Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Who is still using film and why?  (Read 17247 times)
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 18, 2013, 08:04:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I wouldn't go back to film if you paid me.

Or, perhaps more accurately, I wouldn't go back to film, particularly when I was being paid.
Logged

patrickfransdesmet
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #41 on: June 18, 2013, 01:12:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I use both, or should I say ALL

started with film some 40 years ago and mastered the processes
then jumped in on digital day one 0.9mega pixels and further
used the first imacons 96, 132, later P20, P45, and now CFV-50, beside nikon D's

to be honest, I MUST use digital on commercial jobs, for financial, budget, reasons
but quality wise, Film is not do worse than digital

I use hasselblad V system, Mamiya RZ and Bronica RF and ETRSi
a nice 6x7 negative or slide holds sooooo much beauty and detail
you can't do better
I even bought a brandnew nikon f6

Digital however, limited my camera's in several ways,
using only the sweetspot of my beautiful lenses
only f8 is realy usable in the field
lower f stop is a pain to get in focus
higher f stops result in poor image quality and noise
so what's the point

beside the commercial work, I still print black and white on fiber base paper from 4x5, 6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5
you can't compare it with digital and epson prints
it's alive, digital is ... different,.... flat
but digital convenience is fun offcourse using computers to get the job done
when clients see my film work, they love it, until I mention the cost ...
that's where it ends most of the cases
I'm Happy to use both

beside this all, I still use film on Gum Bichromates for personal work


so film, YES
FUJI ACROS 100
FUJI NEOPAN 400
KODAK TRI-X 320
ADOX CMS-20

FUJI NP-400, 800
FUJI RDP-III slide 
self developed in paterson tanks
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1523


WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 19, 2013, 12:24:20 PM »
ReplyReply

When I grew up my parents and grandparents had their own darkroom, color and BW.
In school I did a course on developing and printing (very basic)

When I turned pro it was all digital, so no analogue, but I still loved the old cameras (I'm a bit of a vintage nut).
When I got the chance to buy an RZ67ProII very cheap I bought it to shoot film and actually hardly did it, I just connected the digital back to it Cheesy

After making the switch to the A99 for DSLR I needed a lot of lenses quick to replace my Canon gear so I bought some Minolta glass which were sold pretty cheap and I was blown away by the quality, so I went one step further back and started buying M42 lenses, thanks to the EVF and focus peaking it's very easy to focus them on the A99. I don't buy the M42 for quality by the way, commercial work is all done with the Zeiss or Sony lenses (or MF) but I want the weird lenses, like the Petri 55mm 1.7 which screams lensflare as soon as it sees the sun Cheesy

When I bought one of the camera's with lenses there was film with it B&W and I decided to just shoot it, in the back of my mind there was always this little wish of shooting some film, but I never gone for it, digital is just sharp, colors are natural etc. so why film ?

I'm shooting film (and I'm starting up again) for the unique look, rolls of film that are way over date, I'm going to develop myself and see what happens, it's for the "special look" the "things that go wrong" as soon as I see something I like I will recreate it in PS with Alien Skin or DxO film pack and add the look to my digital files.

And..... let's be honest it's just a different experience.
 
Logged
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 471


WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 23, 2013, 04:19:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Most of my work calls for digital because of cost and time limitations. But I still like shooting film for the look of film and the simplicity. Pay attention to what you are shooting and not the back of the camera. And when I shoot film I typically will use available light only. So no strobes, extra gear and often no assistants. The subject, a camera and myself like here with a Mamiya 645AFDII and Tri-X 400 pushed two stops.



Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
revaaron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


« Reply #44 on: June 26, 2013, 08:40:37 PM »
ReplyReply

LOVE THIS THREAD!!!! I use Film for personal cause I love it.
But I mostly shoot 35mm film cause my scanner makes MF hard to scan.
Logged

revaaron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


« Reply #45 on: June 26, 2013, 08:46:55 PM »
ReplyReply

BTW: there is nothing better for shots in the fall than velvia 50. nothing. love it.
Logged

AndrewMcD
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2013, 04:05:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Digital for almost all commercial work, but I shoot the new Portra 160 and 400 for personal work. Mainly, I shoot it because the combination of film and lens are different from the digital equivalents that I own. I also just like handling film. Digital feels ephemeral.

Finally, nobody is ever going to break into my place and steal a bunch of negatives, but they will steal hard drives, computers, etc. Yeah, I have backups offsite, but still....
Logged
markmullen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


WWW
« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2013, 05:27:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I've just returned to film.

I'm a landscape photographer but do some commercial architectural and interiors work. I've been using dslrs but wanted a new challenge.

I saw a Linhof Technikardan 23 come up for sale and liked the idea of it being compact but having movements (I enjoy using my 24mm TS-E).

I'm going to shoot some film with it and see how I get on, if, as I suspect, I love it I'll look at getting a digital back.
Logged
IanB
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #48 on: July 03, 2013, 01:05:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting. I bought a TK23S about 15 years ago, and I'm still using film with it. Partly because I love using it so much, but also because digital backs are so expensive! Anyway, until one comes out with proper live view, I'm not sure the TK would be suited to it - it's designed as a film camera.

However, I don't have a quality problem and scan with a Nikon 9000 when I need to - 56x72mm @ 4000dpi actually gives very good results at around 100MP, although you need to be careful with film choice and developing to minimise grain. Workflow is slow, but that's not a problem with me - I just plan ahead and think more carefully about each exposure. Actually a very satisfying way of working - I feel no real desire to go digital at all.
Logged
biedron1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #49 on: July 03, 2013, 02:44:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I started shooting 4x5 film (transparency) about 3 years ago after shooting digital (DSLR) for 6 years or so. I find film much more satisfying. So much so that I'm now ramping up for 8x10.

Bob
Logged
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #50 on: July 03, 2013, 08:44:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting. I bought a TK23S about 15 years ago, and I'm still using film with it. Partly because I love using it so much, but also because digital backs are so expensive! Anyway, until one comes out with proper live view, I'm not sure the TK would be suited to it - it's designed as a film camera.

However, I don't have a quality problem and scan with a Nikon 9000 when I need to - 56x72mm @ 4000dpi actually gives very good results at around 100MP, although you need to be careful with film choice and developing to minimise grain. Workflow is slow, but that's not a problem with me - I just plan ahead and think more carefully about each exposure. Actually a very satisfying way of working - I feel no real desire to go digital at all.

You should try having some of your best frames drum scanned. BIG difference IMO. That's why I bought one, and it's leaps and bounds better IMO for small formats like MF.

The TK3s is a wonderful little camera though. A friend has the TK45s, and its a real treat to use the few times I've operated it Smiley. Albeit, I still prefer the metal clamshell master-technika 2000/3000. They're all good though!

-Dan
Logged
Codger
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74


« Reply #51 on: July 04, 2013, 12:49:25 AM »
ReplyReply

The Nikon 9000 is a fine scanner, but a professionally-done drum scan at the recommended resolution is a step up in quality, clearly visible if you're printing large, i.e. 3'x5'.
Logged
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #52 on: July 04, 2013, 01:34:55 AM »
ReplyReply

The Nikon 9000 is a fine scanner, but a professionally-done drum scan at the recommended resolution is a step up in quality, clearly visible if you're printing large, i.e. 3'x5'.

Yes, the Coolscan 9000 IS a fine scanner, and can definitely deliver great results, but it still has limitations. I've never owned one, but have used one a few times in the past. Scans were great, but IMO, the best results are always delivered via a wetmount scan. Even with the 9000, whose wetmount adapter is a ROYAL P.I.T.A. to use, again IMO Wink... Loading up a drum with selected negatives and transparencies(of varying sizes, I routinely mount 4x5's alongside 35mm slides, and MF film on the same drum, AT THE SAME TIME. Being able to make a "batch", where scans are in the queue, each with its own settings and curves adjustment applied. Yes, drum scanning takes time. But the time invested mounting each frame of film into the (again, IMO) sub-par designed wetmount tray for the 9000, then previewing/adjusting, etc. each individual frame, THEN performing the scan, it's a time-suck as well.

But drum scanning also has other benefits, even with smaller print sizes(I routinely make 12x16 or so enlargements as "soft proofs" to see if the color is where I want it, saturation, essentially anything pertaining to the image itself. Definitely a "labor of love", but that's why I shoot LF primarily(5x7 in my case now for both color & b/w, having essentially forgone 4x5 and 8x10). MF(6x8 and 645) is another great tool in the arsenal.

But the files can get BIG, REALLY QUICKLY!

A drum scanner also allows you to adjust the aperture size for each scan, so you can match the working aperture to the grain size of the film being scanned(no other scanning technology can do this, other than apply USM, which IS NOT the same technically). A drum scanner is, essentially, doing color separations IN THE MACHINE, so each color channel is separated out and separately read by an individual PMT, then the software puts it all back together. Too much tech for me, but that's the gist of it Cheesy.... It's the tool that I've found has allowed me virtually unlimited potential of bringing my film into the best "light" in digital form.

but it takes a lot of work, time, and loads of patience(all of which I'm still learning with this wonderful machine) to get splendid results. But the best part for me is this: LESS DUSTBUSTING. The Kami mounting fluid also incorporates anti-static properties, so most surface dust on the film, or the drum gets pushed out to the edges. I usually spend 15-30mins(at minimum) working @ 100% to dust-bust a 6x8 frame of film when scanned on one of the Imacon's, or even with the Nikon using the drymount film holders.

horses for courses, just felt like sharing some of the reasons why a drum scanner has really opened my eyes to the real advantages of continuing to shoot film (despite being 25 and having grown up in a digital world Tongue)

-Dan
Logged
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 861


« Reply #53 on: July 04, 2013, 12:31:24 PM »
ReplyReply

The Nikon 9000 is a fine scanner, but a professionally-done drum scan at the recommended resolution is a step up in quality, clearly visible if you're printing large, i.e. 3'x5'.

Disagree. Backed up by years of working with both. What you need is an oil mount tray for your Nikon, then you will have truly flat film, and then you will get the most from your scanner.  Any use of MF film in a plastic holder unsupported on both sides means it is not truly flat. That is the principle reason people think drums are so much better - their film was scanned with it all in focus.  Fix that with the Nikon and you will be shocked at the quality of the results, every bit the equal of drum scans.

Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #54 on: July 04, 2013, 01:26:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I spent the day adjusting balance gyros and platform so I can shoot some slow speed Pan F with long lens from a helicopter and a Linhof 5x7 with FP4.
I just like film.
Logged

Kevin.
IanB
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #55 on: July 06, 2013, 06:46:34 AM »
ReplyReply

You should try having some of your best frames drum scanned. BIG difference IMO. That's why I bought one, and it's leaps and bounds better IMO for small formats like MF.

The TK3s is a wonderful little camera though. A friend has the TK45s, and its a real treat to use the few times I've operated it Smiley. Albeit, I still prefer the metal clamshell master-technika 2000/3000. They're all good though!

-Dan

Apologies folks - I really didn't mean to start a scanner debate in this thread! I've had some drum scans done of several of my best frames, and the results were certainly superb. However, in practical terms the difference really only seems to come in to play at much larger print sizes than I normally use, so a drum scan is a special occasion for me.

Used carefully even in standard mode the 9000 actually seems pretty ruthless at exposing deficiencies in film choice and processing - I have found sometimes that people who blame the scanner are not quite getting the film stage right. Not so long ago I had a conversation with a photo bore who assured me with great confidence that I was actually using 5x4 film because it was not possible to get this kind of quality and camera movements on roll film. It's taken me a long time to reach this stage, but I think there is a lot to be said for really getting to know your materials, equipment and workflow before upgrading to a newer or more expensive piece of kit. I can't say I will never want to upgrade, but things are going quite well for the moment!
Logged
Cineski
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #56 on: August 01, 2013, 08:19:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I still shoot a good bit of film professionally (weddings).  Nothing beats opening up your gear case on a work day and that wonderful film smell wafts from your cameras ;-).  Dealing with film in post is rather painful and why I charge a good premium over digital to shoot it.  Although I scan my own on a Nikon 9000 rather than relying on a lab to do it.  But I still shoot it because of the look I get with it.  There's just something ethereal about it that cannot be duplicated with digital.  Color, highlight retention, tone curves are all very different from Digital.  Not better, just different.  Although after doing a film job, I always like to come back to a digital job and the post flies by.

My biggest complaint with scanning is that I can't set a native color temp while scanning with my Nikon 9000.  It does an auto white balance which is always wrong and then I have to go image by image and attempt to match the set.  It's like shooting JPG with the camera set to auto WB.  It's infuriating and I wish there were a better option while retaining the Nikon 9000's image quality.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #57 on: August 02, 2013, 02:47:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if any photographer has ever sued a film company for distress caused by the constant licking of glue on film roll tabs...

Injury Lawyers For U: your time has passed! Go chase another ambulance.

Rob C
Logged

DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #58 on: August 02, 2013, 02:53:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if any photographer has ever sued a film company for distress caused by the constant licking of glue on film roll tabs...

Injury Lawyers For U: your time has passed! Go chase another ambulance.

Rob C

That's why I like Fuji's idea: peel-n-stick adhesive backing on their roll films. Not to mention the EZ-Load "hook and hole" leader on their 120/220 films. Brilliant idea when you need to change film fast, and don't have multiple pre-loaded backs, or a fast-handed assistant ;-)!

-Dan
Logged
julienlanoo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #59 on: August 02, 2013, 08:26:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Always have 5 rolls of 220 and a filmback in your bag!, digital will runout of batteries :p
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad