Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Going backwards...  (Read 116804 times)
mysterick
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


WWW
« Reply #40 on: December 29, 2006, 07:17:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I too am returning to the "wet darkroom" for printing B&W. I like digital for some work  and use it often for newspaper photos. But I always liked the B&W print and 20 years ago worked in B&W almost exclusively. The subtle, hands-on control of the print itself is what I think I enjoy most. I haven't got it together yet (probably in about hree months), but I have found so far around $1500 of equipment on ebay for around $300. I am pretty much re-creating my old darkroom with Kindermann cans and a 23CIIXL enlarger, etc. I am psyched and a little unbelieving that i am doing this at my age, but hey, I need someting to keep me off the streets when I soon retire. (:->
Logged
larryg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468



WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 29, 2006, 08:30:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I have jumped to digital and have no regrets   contax with digital back.

But I learned with a large format camera and I still yearn to do some of the things that gave me so much pleasure in photography way back when.  Like smelling the fixer and other chemicals and spending all that time in the dark.

I had a dark room built in our new house all equiped to process b&w medium to large format.

Reality I only did it once and quickly was reminded how tedius and time consuming etc. that it was. I haven't used the darkroom in five years or so but I still have it klinging on to the hope that I might want to return to it at some point.

The bottom line is I mostly enjoy getting the shot and at this point, for me at least, digital does it best.
Logged
Gregory
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


WWW
« Reply #42 on: December 31, 2006, 05:46:06 AM »
ReplyReply

is there a difference is the light response curve for digital and film? I find it extremely easy to blow out the hilites or the dark areas of a contrasty photo with digital and I don't remember having these same problems with film.

I too sometimes consider retrying film; positive (slide) film because it's easier to scan and the Ektachrome always looked great.
Logged

Gregory's Blog: An Aussie in HK
Equipment: Canon EOS 1D Mark III, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-300 DO
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 08, 2007, 06:40:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I too sometimes consider retrying film; positive (slide) film because it's easier to scan and the Ektachrome always looked great.

I never felt quite at ease with digital until I bought a film scanner and EOS 3 to complement my digital bodies. Now I can decide to shoot film if I feel like it, and I like the feeling. It's best to have both, I don't think digital should completely replace film. For instance, it's extremely expensive to have digital bodies as backup, while it's quite affordable to have film as backup to digital. Also, with film I don't have to carry an expensive scanner with me and risk damage in problematic environments (salt water spray etc.). I can use a cheap $50 body (EOS 650) for risky stuff while the expensive scanner is safe on my desk (where it's less likely to be stolen, too). That said, I still use my 5d for more than 90% of everything, because it's sharper, clearer and there aren't any film and processing costs involved. It's good to know that I have, what, five different slide emulsions in the fridge and I can take them out for a shoot any time I feel like it, but it doesn't happen all that often.
Logged

Danijel
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #44 on: January 08, 2007, 02:59:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, it's a difficult theme to follow without going all partisan.

But, for what it's worth, my opinion sides with those who believe in the double (photographic!) standard. I too have one of each: Nikons both, an F3 and also a D200. I think that the film one uses the 24mm lens very well as a wide and the digital body uses the same optic very well too as a medium wide (circa 35mm) and thus, in a simple trick of the formats, we get the best of both worlds: wide angle on film and the rest on digital. The other lenses in the arsenal (only two more - I learned that lesson many years ago) are coped with well by either body.

Film or digital, then, as medium rather than as hardware: for black/white prints I find b/w film scanned gives very convincing results much as one would expect from film printed in the wet; from colour transparency scanned I seem to get darker skies than would be expected; from digital capture converted via Channel Mixer to b/w I get fairly similar results. Scanning old Kodachrome model shots makes for very nice skin in b/w prints whilst doing so from Ektachrome seems to be just as nice for skin and less dramatic on the skies.

Turning to the matter of colour prints, it has been years since I made colour prints professionally as most of my work was transparency; making colour prints now from scanned transparency or digital is so much easier and better-controlled than I found possible using wet chemistry. Colour direct from NEFs look so much 'nicer' to me (I'm speaking here of non-model shots because I haven't used digital for people pics) and I have to be very careful not to try and fix what ain't broke with unnecessary messing with what the camera has already given me. That, I think, says something pretty good for the D200.

Whether working in a darkroom is a pleasure depends on the individual. I used one every working day from '60 to '81 and the oft-quoted delight of seeing a print come up in the dish is a magic moment long spent! It doesn't strike you that way when you do it every day; it just means you have to protect your fingernails with clear varnish (I wouldn't advise coloured for obvious reasons - but then again, different strokes etc.) to stop them going brown if not falling off altogether - I never met a pro printer used tongs - and clearing the mess after the job's done is just one more chore which digital avoids.

So to sum up, perhaps we might think of film capture as the best way, for now, if we want to get the maximum out of very wide angle lenses with digital capture having the advantage in other respects. I have to say, using the Matrix Metering in the D200 has opened my eyes to just how accurately such devices can work! I find the Minolta Flashmeter does less and less...

And no, I haven't found our host anti-film at all; why should he be? Nobody is forcing him either way - he's just in the position to please himself what he uses.

On the other matter about the sound of echoes in this part of the forum - perhaps that's because there really isn't that much to say about wet printing; once you know how to do it, you have only to practise and practise yet again - it doesn't change much and there is no expensive technology to buy and master and to compare. In that sense, it is the purer artform. Yes, you can complicate it if you like by going into exotic chemicals beyond silver but you still have to apply a lot of self-delusion if you want to believe that anything can give the tones that a well-glazed fibre print can. White smooth glossy. D163.  

Ciao - Rob C
« Last Edit: January 08, 2007, 03:14:57 PM by Rob C » Logged

Gregory
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2007, 09:05:24 PM »
ReplyReply

hi Rob and all.

I was planning to upgrade to the 5D from my 350D once the new 5D is released sometime this year, but I've had second thoughts.

most of photography is bird and animal photography. the 1.6x factor of the 350D is definitely useful, more of a requirement than a convenience. hence, I finally realised that the 400D would be a better upgrade for me than the 350D.

I have an EOS 5 gathering dust but in perfect condition. I have often been frustrated with the inability of the 350D to shoot wide shots and have decided to use the EOS 5 for wide shots instead, using slide film instead of negative film to avoid the colour conversion issues.

I have owned the Nikon 4000ED for a few years and have both the film roll and 50-slide adapters. I have also owned and used SilverFast Ai for the same amount of time so scanning the slides will be a piece of cake ;-)

as you said; the best of both worlds. I don't shoot a lot of wide shots and it would be difficult (impossible?) to justify spending so much money of the 5D if I didn't use it much. the EOS 5 will do fine!

regards,
Gregory
Logged

Gregory's Blog: An Aussie in HK
Equipment: Canon EOS 1D Mark III, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-300 DO
ZoneIII
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #46 on: January 09, 2007, 06:56:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, since I just registered today, I'll put my first two-cent's worth in.   I am a film photographer because I shoot almost exclusively large format and the nature of my work and the amount of work I do makes film a better choice for me.     Frankly, I get a bit tired of some comments made by both film and digital advocates.  I think digital is great but film suits my shooting better.    But that's just me.  

Sometimes I think that some digital advocates are not thinking things through when they claim that digital is cheaper.   Sure, it can be,  but that depends on the nature of one's work.    With film, you could shoot with the same camera for decades because the biggest advancements came with new films.   With digital, the advancements come with the equipment itself so, instead of simply switching films, you have to buy new equipment to keep on top.    Also, with digital, there is a constant back-tracking as you have to keep up on the latest software, etc.   As a matter of fact, when I think of how much money I would have to spend to fully transition to serious digital photography and printing... well, I hate to even think about it.   By the time I mastered all the software, my equipment would probably be obsolete.   In a very real sense, digital can require a much greater investment in time.    And people call that less expensive?!   And then the equipment becomes outdated so fast!    On the other hand, my 8x10" camera is about 50 years old and I really haven't had to buy any major new equipment for many years.   Try that with digital!  

I have two large format enlargers. One is a current model 45V-XL and the other is an Omega D2 that is probably 40 or 50 years old and I use that one for almost all of my printing.   Imagine using a 50 year-old printer (if there were such a thing!).   My point is that with film, the equipment you invest in can be used for many many years.   On the other hand,  I will probably switch to digital printing for b&w at some point in the future and I don't plan to do any wet color printing in the future.  Until a few years ago, I could justify darkroom color prints for permanence reasons but digital has overcome that problem.   Digital printing for color definitely seems to be the way to go and some even claim that the same is true for b&w but I have not personally seen digital b&w prints that I prefer over darkroom prints.... yet.    And the advantages of digital printing are wonderful.   No doubt about it.  

Don't get me wrong.... I think digital is great and, if it fit my style of work, that is the way I would go.   The only digital camera I shoot with is my wife's little compact camera and I have a ball using it.   There is no question that it is far more convenient for routine snapshots.   A pro-level digital camera would be OK for serious work.    But, for me, a digital SLR is no substitute for large format.   Not even close!   But, again, that's just me.  

For someone shooting lots of small format work, digital is, in my opinion, definitely the way to go.  But for someone like me who shoots very little small format work,  it is difficult to justify the large investment necessary for a top-notch digital SLR system that would hardly used and which will probably be out-of-date before many images are made with it.   Add to that all the software, the long learning curves, calibration, etc.    That's not a recipe for cheaper and more convenient photography for my type of photography.  

So, I really don't understand how anyone can say that digital or film is better.  To me, each is better for different applications and for different shooting styles.    I happen to love the LF process and I still like darkroom work.   In fact, I am expanding my darkroom right now.    I have almost 40 years of experience with traditional photography and it suits me.   With film, the learning process constantly builds on itself with little or no back-tracking.  I don't have to spend so much time learning the lastest software.   And anyone who thinks that the digital process is simple is in dreamland.    Professional level work requires a huge investment in time and money.  

Hey!  There is room for all of us!  

If and when digital backs for my 4x5" and 8x10" cameras become viable and affordable options at a reasonable price for a field photographer like myself, I would definitely consider going pure digital but, till then, I'm still a film guy.   On the other hand, I do scan film and fumble around in Photoshop. (I have to get around to actually learn what I am doing in PS, though.)  

I have no strong feelings either way about digital vs. film but I have noticed that it is generally the digital advocates who seem to get on the analog photographer's case rather than the other way around lately.   I simply can't understand that.   At the beginning of the transition to digital, I noticed comments being made by film snobs but now most of the negative comments seem to come from digital snobs including, most irritatingly, very young photographers who clearly never exposed film in their life and often don't know what they are doing photographically.  For some of them, photography simply means playing with fancy new high-tech toys.    I even had a young digital photographer ask me why in the world anyone would shoot b&w!    When they saw one of my prints, she insisted that it couldn't have been shot on b&w film because it had a slight color (tone) to it and it was too sharp!   They virtually called me a liar when I explained that fine b&w prints are rarely pure b&w and that big negatives mean sharp prints.   It's difficult to talk with someone who is so ignorant, especially when it is clear that they think they are somehow superior because they have a fancy new digital camera and my camera is made of of wood, leather, and brass.   (None of this applies to anyone on this board, though, because I think I can assume that everyone here is a serious and knowledgeable photographer regardless of what tools they choose to use.)  

One other thing....    I am a bit confused by the comment made by Mike, the man who runs this forum, I assume,  giving a last warning for people to act in a mature manner.    I may have missed something but I didn't notice any rude or immature posts here at all.   As a new member, I hope these forums aren't run as if by the Gestapo,  although I also know that forums can get out of hand and I certainly don't like to see that.    A good moderator does have to keep things in line.    But this is the very first thread that I have read so I apologize to Mike if I got the wrong impression.  

Anyway, what a wonderful site!   I'm so glad that someone told me about it.   I also just learned about APUG and what a great site that is for those of us who live in the past!
« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 07:13:24 PM by ZoneIII » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2007, 12:36:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Zone lll

Welcome aboard - if it's correct for a fellow guest to assume the host's mantle!

The problems you have pointed out that do exist within digital are truly horific if you come fom a solid film-based background. I spent most of my pro life working with film - cutting it down to the minimum number of types that would do what I had to do with it. As you rightly say, equipment, if of pro quality, would be there for a lifetime and investment in Nikon, Leica, Hasselblad et al. would make sense. Today, with most of my pro life well behind me, I am trying to get it together with digital photography as a means to making a new life for myself out of art photography, something which was too esoteric an idea when commercial concerns were paramount.

Yet there are dreadful financial obstacles lying in the path of such a venture. Were one not aware of what film used to do for one every day, then fine, any old digital camera would do, expectations being dumbed down by the stuff that gets shown around the place (I await the defence experts coming in on this one...) but once you know how b/w can or should look, there is a tough time ahead if you want to do it on your desktop, which is, after all, the main reason for trying to get back into production!

Money money money. It all boils down to the same damn thing: if you want to make a small fortune in photography then best to start with a large one.

But that's the big difference between the pro and ams: for the latter it doesn't really have to make much financial sense at all - it's just about how much you can spend getting your kicks.

I'm delighted that so many out there can afford to invest pocket money into MF digital capture - I just wish I could look at the thing through similar eyes but I can't; it all has to make sense at the bottom line and I envy those without the need for one.

You see, there it is again - we are in a film section and there might be the expectation of much chat about film itself, but I think we have already illustrated the fact, in this current thread, that there isn't really a lot to say about film photography - you just do it to the best of your ability with very basic tools; there isn't the scope for lengthy debate about all the competing brands of software that are meant to get you from points A to B. So the echoes in the vaults are perhaps understandable after all!

Ciao - Rob C
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2007, 03:05:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I am currently shooting about half my commercial work in large format film and the rest with a DSLR. All my personal b&w work is LF film. I shoot the DSLR because of client needs. I personally have no need of it except to take snapshots of my grandchild.

There is something very satisfying about working within a long established tradition and LF film supplies that. Were the difference not obvious to collectors and museums, the difference would still matter to me in that sense of continuity and comraderie. This is a very personal standard by which I do not judge other peoples work.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2007, 03:06:29 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
gr82bart
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83



WWW
« Reply #49 on: January 28, 2007, 07:23:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You see, there it is again - we are in a film section and there might be the expectation of much chat about film itself, but I think we have already illustrated the fact, in this current thread, that there isn't really a lot to say about film photography - you just do it to the best of your ability with very basic tools; there isn't the scope for lengthy debate about all the competing brands of software that are meant to get you from points A to B. So the echoes in the vaults are perhaps understandable after all!
There is little discussion here because this is a digital based site. Goto http://www.APUG.org and you'll have 20,000 film users with lots to say.

Regards, Art.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2007, 07:24:40 AM by gr82bart » Logged

Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com or my online portfolios at APUG and Model Mayhem
KAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #50 on: April 30, 2007, 04:16:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Digital is fantastic, it earns be a good living, I've built a business apon it. Now I find myself returning to film as well, I thought my Pentax 67 was there to stop the shelf getting dusty. After a couple of years shooting digital I can now see what film does better. A scanned 67 looks just better than a file from my 1DsmkII, it's not a resolution or grain thing. I have just added my name to the waiting list for a Cooke portrait lens and I don't do portraits, I've also just ordered a Razzle.
Film is beautifull.
Horses for courses.

Kevin.
Logged
KenS
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #51 on: April 30, 2007, 10:11:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...A scanned 67 looks just better than a file from my 1DsmkII, it's not a resolution or grain thing. ...
Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114964\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Kevin,

I use a Pentax 67 and scan my film (100 TMax, Velvia or Astia 100 f) with a Minolta Multipro.  I use Photoshop and print with an Epson 7800.  I really like the results I get with this setup but for a year or so have been wondering how the results compare images created with a high end digital camera.

I would be interested to know if you or anyone else could describe the difference in printed images from say a 1DsmkII and a scanned 6x7?  You say it is not resolution or grain?

Ken
Logged
KAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 01, 2007, 01:17:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Kevin,

I use a Pentax 67 and scan my film (100 TMax, Velvia or Astia 100 f) with a Minolta Multipro.  I use Photoshop and print with an Epson 7800.  I really like the results I get with this setup but for a year or so have been wondering how the results compare images created with a high end digital camera.

I would be interested to know if you or anyone else could describe the difference in printed images from say a 1DsmkII and a scanned 6x7?  You say it is not resolution or grain?

Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ken,
The Canon is good, but I think film just looks better. Highlights and gradation around them is better, I've been trying to think why I like the colour better, the best I can come up with is it's thicker, not more colourfull, but more of what there is. Stunning prints can be made from digital, no problem and you most likely would be happy. If there is no big commercial pressure to go digital I wouldn't be in a rush.
One other thing regarding 6x7 and 35mm, the shape, I think the 35mm ratio is awkward and unbalanced, plus you throw lots of it away to fit common paper sizes. I also like the way MF lenses record a subject. Commercially there is no contest, it has to be digital for me, for other things I like to shoot, I reach for the MF gear.

Kevin.
Logged
KenS
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #53 on: May 01, 2007, 04:18:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ken,
The Canon is good, but I think film just looks better. Highlights and gradation around them is better, I've been trying to think why I like the colour better, the best I can come up with is it's thicker, not more colourfull, but more of what there is. Stunning prints can be made from digital, no problem and you most likely would be happy. If there is no big commercial pressure to go digital I wouldn't be in a rush.
One other thing regarding 6x7 and 35mm, the shape, I think the 35mm ratio is awkward and unbalanced, plus you throw lots of it away to fit common paper sizes. I also like the way MF lenses record a subject. Commercially there is no contest, it has to be digital for me, for other things I like to shoot, I reach for the MF gear.

Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Your remark about graduation around highlights is interesting and I think something I can relate to.  Perhaps this is what people mean when they say "medium format has better tonality".  I know in my  prints I try to avoid abrupt transitions from the lightest tones to darker tones.  I wonder if digital capture which I believe has a straight line input-output response (instead of film's shoulder and toe response) is the reason for this?

I agree about the awkward 35 mm aspect ratio.  I used to shoot 35 mm film and did a lot of cropping before printing.

Ken
Logged
ZoneIII
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #54 on: March 14, 2008, 09:46:01 AM »
ReplyReply

This is funny!  I was searching for some information on a specific topic and found a link to this thread.  I read the first post and became interested in the entire topic.  Even though the thread is old, I was about to post a reply when I found that I had already done so a couple years ago and pretty much said exactly what I would say today  so that saved me some time.   But with the passing of a couple years in this time of rapidly changing technology, I have an update to make.

Well, I'm still a film shooter!  As I mentioned in my original post, that's because it suits my shooting style and needs as I explained in my older post.  Even two years ago I recognized that digital printing was the way to go for color prints.   These days I make large display prints for hospitals, etc. and I am using a hybrid process to produce the prints.   I still shoot color on large format film because I believe it is, hands down, far better than digital for that purpose and most top fine-art color photographers that I know who produce large prints still shoot on film too.  But I now send my film out to West Coast Imaging to be scanned on their Tango drum scanner and, working with a consultant, I have Chromira prints made.  The combination of analog and digital in the workflow is a wonderful step up and, in my opinion, Chromira prints are better than digital prints made on the latest Epson printers.  For those who aren't familiar with Chromira, it is a process where traditional (wet) papers are exposed to a LED light source. No lens is involved.  West Coast Imaging also makes digital prints on their big Epson printers but their own tests have shown that the Chromira prints are far better.  (You can read about this at their website.)

I can't afford a Tango drum scanner or a Chromira printer so I just let the pros at WCI do that and the prints are spectacular.  So, for me, digital technology has melded in my color workflow in a wonderful way.  

As for b&w, I still prefer darkroom prints over digital prints. I have examined b&w prints made by fine b&w photographers and, in my opinion, the quality is simply not there.  In fact, I have shown some of my own prints to other photographers and non-photographers side-by-side with fine b&w prints made by well-known digital photographers (who I won't mention but they are photographers everyone here would know)  and everyone who has compared the prints, without exception, felt that the digital prints just weren't that good in comparison to darkroom prints.  The difference is obvious to me and was obvious to everyone who compared them. They lack the deep, rich blacks, brilliant whites, and overall luminoisity of darkroom prints.    On the other hand, for subject matter that only requires a short tonal scale, digital prints may be fine.  I am talking about digital prints made with the latest Epson printers and the finest special ink sets, not something that was used several years ago.  One well known photographer who is a contributing editor to one of the most well-known photography magazines published and who was a pioneer in digital technology, was almost obsessed with trying to get me to get rid of my large format cameras and darkroom and switch to a 35mm digital SLR.  His obsession was actually very odd, in my opinion, and I suspect that he felt some sort of guilt over switching to digital.  He was a large format photographer and a master darkroom printer at one time too so he knows the advantages of LF photography.  He actually got angry with me for not switching to digital!   To convince me to do so, he sent me a print that he thought would make me change my views.   Being an expert on the subject, he obviously sent me one of his best examples of a digital b&w print.   Although the subject matter of the print is wonderful, the print itself was very bad, quality-wise -  when compared to a darkroom print.   It was dead!   Also, that photographer apparently has forgotten all the other advantages that LF offers - perspective control, etc.    My guess is that he was lured into digital and traded quality for convenience and may be having second thoughts about that decision now. That's just a guess on my part, of course, but I can think of no other explanation for his stange obsession with trying to get me to switch to digital.

That said, I think he only makes small prints.  I make large prints.   Two weeks ago I went to the B&H website to read reviews on Canon's new 20+ MP camera.   There were raves, to be sure, but the one consistent theme of the reviews was that film was still the medium by which digital is compared and with this hot new camera, digital had still not achieved the level of quality that film can capture.  It's close, but still not there.  (I'm talking about information captured, not the other advantages and disadvantages of digital.)   Of course, medium format digital is a different story but it is also simply out of reach for me, investment-wise, and I still don't think it could match LF film.

My digital friend also tried to get me to switch by telling me that for only about $7,000 to $10,000 per year, I could pretty much keep up on the latest technology after I had made my initial large investment.  Of course, he also admitted that I would have to constantly keep up on the latest software, etc., including finally spending the time to master Photoshop and other programs like RIP, calibration, etc.   This man is independently wealthy and he doesn't seem to realize that many people simply can't afford having to constantly buy new equipment.   And, in the end,  if I did spend all that money and time, my images would actually be lower in quality!   I simply could not produce large display prints of the same quality that I can achieve with LF film even using the best digital SLR.  Even the folks at WCI mention the fact that prints made from LF film far surpasses what that can be achieved with a digital SLR and most of them shoot on LF or medium format film for their personal work.  

I shoot professionally.  My income depends on my photography.  LF film not only allows me to produce the best images possible, but it requires almost no continuing investment in equipment on my part.  I rarely buy equipment, in fact.  This is a factor that I believe many digital-only advocates often overlook.   My 8x10 camera is probably 50 years old!  I haven't bought a lens in years.

My goal is to make the finest large prints possible.  If I was to switch to a digital SLR, not only would it cost me a bundle of money, but the quality if my product would suffer.  It's a no-brainer for me.

That said, digital would definitley be my choice if I was a photojournalist, sports photographer, wedding photographer, etc.  Each technology has it's place.  It's a mistake for someone to assume that everyone else should use the technology that they choose to use.   For my type of work, LF film is the best, hands-down.  And I can even do all the wonderful Photoshop manipulations that digital photographers boast about as being so great about digital (and it is!).   For me, I have the best of both worlds.   If you don't believe me, just put a 30x40 print made using a digital SLR next to one of my prints made using LF film.  Then tell me that I should go digital!    
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #55 on: March 14, 2008, 02:44:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Thatīs a very good way of looking at photographic life, and I have no doubts at all itīs because you are a pro. The temptation of the new is, in my view, a rather newish vogue in photography, where tools used to be just that: tools. Yes, there were always some for whom a camera equated with male jewellery, but in general, and with pros in particular, you aimed for that īblad, Nikon or Leica or even a Sinar or Linhof, and once you got there you relaxed and stopped being pushed. When Everest had been conquered, it stayed conquered.

However, as you wrote, it does depend much in which field of the business you find yourself ploughing.

Today there isnīt really all that much choice for some of us. For example, in Mallorca it seems that E6 is now done in a single lab, the leader of such labs having given up on it, the only alternative being sending to Barcelona. As a result, the almost new, just-before-they-stopped-making-them Nikon F3 that I have, along with a freezer of film, is pretty well useless to me, the only tool left being a D200. Fortunately, I am retired and so can shoot or not shoot as I please, but had I still been active in the business it would have been a nightmare and the D200 would have not been on my radar, something far more expensive being essential for the FF capability if nothing else.

But as much as I liked film, it was never a perfect solution either. I have recently been working on a Velvia 35mm shot which I scanned and turned to b/w some months ago. Having got to what seemed a very nice picture on the screen, I did the usual test run on A5 last night and realised that the dark sky had been hiding a series of very thin processing streaks... Yes, they do show up on the screen now that I know where to look for them, but even at 100% (or perhaps because of that) they are damn hard to spot. Guess the answer is to cut the sky and produce a make believe Hasselblad picture...  revealing that the printer makes such faults more obvious.

Like you, I also did a lot of darkroom printing, and there is no doubt that the two, wet and digital, are far apart. There can be much more precise local doctoring in digital, but my problem is the paper. I use Hahnemuehle Photo Rag Bright White (I mostly do b/w), but looked at as a straight, unglazed (as under glass) print, the look is not pretty. Neither was it pretty for me using wet chemistry and matt papers - I hardly ever did, all clients required WSG - but I would sometimes try, just to see how it looked, and it looked awful, so limited in tonal range. The only saving grace about the digital offering is that it improves no end once it gets its glass covering! I would love to find an archival digital glossy paper that doesnīt bronze with the B9180, but nobody really seems to have found one - there are the enthusiastic first claims, and then the truth seeps slowly out.

I hope you continue to find E6 services ...

Rob C
Logged

SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 471


WWW
« Reply #56 on: March 27, 2008, 12:06:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh I am sure out there shooting medium format film, 35mm film, as well as MFDB and Canon digital.
Logged

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

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #57 on: March 31, 2008, 06:20:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Oh I am sure out there shooting medium format film, 35mm film, as well as MFDB and Canon digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My new camera arrived last week, a 1950's Zeiss box camera, I'm on my third film with it. I'm being a bit stupid as I have not processed one yet to check it's working OK. It's such fun walking around with it. Sit at a table in a coffee shop and someone will ask you about it, pick it up and point it at them and they grin, the idea of being photographed by a 1950's relic AND an old camera is amusing. Try and get that from a plastic digi bells and whistles gadget.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 607


« Reply #58 on: March 31, 2008, 03:23:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that film still has a place, and people can make up their own minds on it.

I enjoy using both formats, and will continue to do so, not a die hard film fanboy..its a more balanced view.

Is this site anti film? Well least there is a place to talk about it, more than can be said for some other forums. Not seen any film v digital tests for a while though, maybe LL has given up on that one ;-0

I always found them hilarious anyway, because crop shots and resolution testing, is not a good way to judge overall image quality. (tones, hues, latitide, colours etc etc) all these areas are of importance to film, and in most cases superior, hence the reason all the film v digital tests are avoiding them.

It never was this V that, just using what you liked. Digital AND flm are both great, in their own unique ways...

More important still, is just going out and doing photography, we often overlook the obvious here..that is what counts the most.
Logged
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 471


WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 01, 2008, 11:00:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I just was using this photo as an example on another forum. But I think it really fits the conversation here. What specifically seems to me to be a big point on this is the reflective sunlight on the surfaces. On this film shot it looks right. But I can't help but think on digital it would just be blown out highlights...
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad