Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is there a definite move back to film by many???  (Read 17773 times)
lovell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #60 on: February 27, 2009, 10:52:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KLaban
Would you really expect anything other from a bunch of gearheads onboard the "Good Ship Camera Porn"?

Nearly all your posts are exceedingly subjective, heavily bias without evidence, and you see photography as a war between film and digital.

The sad truth is that film and digital are just mediums that have their strengths and weaknesses.  This is not an all or nothing game, nor a do or die.

There is plenty of room for both.

Stop being a medium bigot and instead be a picture bigot, because you and your ilk are no better then the "gearheads" you so disdain.

Time to grow up, and leave the Chevy/Ford/My dad can beat up your dad/mine is longer mentality to Junior High School boys ;-)
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 10:54:01 AM by lovell » Logged

After composition, everything else is secondary--Alfred Steiglitz, NYC, 1927.

I'm not afraid of death.  I just don't want to be there when it happens--Woody Allen, Annie Hall, '70s
micek
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #61 on: February 27, 2009, 11:56:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lovell
The sad truth is that film and digital are just mediums that have their strengths and weaknesses.
Why is this sad?


Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #62 on: February 27, 2009, 12:05:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lovell
Nearly all your posts are exceedingly subjective, heavily bias without evidence, and you see photography as a war between film and digital.

The sad truth is that film and digital are just mediums that have their strengths and weaknesses.  This is not an all or nothing game, nor a do or die.

There is plenty of room for both.

Stop being a medium bigot and instead be a picture bigot, because you and your ilk are no better then the "gearheads" you so disdain.

Time to grow up, and leave the Chevy/Ford/My dad can beat up your dad/mine is longer mentality to Junior High School boys ;-)

LOL!

Take a look at my first post to this thread.

"Couldn't give a rat's arse what capture medium a photographer uses, the medium is not the message"

Come back to me when you've learnt to read.
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #63 on: February 27, 2009, 01:34:04 PM »
ReplyReply

...and perhaps my second post to this thread.

Quote from: KLaban
Without meaning to be rude, my answer would be the same. I couldn't give a rat's arse whether other photographers are moving back to film or not. The fact is both forms of capture are not mutually exclusive and co-exist very nicely.


Logged

whawn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



WWW
« Reply #64 on: February 27, 2009, 02:10:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Talked with a Kodak rep at NANPA last week.  He told me the introduction of Ektar 100 in 120 was in response to a lot of demand from shooters using everything from the old Kodak bellows cameras to new(ish) Hassys and Mamiyas.  He said they also got a lot of comment on the 35mm-only intro last year from Rollieflex people, who simply don't want to stop using their TLRs.  I'm not sure, though, how well the 'new' film will go over, in the long run.  It's available only in 100 ASA, and the 'old' Ultra Color came in several speeds.  My wife, for one, really preferred the look of the 400 ASA version, on top of the 2-stop speed improvement.  And, he told me, a 220 version is not in the works.  OTOH, a 120 version was not to be thought of a year ago, so we'll see.

Me, I shoot film in my 35mm Contax and film and digital with my Hassleblad.  I often shoot both, switching backs, on the same shot, although I've been guilty of skipping film now and again.  

As a side-note:  Does anyone know just why Kodak thinks its film now belongs in pastel blue boxes?  The rep couldn't say, but seemed as bewildered as I.  

PS: For those of a newer age, ASA=ISO, and Kodak film (and everything else) came in bright yellow trappings, dressed with red and black, for generations.
Logged

Walter Hawn -- Casper, Wyoming
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #65 on: February 27, 2009, 03:21:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: whawn
Talked with a Kodak rep at NANPA last week.  He told me the introduction of Ektar 100 in 120 was in response to a lot of demand from shooters using everything from the old Kodak bellows cameras to new(ish) Hassys and Mamiyas.

http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htm
A bit sobering, really.  Velvia 100(and I suppose 50) come close to the Sony, but the rest are worlds worse in terms of grain and noise.    

But I can see why some would like film better - the Sony looks a bit CGI/animated - too smooth in a way.
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #66 on: February 27, 2009, 03:51:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Plekto
the Sony looks a bit CGI/animated - too smooth in a way.
because the captured scene itself is already printed...
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 03:51:59 PM by tho_mas » Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563



WWW
« Reply #67 on: March 01, 2009, 08:28:13 AM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='Plekto' date='Feb 27 2009, 10:21 PM' post='263454']
http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htm
A bit sobering, really.  Velvia 100(and I suppose 50) come close to the Sony, but the rest are worlds worse in terms of grain and noise.    


This article, as much as it shows how good film can be when brought into a digital workflow with the best equipment and experienced hands, actually re-proves that life is too short for scanning film!!!

I would rather play with my home colonoscopy kit all night than f*** around with one of these miserable, flawed, glitch-prone, costly, hair-tearing machines known as film scanners.

If my financial resources were endless, I would have every shot I wanted to see in print professionally scanned.  Sadly, that makes a p65+ look cheap  

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 815



WWW
« Reply #68 on: March 01, 2009, 09:48:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KLaban
. . .the medium is not the message.
I agree, but the workflow definitely affects the results.

My epiphany occurred when I shot a large still life job about five years ago. The layouts were very specific in terms of final size and placement of elements in each scene (to allow for text & gutters). Using the capture software I was able to use the AD's digital comps as overlays to get exact placement of all the elements in each shot. Everything when faster with more precision. Un-retouched, actual-sized proofs were printed out at beer o'clock and everyone was satisfied (and slightly buzzed).

The other aspect of digital capture is knowing exact RGB values within a few seconds of capture. No more Polaroid "estimating". Lights can be manipulated to get exact tonal values within the scene. The level of precision of exposure is much greater with digital capture tools than with analog tools.

This is old news to digital junkies, but every time I shot film I found myself fighting the workflow when trying to get precise results.
Logged

~ CB
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #69 on: March 01, 2009, 09:58:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris_Brown
I agree, but the workflow definitely affects the results.

I couldn't agree more. For the vast majority of professional photographers and applications there really is only one solution in town, i.e. digital capture.

I'm one of the fortunate few who have the luxury to pick and choose their own solution.
Logged

epatsellis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #70 on: March 01, 2009, 09:59:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris_Brown
I agree, but the workflow definitely affects the results.

My epiphany occurred when I shot a large still life job about five years ago. The layouts were very specific in terms of final size and placement of elements in each scene (to allow for text & gutters). Using the capture software I was able to use the AD's digital comps as overlays to get exact placement of all the elements in each shot. Everything when faster with more precision. Un-retouched, actual-sized proofs were printed out at beer o'clock and everyone was satisfied (and slightly buzzed).

The other aspect of digital capture is knowing exact RGB values within a few seconds of capture. No more Polaroid "estimating". Lights can be manipulated to get exact tonal values within the scene. The level of precision of exposure is much greater with digital capture tools than with analog tools.

This is old news to digital junkies, but every time I shot film I found myself fighting the workflow when trying to get precise results.
Chris,
I do alot of this type of work, though I just print out the layout on overhead transparency flim and tape it to the ground glass. (one of the advantages of a scan back and 4x5). One of the biggest advantages of often doing the graphic design as well is also being the AD, I know exactly what I want to shoot, and know how to do it. For years I've been promoting the concept of a design firm with an in-house studio, much the same as what I did 20+ years ago. In the right location, it can work wonders, if you can find one or two talented people to work with.

where in Central IL are you located?

erie
Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 815



WWW
« Reply #71 on: March 01, 2009, 06:52:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: epatsellis
. . . just print out the layout on overhead transparency flim and tape it to the ground glass.
yeah, I did this for as long as I had my Sinars and it works, but not to the precision that digital capture provides.

Quote
where in Central IL are you located?
In the flat, windy part.  
Logged

~ CB
free1000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 407


WWW
« Reply #72 on: March 02, 2009, 11:17:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Please give me back my Type 55.

But don't take away my Aptus 75.

I'd hate to give up digital for my commercial work.

But I'd love to have my favorite film back.


...

Once you have Alien Skin Exposure hooked up as a final step in a well crafted Lightroom Exposure... what's the difference?  I have the films I want most of the time.  Generally I do a final render using the Kodachrome 200 look.

Also. People do too much retouching, working the files too much makes them look artificial.

I used to have to drive an hour to a lab to process my 4x5's. Set the A run, go and not-drink for an hour and a half, review the A's, run the B's and then pick up and drive an hour home.  Digital meant I could live in the country and not the city. Result.
Logged

@foliobook
Foliobook professional photography folio for iPad
www.foliobook.mobi
Larry_Menzin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #73 on: March 04, 2009, 12:36:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm a landscape shooter doing both film and digital. Since it's been a big snow year in New England, I've shot quite a few snowscapes.

My P20 is used primarily on an Arca Swiss 6x9 with typical landscape movements, including stitching with a KG sliding back.

Even using LCC in Capture One, there is pretty serious casting on bright snow. It is difficult and time-consuming to correct it and get both halves of my stitched frame to color match.

It seems that when I head out to shoot snow scenes, I'm mostly taking my 8x10 Arca and Provia/Velvia sheet film. Results are outstanding.

YMMV.

Larry


Quote from: uaiomex
I'm with you Anders. Film is different. Vive la difference!
Eduardo
Logged
sperera
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #74 on: March 06, 2009, 02:27:17 AM »
ReplyReply

......I have bought a 2nd hand Sinar F2 with a Schenider 150mm and am ordering my all time fave T-Max 100 film to start and shoot a personal project I'll be doing.....for commercial work...digital.....but to make me feel like I'm doing something worthwhile.....its 5 x 4 for me.
Logged

Stephen Perera
www.ulookfierce.com
sperera
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #75 on: April 07, 2009, 04:59:01 PM »
ReplyReply

...add to that a Rolleflex T Black with prism and 75mm Zeiss lens.....bargain!

....and I quote www.thiaps.com

Kodak is lately as well reporting positive figures in film-and film related sales. A 40% increase solely  with 4x5 films, as an example, was rumoured around in the ample halls of Photokina.

But even smaller producers and vendors were mostly starting to smile, when I asked what they think about their analogue products in future. Foma is doing obviously very well, with films and especially with papers. ADOX and Freestyle are not anymore only niche-sellers but more and more real big players in the game.
Aside the Agfa-substitute in PE, already in production and a baryta-version, available in early spring, ADOX was presenting a brand new baryta paper, with ADOX-specification made by Ilford. From the same manufacturer, but a completely different paper, is sold by Bergger. Though, Ilford obviously believes that the market is again big enough to even manufacture the products of its competitors.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 05:00:45 PM by sperera » Logged

Stephen Perera
www.ulookfierce.com
Professional
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 306


« Reply #76 on: April 07, 2009, 07:56:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting, i am thinking to try or use film now as i never used it [if talking about 35mm or MF, not cheapo or instant or Polaroid which i used once in the past], really not sure after 10 digital cameras it is a right decision to try film now, i still remember i met a landscape Photographer in UK [Scotland] in 2007, he was using film cameras [Pentax when i was with him that day, and he has Contax as well], still confusing if i should do, in my area there is no sign of using film, maybe only 5% are using film in my country but with digital cameras beside.
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2867


WWW
« Reply #77 on: April 07, 2009, 08:02:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Larry_Menzin
I'm a landscape shooter doing both film and digital. Since it's been a big snow year in New England, I've shot quite a few snowscapes.

My P20 is used primarily on an Arca Swiss 6x9 with typical landscape movements, including stitching with a KG sliding back.

Even using LCC in Capture One, there is pretty serious casting on bright snow. It is difficult and time-consuming to correct it and get both halves of my stitched frame to color match.

It seems that when I head out to shoot snow scenes, I'm mostly taking my 8x10 Arca and Provia/Velvia sheet film. Results are outstanding.

YMMV.

Larry

Hmmm. Generally the LCC completely eliminates such casts.

Have you tried using the easy gray profile? That can help if there is residual cast. Just a thought.


Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Snook
Guest
« Reply #78 on: April 07, 2009, 08:55:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeh I am using film again and I drop it off at the Lab with my Horse and Buggy, Sold the Car too...
Next week I am buying an AirBrush machine so I can retouch the prints as well.... Screw Adobe!!
I feel good things are coming. My clients were just complaining about how fast it was to go from shoot to printed  campaign and they said. Take a couple of extra days with getting us those contact sheet....Mean time are competitor will have the Ads on the street while we look at the contact sheets with a loupe.
I also invested in some Wax pencils for marking the contact sheets....
Feels like the good old times.
Snook

Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #79 on: April 07, 2009, 09:30:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Snook
Yeh I am using film again and I drop it off at the Lab with my Horse and Buggy, Sold the Car too...
Next week I am buying an AirBrush machine so I can retouch the prints as well.... Screw Adobe!!
I feel good things are coming. My clients were just complaining about how fast it was to go from shoot to printed  campaign and they said. Take a couple of extra days with getting us those contact sheet....Mean time are competitor will have the Ads on the street while we look at the contact sheets with a loupe.
I also invested in some Wax pencils for marking the contact sheets....
Feels like the good old times.
Snook

I shot a catalogue on Provia 100F.  300 rolls total.  Had the chromes back in two hours after a clip test, cut and sleeved, at the end of each day. Went to the client's production office and made selects on a light box, sent chromes to be scanned fpo.  I wanted to shoot digital because film scares the shit out of me for commercial, non-repeatable, on location work.  It was a weeks shoot.  We worked together to produce the look for retouching all working on a few machines in the clients' studio.  Once we settled on the look, the selects were drum scanned and sent to the in house retoucher who followed the recipe for color grading, etc.  Car service, no horse and buggy.  Just as fast, really, as with digital.  Less retouching.  Proofs were delivered faster and I wasn't smoking meth and espresso to stay up until dawn applying looks to 5000 digital files, selecting, editing, and uploading to ftp, then starting all over against for day two, then day three, then day four.

It was nerve wracking, not like an arty editorial where if the film is bad I can work around it, shoot three different film and digital cameras, etc.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad