Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ripped off?  (Read 3671 times)
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1159


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 25, 2014, 04:29:00 PM »
ReplyReply

And...if you think film has a look you can't achieve with digital, I suggest you learn how to process digital files. :~)


Gursky shoots a multiple day, large crew, planned out photo that has much more manipulation in post production than most know.

That's not a reason to or not shoot film, that's just the way he works.

The use of film is somewhat coming back as everyone is looking for a edge and for a certain group of "buyers" whether it's fine art or editorial they love the idea that a job is shot film, unless they need a lot of volume per day.

There is a well know, well promoted celeb photographer that touts film.    His work is good, his production values are high though like gursky there is usually a lot of digital manipulation in post, so he could probably do the same thing with a medium format back and the results would be the same, but saying I shoot film will get ring some bells for the people that believe what they want to believe.

The problem with digital is first it's a roll your own color, second everybody has a digital camera.   Some of the magic is gone, once it goes down the pipe and pops up on a screen, because people are use to it.

Film keeps some of the "magic" in the hidden box, until later when you present.

This circle spins and spins.   There was a period where fine art galleries would only accept wet prints, then they would except Giclée  even though it was just a cool term for inkjet.

Now nobody knows as long as you shoot or print well.

I've done two gigs because the clients wanted "film", though I explained I used older digital cameras with special sensors (in other words contax, phase and ccd) and they loved that thought.

Was it better than anything else, "who knows" was it accepted and did it work, yes.

I see it with our productions.   I can set up two RED 1's, with PL,s monitors everywhere though shoot 2/3 of the gig with a tricked out gh3 and nobody cares, they just see big production.

It's not that the RED's aren't prettier out of camera and have a place, because they do, though content and creativity rules, catpure devices are just capture devices.

The bottom line is if you are getting what you like out of film, (and know the difference between film and digital capture), if you are getting work, or enjoyment out of your process, no reason to switch to anything.

But if your good on set and in post, you'll find there is no real difference.

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 07:09:18 PM by bcooter » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7630


WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2014, 05:48:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

To the joys of processing film comes the joy of scanning film, unless we enjoy the joy of working in the wet lab. After working in the wet lab we can enjoy the joy of retouching the dry print.

Seriously, if working with film, development at home may be a good option. Otherwise one needs to find a good lab that don't destroys film. Than there is a question if the film needs to be scanned.

Best regards
Erik



I think you misunderstand...I processed E6 in my darkroom at school (RIT) when E6 first came out. I used a dip&dunk to process 4x5 film E6 film as well as 21/4 and 35mm in Nikkor tanks.

I know exactly what film can look like–been shooting film from the late 70's till around 2001 when I got my first digital camera).

And...if you think film has a look you can't achieve with digital, I suggest you learn how to process digital files. :~)
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 06:45:13 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 775


« Reply #22 on: March 25, 2014, 06:36:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Despite the different "look" that many don't except that it exists although it does, there are reasons why one would still use film next to his digital equipment for some projects… One is the size of the image area one can have with film… With my Fuji GX680 for instance, there is no way I get "real" WA without using film… Another reason maybe the resolution needed with movements since it's well known that small pixel sensors don't cope very well with extreme movements… Creative photography with multiple exposures on the same frame is another reason why many would prefer to use film… then there is long exposures, continuous panoramas and many other appliances. I believe though, that the existing combination of detail with grain that film can provide, as well as the unique non linear curve that exposed film provides, is impossible to be reproduced with digital… One may achieve "similar look" to film by processing digital to look like it (or so he may believe), but IMO, it can only be "similar"… never the same. For me, using film into the digital age along my FF & MF digital, was never a matter of it being superior or inferior… I use it whenever I want to have the different "look"it provides…
Logged
Jason Denning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228



WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2014, 08:12:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Yep...if you like that sort of thing. Fact is, chemical processing is going away...it's pretty foolish to cling to E-6 when digital capture far outstrips the image quality of film. Sorry, I really can't offer much encouragement to keep shooting analog. Your experience is a prime example why shooting analog film is pretty stupid.

Large format film still beats digital in a one shot scenario.
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
Jason Denning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2014, 08:14:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Negative film has more dynamic range than digital.
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
Harold Clark
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2014, 08:30:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Large format film still beats digital in a one shot scenario.

Also LF film is a very economical alternative to a digital back for someone producing a relatively low volume of images, say a few boxes of film per year. Even more so for photographers who still have a darkroom and are doing mainly B&W.
Logged
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 775


« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2014, 02:12:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Large format film still beats digital in a one shot scenario.
This is questionable… they are very close, but again, one can't compare image areas that have completely different DOF and use lenses of different image circle (as he should to maximise the outcome on both)… However, since they are close, who cares which one is sharper? …I don't anyway! It matters more IMO that with view cameras, film copes much better with movements and WA lenses even if a 6x9 (2x3) 120 film back is used.
Logged
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 775


« Reply #27 on: March 27, 2014, 02:24:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Negative film has more dynamic range than digital.
That holds true… If film is carefully exposed to (just) protect the HLs and then it's scanned to extract a raw file out of it… (Nikon ED9000?) The DR in a high contrast scene can be impressive! …almost equals a multishot digital file, but then again, MS can only be applied in still photography. Let's not turn this to another film vs. digital debate… Film has certainly its uses in modern photography because it can provide solutions that digital can't.
Logged
Jason Denning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228



WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2014, 08:08:50 PM »
ReplyReply

It's the digital people that started it!  Smiley

There is no question that large format film beats an 80mp digital back (probably not a large format scanning back though), I have printed huge prints from both 617 provia, and stitched 22mp medium format backs (about 12000 pixels in the final stitch) and the 617 won, the 617 even prints to 3 metres wide and looks good. So for me printing that big it matters, yes I used to stitch but nothing beats the ability to do it in one shot which opens up 1 hour long exposures and double exposures all of which are not possible stitching with digital.

Film has been around for decades so it is at it's best now, fine tuned to almost perfection which is why we love the look, I can't imagine where digital will be in 30 more years.

The shots attached are a good example why film wins for me, in one shot I get the resolution to print big and achieve something you can't with stitching, shooting waves and long double exposures.

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
BobShaw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2014, 09:29:57 PM »
ReplyReply

After all good digital file has more resolution and dynamic range than any film, so it can be manipulated to resemble scanned film at will.
Really? I have easily scanned film negatives to 15000 pixels wide on a desktop scanner. There may one day be a digital camera that does that in a single shot, but not at the moment.
Most digital cameras have no more DR than film.

Back to the question. You weren't ripped off as it sounds like you didn't ask the price in the first place. If the price was on the website then you have an argument. I am not a lawyer, but as pointed out elsewhere, an advertised price does not have to honoured if it was a mistake. If it is intentional false advertising that is a different story.

I pay $10AU for an E6 roll to process and wouldn't think of doing myself. They are seriously dangerous and expensive chemicals. B&W no problem.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 09:37:07 PM by BobShaw » Logged

Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Blog - http://AspirationImages.com/blog
Photography, Custom Framing and Printing, Sydney Australia
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


« Reply #30 on: March 28, 2014, 01:33:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Really? I have easily scanned film negatives to 15000 pixels wide on a desktop scanner. There may one day be a digital camera that does that in a single shot, but not at the moment.

It is certainly possible to scan any kind of negative or slide into a N kPix by M kPix scan, but it does not mean it actually holds more resolution/information than a sensible sized file from a digital camera.

When I got my first digital camera more than a decade ago, Canon EPS-1D with 4.7 MPix sensor, I was highly skeptical about the quality compared to the standard Fuji Provia 100 I mostly used. So I made a few test shots using the same lens and framing, pitting EOS-1 with Provia against the new EOS-1D digital. Slides were scanned to 60 MPix size by our printing house to make sure I would not miss any of the wonderful sharpness of film.

Result: resolution and detail in these files, 4.7 MPix versus 60 MPix, were identical. I stopped using film.

Following your logic that 60 MPix scan from 135 Provia should be sharper that a 36 MPix file from D800. We all know the truth about that.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #31 on: March 28, 2014, 05:03:27 AM »
ReplyReply

There is more to a look than just the sheer resolution. The tonality of large format film has yet to be beaten by MFDB's from what I've seen. It can however be matched by stitching the digital files, just a matter of pixels per square inch I suppose.

Does neg film still beat digital for DR? I'd be interested to see a comparison between a D800 and say 6X7 film. I know that what I'm getting from my A7r is beyond anything I've ever seen from film but then I was no drum scanner expert operator. That said I'm getting it even at high iso, in colour, almost grainless and with every single shot in a package the size and cost that the A7r is. At a certain point you have to look at the realities of the situation. Perhaps you can get better if you spend a fortune and a huge amount of time and expertise but is that real world?
Logged

Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 28, 2014, 06:47:54 AM »
ReplyReply

There is more to a look than just the sheer resolution. The tonality of large format film has yet to be beaten by MFDB's from what I've seen. It can however be matched by stitching the digital files, just a matter of pixels per square inch I suppose.

Does neg film still beat digital for DR? I'd be interested to see a comparison between a D800 and say 6X7 film. I know that what I'm getting from my A7r is beyond anything I've ever seen from film but then I was no drum scanner expert operator. That said I'm getting it even at high iso, in colour, almost grainless and with every single shot in a package the size and cost that the A7r is. At a certain point you have to look at the realities of the situation. Perhaps you can get better if you spend a fortune and a huge amount of time and expertise but is that real world?

True, has anyone else seen these portraits on Epson's trade show Booth as of late? Made by photographer Timothy Greenfield-Sanders using 8x10 film. They look amazing.
Logged
dreidesq
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89



WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 28, 2014, 06:53:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Bob shaw" Back to the question. You weren't ripped off as it sounds like you didn't ask the price in the first place. If the price was on the website then you have an argument. I am not a lawyer, but as pointed out elsewhere, an advertised price does not have to honoured if it was a mistake. If it is intentional false advertising that is a different story."

My understanding was that only a month previously I had had a discussion with the lab and paid half the amount that I paid on this latest visit. This was also based on looking at their websites costs and calling to confirm the price prior to giving them my film. I had been doing this regularly for almost a year.

This latest issue was raised because of my previous understanding but not checking to see if the labs costs had doubled in the last month. Although I am to blame for not checking the lab should have also pointed out their new prices prior to development.
I have also had a friend call to check their prices yesterday and oddly they have been quoted a price significantly less than what I paid.

I feel I was ripped off in this case.

Please forgive me if you think I wasn't.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 06:56:22 AM by dreidesq » Logged
StoneNYC
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


StoneNYC


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 28, 2014, 08:26:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree you were ripped off, I also would have noticed when paying that my bill was high, but I would also go back there, and make a fuss in front of other customers and tell them what they did was fraudulent (which it was) and they stole from you, and that if you don't get your money not only will you tell every customer that walks in but you'll call the police for theft.

That should settle this guy down real quick...

Anyway, as for film... A large format sheet of film scanned at a decent resolution is 600-1000MP.... I can't imagine that digital can beat that.... A 6x7 roll of 120 will still beat my canon 5Dmk2 in a large 20x24 print. But as others said it's the tonality, dynamic range, and nuances of film that give a kind of authenticity... And then there is the whole printing part, a scan is one thing, but making a print the old fashioned way, you will get a lot more from a negative than you might realize.

Film is a different animal and there are many great advantages and many disadvantages of film use, and it's just the artist that most decide which is best for them...

I support film because I believe in that medium for it's "truth" as I see it, before the manipulations... And it's for the OP to decide if it's worth the hassle... But I doubt my digital could do what Velvia50 does "out of the gate"
Logged

~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller
fotagf8
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2014, 01:03:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Whatever you did, I enjoyed and appreciate the two photographs.  In the end, that is what counts.
Logged
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2014, 01:50:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Surely HFF (Huge Format Film) can still beat digital one shot cameras what comes to resolution. In practice digital stitching is often more practical and cheaper than shooting 8x10" or 11x14" and scanning them. There is also the "art" aspect, often a bad, clumsy and restrictive method gives extra artistic value to the resulting object, and I am not talking about photography only.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad