their time looking for....

.... is film... and somewhere to get it processed.!
--
Regards,
Baz

The Davinator · Oct 10, 2008

matthew saville said:
Rock it, man! I'm dying to get a 4x5 or 8x10 some day.

I dunno about others, but I just have more fun when I'm shooting
film. Unlike 99% of photographers these days, I actually learned how
to use a spot meter and the zone system, so I have no problem busting
it out with a pack of Velvia etc...

A LOT of my absolute BEST work is on transparency and B&W film,
actually.

Too bad this is a digital photography forum, although I guess once
you scan your film you still qualify to post here haha...

=Matt=

I agree. As to the digital photography forum thing, scanned film has as much a place here as lighting techniques and printing. It all fits in.

Cheers,

Astro Landscapes said:
--
Chuck Norris round-house kicked Ken Rockwell's D3, and now we have
the D700.
Contrary to slanderous claims that the D3 slept with the D300 9
months ago!

The Davinator · Oct 10, 2008

I've made my choice, but I was very interested in hearing opinions from others. The response has been very positive and supportive (except for one....who simply likes to stalk me and do his troll posts).

I'll continue to use both capture methods as I see fit. I'm looking forward to spending some time again this fall in Arizona and California. The Pentax DSLR will come, along with my RB67 kit and the field camera. It should be fun.....cause that's what it's all about in the end.

Regards,

Barrie Davis · Oct 10, 2008

Sorry mate. Gotta stop playing, now. Work to do.

--
Regards,
Baz

Wayne Larmon · Oct 10, 2008

Dave Luttmann said:
Wayne Larmon said:

I forgot to ask about an exposure meter. AA recommended a spot
meter. Do you have any advice about metering?

Click to expand...

I use a DSLR to meter....works well.

Hmm. Neither of my DSLR bodies (Canon 20D and XTi) have spot metering. My Canon G9 doesn't have spot metering, but it has a live histogram, on the other hand. And it has a manual mode where I can dial through aperture/shutter/ISO.

One other issue is how camera meters are calibrated. Thus far, the meters are calibrated to reflect the JPEG that the camera will produce. Turn the camera's saturation and contrast settings way down, and the histogram has more dynamic range. Turn saturation and contrast all the way up and the histogram has much less dynamic range. The camera's histogram doesn't measure exposure per se; it measures the parameters of the JPEG that was produced.

Or doesn't this matter if a camera is shooting sheet B&W film? Because the film's exposure latitude is so much larger than the exposure latitude of an APC sized digital sensor?

APC sensor. Hmm. Now (and I'm not trying to turn this into a sneaky film vs. digital trap), if I changed my mind about dumping digital and instead sucked my gut in and bought one of the new entry level 21/24 megapixel FF DSLRs, along with the T/S lenses that exist, how far would I be from what can be achieved with 4x5 film? In terms of how large a print I could make that can withstand nose-against-the-scrutiny.

(Eyeball calibration: I went to an exhibition of Ansel Adams prints a few years ago. Most of the prints were poster sized. The prints were not roped off, so I could get as close as I wanted to. My memory was that I had wished that I had brought a magnifying glass, because I could see that there was more detail in the (large) prints than I could detect, even when I jammed my nose up (close!) to the glass.)

Again, I'm not trying to turn this into a film vs. digital shoutout--I am seriously considering selling off all my digital equipment. But mainly because it doesn't suit my present needs. I want to be able to print highly detailed poster sized prints, on the off chance that I am able to capture a good image someday. And be able to use the camera movement techniques that I've been reading about in AA's "Art of Photography: The Camera."

Right now, going out landscape shooting with one of my APC DSLRs is comparable to going to a casino where the jackpot in all the slot machines tops off at $200. Hardly worth the bother.

Switching to film so I can work just like AA did (and how the guys in "View Camera" magazine do now) is seductive, but I know that getting up to speed with film processing from scratch will be a long detour for me. So I'm trying to be realistic. Maybe digging into my day job deeper so I have funds to move up the digital food chain would make more sense to me.

Wayne

MusicDoctorDJ · Oct 10, 2008

For years, I used the spot meter in my Canon F1's when toting my ToyoView 4x5 camera around.

I have a couple of hand held exposure meters, but rarely ever used them.

Both (meters and 4x5) are mothballed these days.

Actually . . . so are the F1's.

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado

Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

MusicDoctorDJ · Oct 10, 2008

I hate portraits of photographers leaning on their tripod-mounted camera . . .

Or crouching slightly with their camera out in front of them . . . pointed off at an angle . . . while eyes looking off to one side.

But I love this one!

-})

This was taken of me back in 1985! (just kidding)

(PS - I really do know how to do real sepia toning)

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado

Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

wjansen · Oct 10, 2008

Hi Dave. I still don't even OWN a DSLR, but will eventually of course. How do you like to scan your medium and large format tranparencies and negatives? Do you think a dedicated scanner like the venerable Nikon 9000 gets everything there is to get from those formats? Or if the picture is truly remarkable, will you have it drum scanned (and if so, where)? I have a medium format projector (Rollei), and the projected images from my Hassy look great. But I've got way too many transparencies to mount and project every time I want to look at them. And of course, with negatives projection isn't an option. I've also thought about eventually getting a MF back for my 503CX, but the least expensive option I've seen is around $10,000, and that's for only 16MP. I really do enjoy getting out the Hassy and really thinking about each shot--you can't erase and go back like digital, so you have to be careful and deliberate. I think that helps me get better images. Anyway good luck on your decision to go back to film!

Wes Jansen

The Davinator · Oct 10, 2008

wjansen said:
Hi Dave. I still don't even OWN a DSLR, but will eventually of
course. How do you like to scan your medium and large format
tranparencies and negatives? Do you think a dedicated scanner like
the venerable Nikon 9000 gets everything there is to get from those
formats? Or if the picture is truly remarkable, will you have it
drum scanned (and if so, where)? I have a medium format projector
(Rollei), and the projected images from my Hassy look great. But
I've got way too many transparencies to mount and project every time
I want to look at them. And of course, with negatives projection
isn't an option. I've also thought about eventually getting a MF
back for my 503CX, but the least expensive option I've seen is around
$10,000, and that's for only 16MP. I really do enjoy getting out the
Hassy and really thinking about each shot--you can't erase and go
back like digital, so you have to be careful and deliberate. I think
that helps me get better images. Anyway good luck on your decision
to go back to film!

Wes Jansen

--

For large format, I either use my Epson V700 and a fluid mount, or I have it drum scanned on a Tango at West Coast Imaging.

For MF, which I have not yet gone back to, I have access to a Nikon 9000, or I have it drum scanned as well.

For 35mm, I use a Minolta Scan Dual IV, and 16x multisampling. I do regualr and HDR scans with this setup.

At 16x20 for 4x5, there is little difference between the V700 and drum scanning, unless it is a particularly dense neg or chrome. I've obtained great 24x30 from the V700. If I know that I'm making a print to 32x40 or 40x50, then I have it scanned on an Imacon 949, or I drum scan.

Thanks for your response, and best of luck on your search.

TrapperJohn · Oct 10, 2008

I really miss the darkroom.

Loading film into the developer can in darkness.

The dim lighting of the safelight.

The smells of the chemicals.

Stacking ND filters on the enlarger to get even more contrast.

Watching the print fade into existance, and judging when to go into the stop bath.

Having negatives that would last a lifetime.

Dodging the print - printing was really a second shot at exposing.

None of this upgrade mania, the camera body was almost irrelevant. Almost...

And just the slower, more deliberate pace of film. Made you stop and consider what you were doing. You feel more in touch with what you're doing. And somehow, the end result was more me, and less the machine.

I miss it.

MusicDoctorDJ · Oct 10, 2008

I miss the darkrooming, too.

My wife misses it more than me, however . . .

Because I have all my darkroom stuff stored on her side of the garage and her car won't fit in there!

LOL!

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado

Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

Joe Lavee · Oct 10, 2008

Barry Fitzgerald said:
Joe Lavee said:

You are engaged in something that is called DENIAL.

Click to expand...

You avoided the point I made.

NO, you avoided the points that I made.
"You are trying to talk from both ends of your mouth.
Why would you scan film? doesn't it lose its "film look" by doing so?
Don't you want to use "wet" printing to retain your MAGIC "film look"
Don't you think that by scanning you lose your "film look"?
You are engaged in something that is called DENIAL"

It is typical for you to avoid the issue when you are caught contradicting yourself.

Member said:
Don't come here and moan someone talks
about film, when on other forums people are talking about areas that
have NOTHING to do with digital capture at all. I already listed some
of them..

As has been pointed out before, there is a good case for a film and
scanning forum, it's just that the powers at be are too stubborn to
give folks one. IR manages it..so do other places.

Sites like this who are aimed at pushing commercial sales of digital
cameras, they are NOT interested in the art of photography itself,
that much is clear.

I am interested in photography, all types, all mediums. These forums
mostly serve for pointless chit chat about technology and the usual
"oh new canon details leaked" etc etc.

I am engage in PHOTOGRAPHY! try it sometime, you will like it. A shot
has no more or less value shot on film or digital..shame some cannot
see that. People pick what they like, easy as that

MusicDoctorDJ · Oct 10, 2008

I agree with Joe on one point . . .

It seems to me that the benefits of film would only show if printed the way film was meant to be printed.

On conventional photo paper.

If I want a photo in the computer, why not shoot it the best way to get it into the computer . . .

A digital camera.

Personally, I'd rather scan a final print from film into the computer as opposed to scanning the negative and doing a bunch of Photoshopping to it.

But that is just me . . .
--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado

Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

The Davinator · Oct 10, 2008

MusicDoctorDJ said:
I agree with Joe on one point . . .

It seems to me that the benefits of film would only show if printed
the way film was meant to be printed.

On conventional photo paper.

If I want a photo in the computer, why not shoot it the best way to
get it into the computer . . .

A digital camera.

Personally, I'd rather scan a final print from film into the computer
as opposed to scanning the negative and doing a bunch of
Photoshopping to it.

But that is just me . . .
--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado

Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that
came in it!

--

Hi JD,

The reasons I choose the scanning method over conventional are many. The primary being that a good scan can pull virtually everything off the film. With inkjet pigment printing, I find acutance and detail to be better maintained on large prints because of the lack of projection effects. This is much the same as conventional printing vs the Lightjet….which uses lasers close to the photographic paper.

Like many things though, it depends, and it’s a matter of choice. I have a few Fatalli Cibichrome prints, as well as Dye-Transfers from others. They all look different. Pigment prints are another animal.

Chalk it up to personal preference…..film, digital, wet printing, lightjet, pigment, pt/pd, whatever turn our cranks.

Cheers,

Joe Lavee · Oct 10, 2008

Dave Luttmann said:
Wayne Larmon said:

Dave Luttmann said:

My total cost for the new camera and scanner, and used other
materials ran to about $1750.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the equipment advice.

I forgot to ask about an exposure meter. AA recommended a spot
meter. Do you have any advice about metering?

Click to expand...

A pro photographer that does portraiture, without a light meter?

How a ratio of strobe lights is being measured? This is an elementary tool for studio/outdoors work
You haven't taken any indoor portraits, have you?

The Davinator said:
I use a DSLR to meter....works well.

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

B&W film and home processing is cheap.

Click to expand...

Any advice about my septic tank? Is dumping used processing
equipment in a septic tank a concern?

Click to expand...

I'm not on septic so I've never addressed the issue. I would read
the WHMS data sheet on chemicals and google from there.

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

This is all a very different workflow, but I found 4x5 use is a more
contemplative process and forces one to slow down and better compose
an image. That is why people find their ratio of “keepers” with 4x5
to be leaps and bounds ahead of other formats.

Click to expand...

I've gathered this from what I've read. I also subscribed to "View
Camera" for several years. (4x5 is the entry level format there.)
But never had the gumption to make the switch. (Still not sure if I
have the gumption to follow through, but I've been mentally composing
the eBay ads for selling my digital equipment for a few weeks now.)

Click to expand...

View camera is a great resource....as is the Large Format Photography
forum.

The Davinator said:

I wish there was an affordable digital view camera. Sticking T/S
lenses on a DSLR really isn't the same thing, as far as I can tell.

Wayne

Click to expand...

--

RJNedimyer · Oct 10, 2008

Dave Luttmann said:
After much deliberation, I’ve made the choice to return to using film
for a majority of my work.

Interesting; years ago I gave up up 35mm due to poor and consistantly inconsistant processing at Pro level Pricessing [over $19 per roll and Totally automated at 53 cents a shot good bad or indifferent and superior results from digital I ditched it].

Last year I gave up LF and later MF Film since I could no longer get LF format processing locally (closest 90 miles) and a threat of no processing for MF within a year. I decided since I was not currently able to set up a darkroom and do my own processing {Money, space, and time} it was time to get out.

The Davinator said:
I prefer the look of 4x5 for landscape
work, and have recently enjoyed returning to using a rangerfinder &
B&W 35mm film for street/doc. I’ve spent a great deal of time using
various software methods to replicate B&W. Silver Efex is
incredible, and in my opinion the best out there. But in the end,
you’ve still got the limitation of current sensor technology compared
to the advantages of real B&W film. As well, there is still a
different look.

I also like 4X5" but consider rangefinders at best horrid all purpose cameras although for very limited purpose they have a place.

The Davinator said:
I’ve recently made a change that allowed for this. After nearly 20
years of doing wedding and portraiture, I decided at the end of
August I would no longer do wedding photography. I had grown tired
of the daily grind and no longer felt the joy of participating in the
day. Because of the volume of shots, I stuck with digital capture
for wedding work.

I can respect that, contrary to popular belief wedding photography is a grind.

The Davinator said:
I will continue to use digital capture for snap shots, as well as for
real estate interiors and associated publication needs.

Hmmmm! architectural photography is one of the best reasons to stick with 4X5" and is actually the only thing I really miss.

The Davinator said:
As my focus
will now be on portraiture, I will go back to using medium format for
a bulk of this. There is a different look that a number of recent
clients have appreciated. Using film makes you a niche player in
this business and as such can differentiate you from the hoards of
newbies with their shiny new DSLRs.

I can't argue there but perhaps you should explain what "narrow DOF" really is for those who never used LF.

The Davinator said:
Where possible, I have even been using my 4x5 monorail for some
portraiture as clients, upon seeing the equipment in my studio, have
shown a fascination with the “old” technology. As everyone seems to
have a DSLR now, there is nothing special about it in the client’s
eyes.

After spending countless hours with many photographers trying to
achieve film’s natural look, a number of local photographers who
happen to be friends, have been thinking the same. For our low
volume work, it’ll be a pleasant change. Nothing like getting proofs
for a few of medium format rolls and picking a few frames to scan and
work with.

My problem is to get similar results you will spend a ratio of 5 or more to 1 hours in the Dark room to computer time. Unless you are planning to scan and then go to PPing the resultant file. A nephew of mine had his wedding shot by an very good photographer who used Hassy's and a film scanner then normal digital from there. The results were excellent; however, film developing/file creation part takes nearly 24 hours work time per wedding according to the photographer. To do it this way I would have to increase my fee for a wedding by several thousand.

The Davinator said:
Digital is great to work with.....convenient, in some way cheap, and
immediate. But for some of us, film is still a true joy to work with.

Sorry, I spent so much time in the dark and both in chemicals and breathing them in the 70's and 80's I rarely saw sunlight in the winter. So, I'll stick with digital for now but I hope you have a lot of fun.
--
Ray
RJNedimyer

Barry Fitzgerald · Oct 10, 2008

Joe Lavee said:
Why would you scan film? doesn't it lose its "film look" by doing so?

In short NO..

Optical printing remaind the best route..but scanned film does not lose the look, it looks unique.

Wayne Larmon · Oct 10, 2008

Joe Lavee said:
Joe Lavee said:

Wayne Larmon said:

I forgot to ask about an exposure meter. AA recommended a spot
meter. Do you have any advice about metering?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A pro photographer that does portraiture, without a light meter?

How a ratio of strobe lights is being measured? This is an
elementary tool for studio/outdoors work

You haven't taken any indoor portraits, have you?

What part of

Wayne Larmon said:
I'm not a pro

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=29639026

was unclear to you?

Wayne

Joe Lavee · Oct 10, 2008

There is no substitute to a light meter.

It is absolutely essential, in portraiture & product photography, for taking strobe light reading especially from several sources and establishing ratio.

Wayne Larmon said:
Dave Luttmann said:

Wayne Larmon said:

I forgot to ask about an exposure meter. AA recommended a spot
meter. Do you have any advice about metering?

Click to expand...

I use a DSLR to meter....works well.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Neither of my DSLR bodies (Canon 20D and XTi) have spot
metering. My Canon G9 doesn't have spot metering, but it has a live
histogram, on the other hand. And it has a manual mode where I can
dial through aperture/shutter/ISO.

One other issue is how camera meters are calibrated. Thus far, the
meters are calibrated to reflect the JPEG that the camera will
produce. Turn the camera's saturation and contrast settings way
down, and the histogram has more dynamic range. Turn saturation and
contrast all the way up and the histogram has much less dynamic
range. The camera's histogram doesn't measure exposure per se; it
measures the parameters of the JPEG that was produced.

Or doesn't this matter if a camera is shooting sheet B&W film?
Because the film's exposure latitude is so much larger than the
exposure latitude of an APC sized digital sensor?

APC sensor. Hmm. Now (and I'm not trying to turn this into a sneaky
film vs. digital trap), if I changed my mind about dumping digital
and instead sucked my gut in and bought one of the new entry level
21/24 megapixel FF DSLRs, along with the T/S lenses that exist, how
far would I be from what can be achieved with 4x5 film? In terms of
how large a print I could make that can withstand
nose-against-the-scrutiny.

(Eyeball calibration: I went to an exhibition of Ansel Adams prints
a few years ago. Most of the prints were poster sized. The prints
were not roped off, so I could get as close as I wanted to. My
memory was that I had wished that I had brought a magnifying glass,
because I could see that there was more detail in the (large) prints
than I could detect, even when I jammed my nose up (close!) to the
glass.)

Again, I'm not trying to turn this into a film vs. digital
shoutout--I am seriously considering selling off all my digital
equipment. But mainly because it doesn't suit my present needs. I
want to be able to print highly detailed poster sized prints, on the
off chance that I am able to capture a good image someday. And be
able to use the camera movement techniques that I've been reading
about in AA's "Art of Photography: The Camera."

Right now, going out landscape shooting with one of my APC DSLRs is
comparable to going to a casino where the jackpot in all the slot
machines tops off at $200. Hardly worth the bother.

Switching to film so I can work just like AA did (and how the guys in
"View Camera" magazine do now) is seductive, but I know that getting
up to speed with film processing from scratch will be a long detour
for me. So I'm trying to be realistic. Maybe digging into my day
job deeper so I have funds to move up the digital food chain would
make more sense to me.

Wayne

Mark Smith145430 · Oct 10, 2008

Joe Lavee said:
There is no substitute to a light meter.
It is absolutely essential, in portraiture & product photography,
for taking strobe light reading especially from several sources and
establishing ratio.

He said he was shooting landscapes, why would he need a flash meter for that?

Returning to film

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts