Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Who is still using film and why?  (Read 18700 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #60 on: August 02, 2013, 10:51:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Always have 5 rolls of 220 and a filmback in your bag!, digital will runout of batteries :p

You've been sabotaged: some film cameras need batteries too unless you accept running on default mechanical speeds. Nothing is left virgin for long.

;-(

Rob C

(In yet another fine, pessimistic moment.)
Logged

timparkin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #61 on: August 04, 2013, 06:43:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I still use film (MF and LF) mainly for the colour rendition but also because with the right scan even medium format outresolves any 35mm DSLR and nearly all MFDBs. The follow are Mamiya 7 photos compared with D800 and IQ180.. The prints from the IQ180 and Mamiya 7 are virtually indistinguisable up to 30" x 40" and I have some Velvia 100F shots that hold even more detail (Portra 400 is capable of about 100 lp/mm and Velvia 100F about 140 lp/mm)

e.g.





p.s. All of the scans were done with a flatbed scanner
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #62 on: August 04, 2013, 10:52:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Sharpened?
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #63 on: August 04, 2013, 12:33:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Sharpened?


Focussed?

Rob C
Logged

EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451



WWW
« Reply #64 on: August 04, 2013, 12:53:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Tim,
Thanks again for sharing those comparison tests you did.  They were extremely useful and certainly the most extensive and well done that any I have seen.   Others, Tim had posted some of these tests a while back (1 year, 2 years?) and published an article on his website.  The tests were very carefully done and results very interesting and a lively debate occurred here on the forums.
Logged

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

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #65 on: August 04, 2013, 01:13:57 PM »
ReplyReply

These tests are right on but understand the Mamiya 7 is one of the sharpest MF camera/lens combos ever made and the scans Tim does are top tier-like I would pay $135-150 for each on an Aztec Premier done by a great tech.

I still shoot a lot of 4X5 b&w film and pay to have it scanned. I use first class lenses and work carefully and generally speaking I cannot match what a primo lens and a 160 MFD back can do. I also use an old Hassleblad with some of the better lenses and I can do better with a simple 2X or 3x flat stitch on my 5DII than can be done with my Hassleblad combo.

So this is only true depending on specific equipment and operator comparisons. There is no proof that says any of such comparisons are universally true for anything other than the specific equipment tested by that technician.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 01:20:56 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

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

Posts: 2451



WWW
« Reply #66 on: August 05, 2013, 01:20:46 AM »
ReplyReply

There is something about film that's hard to quantify.  Sure if I shoot my 80mp back, I'll get fine detail that sometimes won't show up on 4x5 film, however the presence of the subject may be more palpable.   It's just a different look.  I am so happy I have the choice to use either or both.
Logged

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

Posts: 228



WWW
« Reply #67 on: August 08, 2013, 12:05:52 AM »
ReplyReply

No batteries for me with my 617  Tongue
Logged

www.jasondenning.co.uk


Fotoman 617 with Rodenstock 55mm, 90mm and 180mm lenses
Mamiya 645 Pro TL, and every lens mamiya made.
Sony A7 with 35mm and 55mm Primes
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #68 on: August 08, 2013, 09:11:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I've unwillingly tapered off my film use.  Now that I'm only occasionally shooting professional work I just don't have the time to deal with processing and scanning, and the infrastructure to support film use is dead in smaller markets, such as the one I live in now.  There is a good lab, but their prices are stupidly high.  Small volume, no competition = high prices.  It ends up being $55 a roll (Roll, processing, contacts) whereas I was paying $25 in NYC.  I still shoot a Pro Pack of T-Max, and a Pro Pack of Portra a month, but the rolls pile up until I send them to NYC for processing and contact sheets, and pay upwards of $500. 

I am thinking I should set up a dark room again, as that would cut out the scanning problems and leave me with process only charges, + expendables for the dark room.
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2882



« Reply #69 on: August 08, 2013, 10:23:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I still use film (MF and LF) mainly for the colour rendition but also because with the right scan even medium format outresolves any 35mm DSLR and nearly all MFDBs. The follow are Mamiya 7 photos compared with D800 and IQ180.. The prints from the IQ180 and Mamiya 7 are virtually indistinguisable up to 30" x 40" and I have some Velvia 100F shots that hold even more detail (Portra 400 is capable of about 100 lp/mm and Velvia 100F about 140 lp/mm)


p.s. All of the scans were done with a flatbed scanner

I find the illustrations difficult to interpret. None of them appears sharp. Film does have a high resolving power, but does so at a relatively low MTF.  By way of contrast (pun intended), digital has better MTF below Nyquist. For another comparison of digital vs film, see this post by DigLloyd.

Regards,

Bill
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #70 on: August 08, 2013, 10:24:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I've unwillingly tapered off my film use.  Now that I'm only occasionally shooting professional work I just don't have the time to deal with processing and scanning, and the infrastructure to support film use is dead in smaller markets, such as the one I live in now.  There is a good lab, but their prices are stupidly high.  Small volume, no competition = high prices.  It ends up being $55 a roll (Roll, processing, contacts) whereas I was paying $25 in NYC.  I still shoot a Pro Pack of T-Max, and a Pro Pack of Portra a month, but the rolls pile up until I send them to NYC for processing and contact sheets, and pay upwards of $500.  

I am thinking I should set up a dark room again, as that would cut out the scanning problems and leave me with process only charges, + expendables for the dark room.


T, my own processing problems are the same if not as expensive.

Why not simply create a film-tank-loading facility in a toilet with Velcro and light-proof cloth? Then, if you want to do b/whites, at least the loading part is made easy and the film processing is simple enough in a bathroom or kitchen. (Colour film is something else, and I'd leave it alone unless there is a good lab available at reasonable cost, which seems not to be the case.) Scanning b/white yourself isn't difficult - you can do all your colour with your digital, probably as nicely as with film.

Anyway, I guess it comes down to whether there really is anything for you that's better on film - you have nice equipment in digital and I guess it's as good as film gets, and even filmic look is something that you can often achieve in Photoshop just by tweaking your files at the end of the process. Eggs and sucking, I know, but effort and time in don't always equate with results out!

;-)

Rob C

P.S. This, from cropped D700, is as 'filmic' as I got with film! Grain's easy to add, should you want it...
« Last Edit: August 08, 2013, 10:37:13 AM by Rob C » Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #71 on: August 08, 2013, 10:36:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, for me its down to black and white, on the Blad.  There is something to those images that I rarely get with any digital.  Its not just tones and contrast and renderings, its all of that in addition to the way I shoot the Blad that does it for me.  I can get a desperate, spontanious quality to images shot with the Blad in black and white.  I'm not saying it isn't possible with digital, but I've always done better when pushing up against teh natural limits of a camera and film, and frankly current digital is a little too good, and when you hit the limits its usually just ugly. I think the Leica M9 can get closest because it is limited in many ways yet is incredibly capable. 

I used to process black and white in my basement but I've developed skin allergies to many of the chemicals.  I still do it, but I get hives and rashes where the gloves stop.


T, my own processing problems are the same if not as expensive.

Why not simply create a film-tank-loading facility in a toilet with Velcro and light-proof cloth? Then, if you want to do b/whites, at least the loading part is made easy and the film processing is simple enough in a bathroom or kitchen. (Colour film is something else, and I'd leave it alone unless there is a good lab available at reasonable cost, which seems not to be the case.) Scanning b/white yourself isn't difficult - you can do all your colour with your digital, probably as nicely as with film.

Anyway, I guess it comes down to whether there really is anything for you that's better on film - you have nice equipment in digital and I guess it's as good as film gets, and even filmic look is something that you can often achieve in Photoshop just by tweaking your files at the end of the process. Eggs and sucking, I know, but effort and time in don't always equate with results out!

;-)

Rob C
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #72 on: August 08, 2013, 10:42:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, for me its down to black and white, on the Blad.  There is something to those images that I rarely get with any digital.  Its not just tones and contrast and renderings, its all of that in addition to the way I shoot the Blad that does it for me.  I can get a desperate, spontanious quality to images shot with the Blad in black and white.  I'm not saying it isn't possible with digital, but I've always done better when pushing up against teh natural limits of a camera and film, and frankly current digital is a little too good, and when you hit the limits its usually just ugly. I think the Leica M9 can get closest because it is limited in many ways yet is incredibly capable. 

I used to process black and white in my basement but I've developed skin allergies to many of the chemicals.  I still do it, but I get hives and rashes where the gloves stop.



I've added an image to my last post above; please don't praise the M series right now - Keith is already doing that - and as my family has gone back home after a couple of weeks with me, I feel temptation to be rash quite strongly! I can buy but can't justify... ;-(

Rob C
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #73 on: August 08, 2013, 11:16:23 AM »
ReplyReply


I've added an image to my last post above; please don't praise the M series right now - Keith is already doing that - and as my family has gone back home after a couple of weeks with me, I feel temptation to be rash quite strongly! I can buy but can't justify... ;-(

Rob C

The thing about the M is that you either dig it or you don't.  Its all down to whether you like a rangefinder.  If you didn't like it in 1970 you won't like it now.  Some people can't focus them at all.  My wife can't.  I've never had a problem.  I just look for the highest contrast within the patch.  It is much more intuitive to me than trying to match the overlaping images, and much faster.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1737



WWW
« Reply #74 on: August 08, 2013, 11:31:19 AM »
ReplyReply


I've added an image to my last post above; please don't praise the M series right now - Keith is already doing that - and as my family has gone back home after a couple of weeks with me, I feel temptation to be rash quite strongly! I can buy but can't justify... ;-(

Rob, the joy is I no longer have to. This is just for me.
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1737



WWW
« Reply #75 on: August 08, 2013, 11:35:53 AM »
ReplyReply

The thing about the M is that you either dig it or you don't.  Its all down to whether you like a rangefinder.  If you didn't like it in 1970 you won't like it now.  Some people can't focus them at all.  My wife can't.  I've never had a problem.  I just look for the highest contrast within the patch.  It is much more intuitive to me than trying to match the overlaping images, and much faster.

A few weeks into my rangefinder journey and I find I use both methods. If I have a strong edge I'll match it, if I don't I'll go the strong contrast route.

The rangefinder was my main concern, I needn't have worried.
Logged

wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 671


« Reply #76 on: August 08, 2013, 11:51:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, for me its down to black and white, on the Blad.  There is something to those images that I rarely get with any digital.  Its not just tones and contrast and renderings, its all of that in addition to the way I shoot the Blad that does it for me.  I can get a desperate, spontanious quality to images shot with the Blad in black and white.  I'm not saying it isn't possible with digital, but I've always done better when pushing up against teh natural limits of a camera and film, and frankly current digital is a little too good, and when you hit the limits its usually just ugly. I think the Leica M9 can get closest because it is limited in many ways yet is incredibly capable. 

I used to process black and white in my basement but I've developed skin allergies to many of the chemicals.  I still do it, but I get hives and rashes where the gloves stop.


Have you seen prints made with the Leica Monochrom?  They remind me of 8x10 contact prints.
Logged
epines
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


WWW
« Reply #77 on: August 08, 2013, 12:52:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I've unwillingly tapered off my film use.  Now that I'm only occasionally shooting professional work I just don't have the time to deal with processing and scanning, and the infrastructure to support film use is dead in smaller markets, such as the one I live in now.  There is a good lab, but their prices are stupidly high.  Small volume, no competition = high prices.  It ends up being $55 a roll (Roll, processing, contacts) whereas I was paying $25 in NYC.  I still shoot a Pro Pack of T-Max, and a Pro Pack of Portra a month, but the rolls pile up until I send them to NYC for processing and contact sheets, and pay upwards of $500. 

Want to keep your film costs to $15/roll? (For 120.) I have The Icon (here in L.A.) process my film as processing only (no contacts). $8/roll. Then I sleeve and make digital proofsheets on my Epson 4990 at home. Very easy.

I shoot 100% of my jobs digitally, but for personal work I shoot mostly film. It renders things completely differently, between the lenses and the gorgeous range and tones of color negs. I also find I compose and shoot differently when using film (MF, LF, panoramic) cameras.  It's a combination of the process of using the cameras themselves, the thought that goes into the shots, the viewfinder mechanisms, the larger ground glass, the square format, etc.

The three major personal projects on my site would have been difficult to create digitally. Night Cars and Night Trees were very long exposures, and the Aerials have a soft feeling that I haven't been able to get digitally:

Night Cars, shot entirely with Hasselblad SWC:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/night%20cars/1/thumbs

Night Trees, shot entirely on 4x5:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/night%20trees/1/thumbs

Aerial L.A., shot on Hasselblad V and Linhof 612:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/aerial%20l.a./1/thumbs

Logged

Gary Yeowell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 189


« Reply #78 on: August 08, 2013, 01:16:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I have never stopped shooting film although have alongside shot various digital. I am now shooting 80% of my work with film on Kodak Portra with various cameras, Hasselblad, Mamiya 6 & 7, Pentax 67 and Plaubel Makina 67, all of which kick the butt of my Leica S2 in terms of aesthetic and quality, and the S2 is quite a bit nicer than the Phase i had.  Digital sucks.

Epines, your 5x4 night trees series is particularly nice.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2013, 01:22:21 PM by Gary Yeowell » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #79 on: August 08, 2013, 01:40:17 PM »
ReplyReply

When I was in NYC I shot mostly on film, because the infrastructure is there, just like in LA.  I had an arangement with Dugal where they would process only my 120 for $1 a roll when I brought in 50 rolls of editorial work.  Not to mention analogue printing at Print Space and cheap Imacon scan time. 

I use my V750 for contacts and still use it for small 6x6 proofs, anything really for letter size pages.  Its great for B&W.  I'd really like a Flextite X1, but realisticly, scanning takes too much time now that I have a job type job. 

The digital I like is really the M9.  The M Mono is impressive.  The majority of M Mono pics on the web look digital or like a C41 B&W.  I shot some with the Mono and processed to my taste.  The files can look like HP5, TMax, Delta 100.  Very impressive.  A thick textured file like a silver emultion.  The only issue with the mono is how the highlights blow, very sharp and digital.

Want to keep your film costs to $15/roll? (For 120.) I have The Icon (here in L.A.) process my film as processing only (no contacts). $8/roll. Then I sleeve and make digital proofsheets on my Epson 4990 at home. Very easy.

I shoot 100% of my jobs digitally, but for personal work I shoot mostly film. It renders things completely differently, between the lenses and the gorgeous range and tones of color negs. I also find I compose and shoot differently when using film (MF, LF, panoramic) cameras.  It's a combination of the process of using the cameras themselves, the thought that goes into the shots, the viewfinder mechanisms, the larger ground glass, the square format, etc.

The three major personal projects on my site would have been difficult to create digitally. Night Cars and Night Trees were very long exposures, and the Aerials have a soft feeling that I haven't been able to get digitally:

Night Cars, shot entirely with Hasselblad SWC:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/night%20cars/1/thumbs

Night Trees, shot entirely on 4x5:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/night%20trees/1/thumbs

Aerial L.A., shot on Hasselblad V and Linhof 612:
http://www.ethanpines.com/#/PERSONAL/aerial%20l.a./1/thumbs


Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad