-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Now that MF Analog prices have come down so much...
- Thread starter RoelHendrickx
- Start date
Paul Farace
Leading Member
Display its image instantly on the back of these film burning classics I will jump off a bridge for having let them go. Until then i'll just marvel, sadly, how the mighty have fallen, pricewise at least.
noflashplease
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,497
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,196
There's nothing wrong with 120 film, although for most people, 35mm was always much more convenient in terms of loading, film availability and cheap prints.
I'm sure there are a lot used medium format cameras floating around. I'd be tempted by an old Pentax 645N or 645N II body, if only because the current 645Z is the only reasonably priced medium format digital camera, so there's actually a future for the lens mount.
Reilly Diefenbach
Veteran Member
We've seen this before, and the camera is still out of focus for the D800e. 36MP digital simply bests medium format film for detail, lack of grain, color accuracy and the whole shooting match, while being instant and free. Which will never stop the film buffs from making all sorts of wild claims, so have at it guys.
Lloyd Chambers has the pecking order correct imo:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/GrabBag/photographic-film-was-not-much-of-a-performer.html
And yes, I've shot with a bunch of medium format and 4X5 film back in the day. If I need even more pixels, I'll shoot five or six panels and get 30000X7600 or more.
Not to say that good and distinctive results aren't possible with film or that the OP couldn't have a lot of fun with it!
Lloyd Chambers has the pecking order correct imo:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/GrabBag/photographic-film-was-not-much-of-a-performer.html
And yes, I've shot with a bunch of medium format and 4X5 film back in the day. If I need even more pixels, I'll shoot five or six panels and get 30000X7600 or more.
Not to say that good and distinctive results aren't possible with film or that the OP couldn't have a lot of fun with it!
Love my Rolleiflex and D810 equally. Film and digital each have their place for me. I can see why film isn't for everybody though. If I made a living with photography instead of shooting for leisure, digital would allow me to be a lot more productive.
Who in their right mind wants to pay something like $50 per scan to realize that quality from a frame of film? And you'd have to be using VERY slow film. Who wants to screw around with that?
And that's just for B&W. Want color? Then you have to pay like $15 for film and processing for negatives, or even $20 for just one roll of slides.
Besides, it doesn't matter what it looks like when you pixel-peep--most people judge digital photos to plain look sharper, regardless of absolute detail captured.
ps. full disclosure: I use both digital AND Hassleblad/Mamiya 6 +Nikon 8000 scanner. Sorry, the Pentax k3 looks sharper. But then, so did the Pentax k20 and even Pentax k100.
And that's just for B&W. Want color? Then you have to pay like $15 for film and processing for negatives, or even $20 for just one roll of slides.
Besides, it doesn't matter what it looks like when you pixel-peep--most people judge digital photos to plain look sharper, regardless of absolute detail captured.
ps. full disclosure: I use both digital AND Hassleblad/Mamiya 6 +Nikon 8000 scanner. Sorry, the Pentax k3 looks sharper. But then, so did the Pentax k20 and even Pentax k100.
TRIODEROB
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,553
- Reaction score
- 4,620
Reilly-
lets have a "shootout"
you post any image you want from a 35mm digital camera
I will post one from a 6x7 film camera - scanned
we will let the folks here decide - bw or color - you decide
game ?
Speedex Folder
Leading Member
- Messages
- 631
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 407
It's breathtaking to see the utter plunge so many film cameras have taken in their resale values, and I am so often tempted . . . . . until I begin to realize a lot of the films I used to use are long gone, my choices for labs or really anywhere to get processing has shrunken dramatically, and then I have to now add the extra time and money of having to get the images into the digital domain via scans.
The film 'ecosystem' has quickly become a shadow of its former self, and while it will still be around, unless you live in a few fortunate spots around the US, any hint of convenience with film is gone. Here locally (Nashville), I could have prints at a few remaining WalMarts or Costco, but all the pro labs have long since gone digital only, and my only choice is to buy pro film online, and ship my film for processing out of state.
This also contributes to why so many camera stores (both chain and local 'mom and pops') went under. So many camera stores made it on the strength of the 'One hour print' business model, almost like a restaurant: A lot of restuarants break even on food, and profit on alcohol. A lot of camera stores followed the same model: With an MAP that was really skinny, you made a little money or broke even on cameras and lenses (except, now you know why so many chain stores sold those 'bundled accessory kits' or 'Quantaray' lenses !), but made lots of money with print processing. How often could you walk into a camera strore and NOT smell chemistry?
And all that quickly headed into ancient history like steam locomotives and airliners with propellors . . . . new minilabs are 'dry', you don't run into the headaches with disposing of all that tainted water.
Still, though, it' s mighty enticing to cruise the EBAY 'film camera' listings.
The film 'ecosystem' has quickly become a shadow of its former self, and while it will still be around, unless you live in a few fortunate spots around the US, any hint of convenience with film is gone. Here locally (Nashville), I could have prints at a few remaining WalMarts or Costco, but all the pro labs have long since gone digital only, and my only choice is to buy pro film online, and ship my film for processing out of state.
This also contributes to why so many camera stores (both chain and local 'mom and pops') went under. So many camera stores made it on the strength of the 'One hour print' business model, almost like a restaurant: A lot of restuarants break even on food, and profit on alcohol. A lot of camera stores followed the same model: With an MAP that was really skinny, you made a little money or broke even on cameras and lenses (except, now you know why so many chain stores sold those 'bundled accessory kits' or 'Quantaray' lenses !), but made lots of money with print processing. How often could you walk into a camera strore and NOT smell chemistry?
And all that quickly headed into ancient history like steam locomotives and airliners with propellors . . . . new minilabs are 'dry', you don't run into the headaches with disposing of all that tainted water.
Still, though, it' s mighty enticing to cruise the EBAY 'film camera' listings.
The 6006 was a stunningly beautiful camera with excellent MF technology. I wish Rollei had the backing to continue (at the time it was available) to develop the 35mm SL2000; the body style was considered strange but it works perfectly for us left eyed-right handed folk. I also liked the Bronica GS1 but Bronica was the first to die in the great MF film dieout, a shame. :-(
Urban Toreador
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 325
- Reaction score
- 135
Man that IQ180 is a beast. Impressive
If I was going to do something with film, I'd be looking at one of these cheap-nowadays medium format cameras. I'm not convinced that they're comparable in terms of IQ to digital these days and if you wanted to get close it seems that you'd be restricted to really slow film. Still, those MF cameras are cool in my book (couldn't really afford a system back in the day).
The reality of it is that unless I had the means to make my own B&W prints, I'd never bother with any film camrea. I don't see the point of scanning and then either viewing on a screen or outputting on a digital type printing device. In my view though a really nicely done B&W print on some high quality paper (not the plasticy resin coated stuff) is a really beautiful thing and unlike what I've seen even the best digital outputs. Since I don't see getting a darkroom or even renting one, I'll be quite happy with what digital has to offer. If I take away the ability to make B&W prints from negatives pretty much everything else about digital I find to be vastly superior including the "darkroom." There are so many more options in terms of adjusting the image with software on a computer than there ever was in a darkroom.
The reality of it is that unless I had the means to make my own B&W prints, I'd never bother with any film camrea. I don't see the point of scanning and then either viewing on a screen or outputting on a digital type printing device. In my view though a really nicely done B&W print on some high quality paper (not the plasticy resin coated stuff) is a really beautiful thing and unlike what I've seen even the best digital outputs. Since I don't see getting a darkroom or even renting one, I'll be quite happy with what digital has to offer. If I take away the ability to make B&W prints from negatives pretty much everything else about digital I find to be vastly superior including the "darkroom." There are so many more options in terms of adjusting the image with software on a computer than there ever was in a darkroom.
TRIODEROB
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,553
- Reaction score
- 4,620
here the thing
you can go on and on forever about how convenient digital is, you can talk about the extra adjustability, ease of use - you name it
but when all is " said and done" a silver halide print made from a BW medium or large format print
on to heavy paper in a wet lab blows the doors off a digital print.
and yes I have seen prints from a phase one iQ180
you can go on and on forever about how convenient digital is, you can talk about the extra adjustability, ease of use - you name it
but when all is " said and done" a silver halide print made from a BW medium or large format print
on to heavy paper in a wet lab blows the doors off a digital print.
and yes I have seen prints from a phase one iQ180
Last edited:
Well... I'd say that in terms of detail maybe the MF would have an edge, but maybe not. Large format, definitely as prints made from 4 x 5 (or larger) have an unreal amount of information on them. In terms of beauty, that's a more subjective thing, but for my taste I'd say that that at least for B&W a real print made from a negative and developed in a lab on some good paper is the best...
Still, since I'm not going to be doing that and since it seems pretty silly to me to shoot film, scan and then deal with the result digitally, digital from start to finish is what I'm more than happy to be dealing with. It seems that there's a lot of work that has a rather cold, over-sharpened "digital" look to it, which I'm not fond of myself but I believe that it is possible to get a smoother, "prettier" film look from digital if that's what you're going for. I think that digital media has gotten to the point where it looks very fine indeed... in all areas but B&W output. That being said though I've seen some very nice digital B&W prints (don't know what process).
RoelHendrickx
Veteran Member
Thank you all for interesting thoughts and opinions.
Medium Format still holds a very special kind of attraction of all of us "low level" photographers whose experience with film was always limited to 35mm.
(BTW, I have seen the Pentax 645Z in action and it is impressive.)
Medium Format still holds a very special kind of attraction of all of us "low level" photographers whose experience with film was always limited to 35mm.
(BTW, I have seen the Pentax 645Z in action and it is impressive.)
Mark Smith145430
Veteran Member
Eh no, the DSLR looks softer because it resolves less info that's why you can't read the script round the lens-this is not a focus issue just read his methodology.
Instant yeas but 'free' certainly not! So the 36 Mp digital didn't 'best' medium format in Tim's test ceratinly not for detail, lack of grain possibly
Not wild at all just honest side by side comparisons.
Talking about wild claims
You rubbish the side by side tests of Joe Cornish and Tim Parkin who are well known Lanscape photographers who use both film and digital and post a very poorly written junk article by Lloyd Chambers.
An opinion piece where he shows some film shots he made in the 1990's and states (without comparisons) that the D800 has more resolution.
With opinions like this
"The image below was an 5924 X 8515 drum scan...
But is it sharp? I’d rate it at a third or less of what a Nikon D800E can do, and that’s being charitable.
Where was his proof? That's right he had none to show-unlike Tim Parkins side by side reality.
Then he states Kodachrome had no shadow or highlight detail and posts this as proof:
Underexposed and pushed in post this isn't a good representation of slide film quality.
Really? I notice that site is sponsored by selling digital cameras! So who am I to believe a salesman who can't expose correctly and uses his old film shots to state he gets better today, or Tim and Joe who do side by side testing and are internationally renowned photographers?
You make your choice.
Can do under some but not all circumstances, but sure it can be done with film too. Look at Tim's massive film stitches in the OP. That said if you like everyone have tried the test of DSLR and film side by side you can post the results fine. The "I shot 4x5 back in the day" and now shoot my 'free' DSLR doesn't get you a free pass.
He linked to Tim Parkin and Joe Cornish who make their living with film
Reilly Diefenbach
Veteran Member
Go ahead Rob, a good chuckle is always welcome.
Eh no, the DSLR looks softer because it resolves less info that's why you can't read the script round the lens-this is not a focus issue just read his methodology.
Instant yeas but 'free' certainly not! So the 36 Mp digital didn't 'best' medium format in Tim's test ceratinly not for detail, lack of grain possibly
Not wild at all just honest side by side comparisons.
Talking about wild claims
You rubbish the side by side tests of Joe Cornish and Tim Parkin who are well known Lanscape photographers who use both film and digital and post a very poorly written junk article by Lloyd Chambers.
An opinion piece where he shows some film shots he made in the 1990's and states (without comparisons) that the D800 has more resolution.
With opinions like this
"The image below was an 5924 X 8515 drum scan...
But is it sharp? I’d rate it at a third or less of what a Nikon D800E can do, and that’s being charitable.
Where was his proof? That's right he had none to show-unlike Tim Parkins side by side reality.
Then he states Kodachrome had no shadow or highlight detail and posts this as proof:
Underexposed and pushed in post this isn't a good representation of slide film quality.
Really? I notice that site is sponsored by selling digital cameras! So who am I to believe a salesman who can't expose correctly and uses his old film shots to state he gets better today, or Tim and Joe who do side by side testing and are internationally renowned photographers?
You make your choice.
Can do under some but not all circumstances, but sure it can be done with film too. Look at Tim's massive film stitches in the OP. That said if you like everyone have tried the test of DSLR and film side by side you can post the results fine. The "I shot 4x5 back in the day" and now shoot my 'free' DSLR doesn't get you a free pass.
He linked to Tim Parkin and Joe Cornish who make their living with film
tbcass
Veteran Member
I had to laugh at the way he brushed off the cost of drum scanning calling $20 per scan "reasonable" as well as the cost of a drum scanner which can easily be over $10,000. That doesn't even take into account the cost of the film and time involved.
Mark Smith145430
Veteran Member
He brushed it off because he is a large format shooter. I shoot LF too and make less than 50 images a year, only 10-12 of which will be exhibited (and sold) so yes $20 is cheap especially as it is low cost compared to actual taking of the image.
His drum scanner was £250 by the way, you can find S/H ones at very reasonable cost but with film not every sheet needs scanning, and you can always print them.
So the way I shoot costs me less than £1000 a year in film and processing and printing all of which is recouped. Most people say my D800 images are free, I guess they are if you discount the cost of the camera and processing equipment and most importantly printing as there isn't a huge market for files.
I tape all my 4x5 negs to the back of the print most of which are handprints something unique and personal and people will pay top dollar for that.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum