I think Thom was right, again...

Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,939
Re: Agreed? Nope.

Dave Luttmann wrote:


Maybe for a "keen" photog....that said, my film and processingis built in to the cost of wedding and portait sessions.

It appears that you're trying to win the argument by being deceptive. From what you've posted before, film represents an extremely small percentage of your wedding and portrait sessions. Not only that, the digital cameras that you said back in 2003 and 2004 that were able to replace your film cameras for most of your work were Canon's 3mp D30 and 6mp 10D. Part of the reason for this is convenience and acceptable results, but another part is due to digital's ability to get you results faster and more economically.

Nope, sorry.  More than 75% of my wedding and portrait work is film based.  I went back to that around 2005.  So, I've been back to the film workflow for weddings and portraiture for about 8 years.  I'm not sure how that is deceptive.  I've been pretty clear about it.  Even in the 10 year old post of mine you've linked to (a bit obsessive are you) I made it quite clear that my personal work was still done on film.

Yes you did, but why are you rehashing this trivial point. My reply quoted you saying that most of your personal work (unlike the business weddings and portraiture) was done on film.

you may not see medium format at the ball game, or race track or for the press...but the best landscapes will not come from a 6MP sensor either. As far as making a living from "average" pics, I'd say there are just as many poor shots from digital users as there are from medium format shooters.

Don't get me worong, I use digital for most of my wedding and portait shooting via a 10D and D30. But the highest rez shots with color and noise equal to digital comes from my medium format gear.


I do big enlargements and a 6 MP sensor is not enough. So the D70 is NOT FINE. The new D2X may work well....but 22MP is finally enough to make me consider giving up medium and large format film work.


My wedding and portrait workflow is now about 99% digital. I only use the RB67 for large groups that will need a big enlargement. The film bodies now are there only for emergency backup.

For my personal work, which is mainly landscape and architectural, I use the RB67 and my 4x5. This is probably for about 90% of my personal work where I feel digital lacks...especially in the area of black & white work.


And finally a more recent gushing comment about some of the cameras that you're bought since 2004.  I can understand why of the three replies to your previous post you answer two but decided not to answer mine, which asked how often you've upgraded your film cameras. Maybe it's because you've bought too many film and digital cameras to support your contention that it's only digital cameras that are frequently upgraded.

Yes, I love the D800.  I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact I still use film.  Am I not allowed to use film and love the D800?  How exactly does the fact that I think the D800 takes DSlRs to the next level have anything to do with the fact I use film in my workflow?

It has nothing to do with using film in your workflow. Why would you invent that scenario if not as a diversion? That you're happy with the D700 and the D800 is interesting in light of your quotes saying that while you once used film for your highest res. needs, the 3mp and 6mp Canon DSLRs were your go-to cameras for your business needs, where film was only occasionally used when shooting group portraits. While you're probably still shooting landscapes with 4x5 cameras it seems that there's a good chance that the D800 might have replaced your RB67 for most of your MF work, with the possible exception of B&W landscapes which you mentioned somewhere.

As to film cameras, I enjoy trying all sorts of cameras.  I've used the Minolta X700 since the early 80's.  My RB67 I bought in the early 80's as well.  My Bessa i purchased years ago as I wanted to try the rangefinder experience.

I've tried lots of digital gear as well.  Everything from 48mp scanning backs on my 4x5 rig to 16mp MF to 39MP MF.  I had thought years ago that I may be able to give up MF Nd 4x5 film with newer digital cameras....but I've found it not to be the case for me.

This is why I asked the question that you now admit to intentionally not answering. You have used many film cameras and many digital cameras, so you are not the example put forward of photographers frequently upgrading digital cameras but not film cameras. The same goes for me, and I've already posted of upgrading my film SLRs to get new features, despite the new cameras not being able to take advantage of better film formulations that the older cameras wouldn't be able to use. So frequent upgrades shouldn't be used to try to make film bodies seem superior to digital bodies. After all, that didn't stop you from upgrading to Nikon's F5.


So tell us (even if the upgrades weren't continuous), how many 35mm film cameras have you owned/used. You may not have upgraded them as often as you've upgraded your DSLRs, but there were probably very good reasons that you did upgrade them, reasons that wouldn't apply to film SLRs, none of which measure up to any of today's decent entry level DSLRs, not even your F5.


I'll let you pour over the 10,000 posts I've made at DPReview....as it appears you have nothing better to do.  Oh, I didn't originally reply to your post because I didn't think it worthy of my time.  Just to be clear....I still don't

Keeping you honest is worth my time and should be worth anyone's time, but it took very little. I didn't even find what I was looking for, which would have been comments about the different film cameras that you've used, and I only looked for them because you avoided answering my question until now. I looked at a small number of posts based on whether the title indicated that they may have been related to film. But have no fear, I quickly stopped reading and will never pore over your 10,000 posts because it would be too depressing and tiresome since I've never seen anyone that is so negative, seemingly looking for every opportunity to lace replies with attacks and insults, fighting unnecessary, pointless, futile battles that continue to this very day. I don't need to post links to them because random forays into your posting archives should easily turn up many of them.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow