Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Going backwards...  (Read 117054 times)
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


WWW
« Reply #100 on: December 10, 2008, 10:38:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Well I can't help myself, my favorite photos still seem to come from medium format and Tri-X.

Now don't get me wrong, I do shoot a lot of digital. In the last two weeks I have done editorial and advertising shoots with my Canon 5D and also a Leaf AFi7.

The Canon is a great lightweight camera, perhaps the best value out there. The Leaf produces amazing images. I will try to get around to posting my views of the Leaf and some pics in the appropriate forum here later in the week.

But for now, this is the Mamiya 645AFDII, 80mm AF lens, Tri-X 320 pushed two stops and roll scanned at approx 10 mb.


Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
lovell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #101 on: December 12, 2008, 12:16:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dbnm
I just love hearing how archival the digital stuff is.  That is until it accidently gets wet.

I too am tired of the same old rhetoric that I get "giclee'd" with everytime I mention I shoot film.

Oh well, at least my prints will be around in 100 years.

Your prints will be around 100 years.  My digital files will be around 500 years.  I don't why anyone would seriously think of archiving a digital print.  The print is good for a fraction of the time a digital file could last.  Both wet and dry prints are not long for this world.  If you want your picture to last beyound 100 years, regardless if you made it with film or digital means, get the picture to a digital form (if not already there) and back that up many times and store in many places.  Refresh those back ups ever few years and transfer to newer better media as required.  This is very cheap and very easy, and this recipe for archival will last 500+ years.

As to film vs. digital?  I shoot B&W film all the time, averaging 5-10 rolls every week.  I prefer film for B&W and I love darkroom work.  I think B&W film is better then digital B&W film.  As to color, I prefer digital and that is why I shoot color with two fullframe 5D's.  So you see, I love both and think both have their uses and strengths beyound religion and emotion.

As to archival issues, I scan all my B&W negatives to digital files.  To archive a print is exceeding foolish IMHO.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 12:19:43 PM by lovell » Logged

After composition, everything else is secondary--Alfred Steiglitz, NYC, 1927.

I'm not afraid of death.  I just don't want to be there when it happens--Woody Allen, Annie Hall, '70s
tomhamp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #102 on: December 13, 2008, 09:11:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello to Mark,

Mark have admired your trichrome work and would like to take a try at this myself...Would you be willing to share the names of the RGB filters you use so I would know what I need to purchase?

Many thanks!

Tom
Logged
dwdmguy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #103 on: February 12, 2009, 09:00:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Very nice thread.

I don't think it's going backwards at all, I happen to think, for me, it's moving forwards when it comes to my craft and art.

After shooting some pretty niffty dSLR's and Med Format Digi backs I was finding the pictures just too clean, too sharp and too "digital" this of course works well for some (a lot) of applications but not for where I'm going.

I was also becoming very dismayed at what I was seeing in the digital community. There was a whole base of "photographers" grouping togeather and making a huge business on the Photoshop bandwagon. Yes, PS is a good thing, but it was bringing in photographers that were very good at marketing and esp. cross marketing between each other. One photographer, an outdoor and wild life photographer, had his Canon P6000 on top of his dSLR and would shoot videos at the same time as pointing and shooting 9 fps. It was clear that the scene was completely different then the Photograph in just so many ways. This person is an amazing Digital Artist but he touts himself as an amazing photographer. (yes, he'll be the first one to tell you that) When a new product was announced you can be sure they would review it and their links of course had their code in it to let the vendor know, hey, I get paid on this. Then they would and still do, tout the other guys site in their blog by saying "hey, Joe Blow did this amazing review on his blog, go check it out" There was no real photography at all being done. It's clear to me that these reviewers "never met a product they didn't like" I call this "The great Light Hype"

Anyway, I am just so glad to be back in the dark room. The results are amazing and what even more fun, is that it is forcing me to think more about my subject and camera.

There is room for everyone here, but I'm simply not liking the one's riding the digital train and not really being subjective.

t
Logged

teo.karp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #104 on: February 13, 2009, 06:38:13 AM »
ReplyReply

hello everybody,
a while ago a friend gave me this old russian made enlarger(sorry about the crappy mobile pics and the mess..couldn't be bothered to clean up)  i have no idea how i should proceed and i couldn't find any info on the net about this kind of old enlarger model; i figured out the controls by using a standard light bulb and a piece of old film i had but i don't know what kind of light bulb i should be using...the socket is the standard house light bulb. i'm guessing that the red filter is used for composing/adjusting    
i found a lot of instructions about developng film  and the only thing missing is a developing tank ..the suitcase included trays prongs etc
thinking of getting some film and paper along with the neccesary chemichals and intend on giving it a go..just for fun

the problem is that i can't seem to find a local source for thse kinds of suplies and since i' not from the us i am forced to order these things on line..i found a german shop called make direct so i need to know what i should be ordering...which at the moment i must confess i have not a clue

any hints or tips would be welcomed  especially about the type of light bulb i should be using  .. i read someone mentioning that a  150 watt light bulb should be used but wouldn't that melt the film?    
 
ps:i'm impressed by the fact that,despite this being a budget hobbbyist model (and probably a leitz copy) everything is either machined,precision cast or powder coated.it had a real solid feel to it and despite being in an attic for the past 30 years it was in top shape..after a good clean and a few drops of oil here and there it looked like new
Logged
dwdmguy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #105 on: February 13, 2009, 06:44:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Your best bet is posting on apug.org
Logged

sperera
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #106 on: March 10, 2009, 06:10:14 PM »
ReplyReply

count me as one....just bought a 2nd hand Sinar F2 with a Schneider 150mm lens and will be shooting T-max 100 with it....you gotta love the bokeh on the 5 x 4 format and those tones on B+W film....I think within 5 years we'll see a significant a film renaissance in our hands.....after all...Ken Rockwell says so too! heh heh
Logged

Stephen Perera
www.ulookfierce.com
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


WWW
« Reply #107 on: March 16, 2009, 07:59:48 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the things I like about film is the almost total lack of work required in PhotoShop. This is Kodak 160VC photographed with my Mamiya 645AFDII and roll scanned at processing at Icon in Los Angeles. It has been resized and some unsharp mask for online viewing.


Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #108 on: March 17, 2009, 02:55:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: SecondFocus
One of the things I like about film is the almost total lack of work required in PhotoShop. This is Kodak 160VC photographed with my Mamiya 645AFDII and roll scanned at processing at Icon in Los Angeles. It has been resized and some unsharp mask for online viewing.

well yeah, but if it came from digital you wouldn't have needed to have it processed, or scanned.  I find a well exposed digital shot can often require very little PP too, but generally when PP is required, digital tends to have more latitude than film - especially positive film.

Having said that, I'm also going through a bit of a personal film revival. I actually find it more fun, apart from anything else. But of course I'm not doing it for a living.
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 607


« Reply #109 on: April 02, 2009, 04:55:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Really depends on the subject and film used. But I too have found less pp required (in some cases none after the scan), than some digital files.

I would also say, skin tones are a strong point of film, very consistent..and very good even with bog standard film. This is from a roll of donated jessops ISO 200 neg film



[attachment=12668:Untitled_3_2.jpg]




Logged
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


WWW
« Reply #110 on: May 21, 2009, 06:40:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I am always so amazed when I get back film scans. No work on skin tones, not much work at all.

Mamiya 645AFDII with the 45Af 2.8 lens and Kodak Porta 800

[attachment=13888:Eric_Jess_047.jpg]
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
JustinWaldingerPhoto
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 08, 2009, 12:24:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey Everyone! Ive been a member on this forum for a bit, but never posted here before as I was once a digital back user...now those days are long gone as I have returned to film
I stumbled upon this thread forum and I admire a lot of the work that is posted here. So I have posted a
link to my latest work for all to enjoy. Everything with the exception of a few images were shot with medium format film.  Nightshots were
done in provia 100f, B+W made up mostly of tmax and ilford panf plus films.

So without further delay, please check out my site:
http://www.justinwaldinger.com
Logged
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


WWW
« Reply #112 on: July 20, 2009, 02:28:44 PM »
ReplyReply

More film, Kodak 160vc Mamiya 645AFDII and the 105-210 AF lens. I shot side by side with my Canon 5D and just really thought the film photos were standout. This is for a magazine feature, this girl used to weigh 235 pounds.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 02:30:19 PM by SecondFocus » Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad