Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Who's still shooting film?  (Read 18114 times)
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


« on: December 04, 2012, 07:49:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm just curious to see how many people are still shooting film and what reasons you have for doing so?

After selling my Hasselblad MFD setup for finding it hard to justify owning such an expensive piece of equipment, I'm thinking of shooting 6x6 film rather than heading back to a DSLR.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2012, 07:59:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I still shoot a lot of film, and often side by side with my MFDB.   I just like the look of it, I guess.  Primarily I shoot T-Max and mostly 6x6 or larger.  4x5 and now 5x7.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2012, 08:28:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I still shoot film. 6x8cm with the Fuji gx680 and 20x25cm (8x10in).

I love film. Will be developing 25 rolls tonight while listening to some fine music. Wink

I still shoot commercially on film too.

Here are a couple of my favorite shots:


Fuji gx680



If you are going to shoot film look into formats a bit larger than 6x6cm.

I got a friend of mine to get a Fuji gx680 as his main camera and a Fuji GF670 folding camera as his walk around camera.

IF you want some documentation on the Fuji gx680 I have a good collection of documentation I have digitaized for people like you Wink

PM  me and I can send you the PDFs... manuals, system catalog etc..
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2012, 08:38:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Regarding film I would say that scanning is a major problem. Cannot really say about T-MAX 100 as I was mostly using Velvia, I also was trying to use Ektar 100. With both Ektar 100 and Velvia the D-MAX scanners can handle may be a major problem. Drum scanning is probably the best way to go, check your options.

I have written about my experience here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

On the other hand, it is quite obvious that film has a lot more to give, if optimally used. Tim Parkin sent me a piece of a scanned Velvia image taken with a Mamiya 7 that probably far outresolved IQ180. Tim has his own drum scanner and scans at 10000PPI.

Tim published an excellent comparison of film and digital here: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

There is a convenience aspect with digital versus analog. I normally take one digital image, check sharpness and histogram, that's it. With the new cameras I can use live view at actual pixels to focus. With film, it is tedious. I don't do development so I send the film to the lab, turnaround time is a week, or so. Scanning is no great fun.

Best regards
Erik

I'm just curious to see how many people are still shooting film and what reasons you have for doing so?

After selling my Hasselblad MFD setup for finding it hard to justify owning such an expensive piece of equipment, I'm thinking of shooting 6x6 film rather than heading back to a DSLR.
Logged

SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 463


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2012, 08:41:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Just Beautiful!

I still shoot film. 6x8cm with the Fuji gx680 and 20x25cm (8x10in).

I love film. Will be developing 25 rolls tonight while listening to some fine music. Wink

I still shoot commercially on film too.

Here are a couple of my favorite shots:


Fuji gx680



If you are going to shoot film look into formats a bit larger than 6x6cm.

I got a friend of mine to get a Fuji gx680 as his main camera and a Fuji GF670 folding camera as his walk around camera.

IF you want some documentation on the Fuji gx680 I have a good collection of documentation I have digitaized for people like you Wink

PM  me and I can send you the PDFs... manuals, system catalog etc..
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2012, 09:21:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I still shoot 4x5 film for 99% of my black and white landscape and historic architecture for gallery/museum exhibits. I've been shooting such since 1970 and don't see any particular reason to stop (though the loss of Acros Readyloads make me want to). I know exactly what my film/filter/developer combinations will do. I shoot all my commercial work digitally.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 557


« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2012, 11:12:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot film primarily. I then either wet print it, or drum scan it. 8x10(soon to shoot 5x8 as well, w/ a reducing back on my 8x10), and Pentax 645 for MF.

Analog capture and digital post works great for me most of the time, but sometimes getting myself into the darkroom is good too.

Film is easier for me. An 8x10 ground glass is a glorious thing to compose on, and having the ability to scan a large piece of film to whatever resolution I want(up to 8000dpi, for film up to 8x10), I find that very liberating. I also like the tools I've chosen. Most of my LF equipment is 40-50yrs old(I'm 24), or older. But it all still produces wonderful results, especially w/ today's wonderful film emulsions.

Dan
Logged
PeteZ28
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2012, 11:12:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Guilty!

Why? Partly because a MFDB is not in the financial cards at the moment, but mostly because I just love it. Film just has an aesthetic to it, and isn't that the purpose of art? Shouldn't art be a bit of an abstraction? I still plan on keeping the freezer stocked with sliver long after I obtain a digital back. I shoot mostly Tri-X and Velvia 50 and the occasional roll of Portra through my Mamiya AFD and Hassy 500C/M. In 35mm I really only shoot Tri-X. I need to drag out my 4x5 more often.

In the last year I'd say I have shot more film than digital (D3), save for party snaps/occasions/ebay ads. 

Shot on Ektar 100 @ ISO 100, 30 seconds, f? just before sunset. Mamiy 645 AFD 80mm.
I'd have preferred to shoot a little looser but there was really only one spot to place the camera to get remotely close to the composition I wanted.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 11:14:59 PM by PeteZ28 » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1841


« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2012, 11:22:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I mainly shoot film. 6x6, 135. I recently stopped shooting sheet film but only because the Sinar 8x10 was too bulky and heavy to deal with after 20 years of use.  I'm looking to get a Toyo 810m.

Here are my thoughts on format sizes. 6x6 is fine, you get the look of MF, but not as pronounced as say a 6x7, 6x8, 6x9 Format negative.  I happen to very much like square, and the Blad 150 Sonnar and the CF 80.  I also like how it handles.  I have an RZ and many, many lenses, but it is big and heavy.  I like he negs and the lenses very much.  I like 4x5 but I really believe that an RZ gets you 85% of 4x5, and for a real jump in look you should get on the 8x10 tip.  

As to scanning, an Epson v700/750 will give good results unless you are into test charts. With care the v700 will give a great file.  I scan proofs that are very usable at 16 x20 for 6x7 and 16 x 16 for 6x6 negs.  Sharp enough to read the date codes on my Metzler tires on my motorcycle.  Anything that needs to be bigger I send out for a drum scan, which is rare.

I mainly shoot black and white, if that makes a difference to you.  
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2012, 12:19:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, you can get pretty far with the RZ and Mamiya 7 negs.   Something really great about shooting my old 2.8F TLR though.  So light, so quiet, no batteries... 

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2012, 02:36:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Stunning photos FredBGG and PeteZ28.

And some very useful links ErikKaffehr.

The reason I want to shoot 6x6 is purely because I want to shoot square. My prints will only be around 15"x15" and I would get an Epson V750 to do the scanning. Film would probably be Kodak T-Max 100.

I'm not sure yet what camera I would get, the Rollei 6008 and Hasselblad 503CW look nice. The Mamiya RZ67 looks good too, not very pricey either, just very heavy and not square.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2012, 02:48:14 AM »
ReplyReply



Hasselblad 203 FE with a 110mm f2

or



With the right Rollei body

Or if you are looking for something lighter the Fuji gf670.

It also shoots 6x6. It has an adjustable negative size. 6x6 and 6x7.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 03:00:00 AM by FredBGG » Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2012, 03:26:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I still go through a few rolls for fun, I intend to get the darkroom up and running this winter. Just for fun, all my jobs are digital.
If I just did it for a hobby I can't see any compelling reason for shooting digital. If it's a hobby would you not want to be as involved in it as much as possible, not just a button pusher? I don't get this rush to not get involved with the process.
 I much prefer a tripod, a Rolleiflex, a light meter and pocket full of film, I feel free from batteries, fiddly buttons endless menus etc
It's happened to me a couple of times now when I've been out shooting and the time of day when the light gets good, the only people still out with cameras have all been shooting film! Daytime the coast was awash with Dslr's and those zoom all, "walk about lenses".
Pushing a few buttons and getting a screen full of images is just boring.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
IHDAP
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1



« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2012, 03:37:47 AM »
ReplyReply

It might be surprising for most digital photographers, but the quality of film has been enhanced over the last years. I am shooting mostly Kodak Portra 4x5 and scan them on a Hell Linotype Drumscanner.
The results are stunning. The new emulsions are crystal clear and produce a very high resolution.

If Kodak would stay, I would stay with film. But I guess this is a different story....
Logged

Institute for the Harmonious Development of Art and Photography
www.facebook.com/ihdap
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2012, 03:43:09 AM »
ReplyReply

The Hasselblad FE is a great camera and the 110 F2 a pretty amazing piece of glass.

I use one with my Contax, not often, usually for personal work, but still a great lens.



One thing to think of if your going to a larger than 35mm camera and want to shoot film is the contax.

It's not square, but you can easily mask the finder, get a square and with the waist level finder you have a much larger view than with a prism and it's easy to focus.

It has analog controls which are easy and familiar.

The upside of the contax, unlike the FE is it has a true digital interface so almost any digital back is offered for it.  If you want a film like look the Aptus 22, 54 or Phase P21 are IMO the two most film like digital devices you can find.  

Both has a lot of texture and shoot as fast as most medium format film cameras.



IMO

BC
« Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 03:44:51 AM by bcooter » Logged
patrickfransdesmet
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2012, 04:55:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Started shooting film 40 years ago, 35mm then MF
B/W settled on ACROS 100 and Rodinal
Color, mainlt Slides, and some Portra
B/W I develop myself and do wet prints in the darkroom.
Still cannot achieve camparable results after spending A LOT of money on MFDB, MAC's, EPSON's ...(sigh)
Color, I send to my lab (milo profi belgium) they develop the films, scan with Imacon 949 and print on Lambda, GREAT !
When they print my MFDB files, I personally prefer the look of the film prints over the MFDB's (P20, P45)

I recently tested a  Leica monochrom, but ordered a Nikon F6 instead ...
I love the convenience of digital, and for some commercial work, cannot live without it,
but for REAL art-work, I still prefer Film

Scanning film, then printing on the epson's is nice too.

We can have it all, but PLEASE ! DO NOT STOP PRODUCING FILM !!!
it would be the same, than no longer produce oil paint and canvas .

Logged
joneil
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


This is what beer does to you....


« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2012, 06:40:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Yep, still actively shooting film, all in 4x5 format, B&W.  I haven't shot a roll of 55mm or 120 in a while, but just was using my 4x5 last week for the better part of a day.   Like others have said, please don't stop making film & related products!
Smiley

Logged
Codger
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74


« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2012, 10:58:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I've used the big Pentax gear going on 14 years (from Nikkormat FT3), and for me it was love at first sight when I put a roll of 220 Fuji Provia on my light box.  It's exasperating that I can only get 120 now, but I accept it because of the results I get from fine glass, a huge Gitzo tripod and chunky Bogen head.  I always do mirror lock up.  Sure, it's hard on my patience, waiting to see the actual results of a back-country shoot.  And, yes, it's hard on my back after a day out at elevation.  After so many years of working with the same 6x7 gear I can pretty well sense what I'm going to have when the processing is done.  I have my "keeper" shots commercially drum-scanned at 400 mb each and then do some post production.  The smoothness is beautiful to work with and the resolution is unbelievable.  I haven't "gone over" to digital because of two things: I can't justify paying the price of a luxury car for a MFD body, back and four lenses, and I'm put off by the jumble of endless menus.  I just want to take pictures, and having control of focus (manual), shutter and aperture lets me concentrate on the scene. Sure, there are lots of times when I'd like to have a range of ISOs within the roll.  Yes, I'd like to avoid that lab and scan cost and delay, but if I'm disciplined and stick with my workflow, I reason that's a lot cheaper than paying for a Lexus.  Besides, there's a certain pleasure in being anachronistic, and it's fun when someone approaches me in the field and says "What's that you're shooting with?"  I get to tell them.  And the results when I hang a gorgeous five or six foot print (or larger), speak for themselves.
Logged
revaaron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2012, 12:18:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot most personal things with a 35mm, some toycamera 6x6, a little with my contex 645, and a tiny bit with my rolleichord 6x6.

Right now, I'm looking for a good deal on a mamiya press super 23 with a polaroid back.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2012, 03:21:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I guess that you may get as good results with a Nikon D800 or even a Sony Alpha 99. I have been using Pentax 67 and shooting Velvia, so I know what I talk about. Well, it is possible I don't know everything.

By the way, I was shooting with my Pentax 67, 300/4 (non ED) and 1.4X extender and had a lot of problems with vibration from the shutter although using MLU and cable release. I was using a Manfrotto 055 tripod with a Bogen #3039 head. I replaced the Manfrotto 055/Bogen 3039 combo with a Velbon Sherpa Pro 630CF tripod and got sharp pictures at half of the weight. Those Manfrotto Hex QR plates are just bad designs, in my experience.

My experience is that 67 Velvia and 24 MP digital are pretty close in resolution, with advantage to 67 for high contrast detail. I was scanning up to 6096 PPI.

These two articles sum up my experience:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

On the other hand, Tim Parkin has made a large comparison between film and digital and had another experience:

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

What I essentially want to say is that you don't need to invest 50000 $US in MFDB to replace a Pentax 67, a well chosen DSLR equipment for 5000$US will be just fine. It may be possible to get better results from MF than what I have achieved, but it takes experience, knowledge and a high end drum scanning equipment.

Best regards
Erik





I've used the big Pentax gear going on 14 years (from Nikkormat FT3), and for me it was love at first sight when I put a roll of 220 Fuji Provia on my light box.  It's exasperating that I can only get 120 now, but I accept it because of the results I get from fine glass, a huge Gitzo tripod and chunky Bogen head.  I always do mirror lock up.  Sure, it's hard on my patience, waiting to see the actual results of a back-country shoot.  And, yes, it's hard on my back after a day out at elevation.  After so many years of working with the same 6x7 gear I can pretty well sense what I'm going to have when the processing is done.  I have my "keeper" shots commercially drum-scanned at 400 mb each and then do some post production.  The smoothness is beautiful to work with and the resolution is unbelievable.  I haven't "gone over" to digital because of two things: I can't justify paying the price of a luxury car for a MFD body, back and four lenses, and I'm put off by the jumble of endless menus.  I just want to take pictures, and having control of focus (manual), shutter and aperture lets me concentrate on the scene. Sure, there are lots of times when I'd like to have a range of ISOs within the roll.  Yes, I'd like to avoid that lab and scan cost and delay, but if I'm disciplined and stick with my workflow, I reason that's a lot cheaper than paying for a Lexus.  Besides, there's a certain pleasure in being anachronistic, and it's fun when someone approaches me in the field and says "What's that you're shooting with?"  I get to tell them.  And the results when I hang a gorgeous five or six foot print (or larger), speak for themselves.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad