film, and the daily grind.

[johnalex141r]

Ok - yes, another "film" thread, but one with a difference.

I have been given about 70 rolls of 120, B&W, long expired, but stored in a freezer.

I'm re-discovering the joys of loading film, taking pictures with old, clunky cameras.

Observations:
1) the M8 is a DELIGHT to use in comparison;

2) film is tactile;

3) I spend all day at a computer screen; photography is a hobby, so:

Conclusion:

I'm having a ball using my old Fujica cameras; showing them to the nephew, letting my wife take pics with them. My Nephew had a blast with the rangefinder, and setting the aperture, and all that "way cool old stuff". He had his latest P&S camera with him...

It's kind of like driving an old car or (in my case) old steam locomotives - backwards, inefficient, prone to breakage, hate to do it every day, but, fun.

Make any sense???

JohnS.

[mub]

makes a lot of sense in my opinion.

I'm a computerworker and i also feel, although the digital way can give great results,
that working with film is exactly what i need to feel happy.

cheers
Bernhard

[SJP]

In enjoy using film as well on occasion - if only for nostalgic reasons + it is a crime to leave an M2 dormant for too long (or a FM2 for that matter). But what does this have to do with the M8 forum?

[Gareth2]

Originally Posted by SJP

But what does this have to do with the M8 forum?

Perhaps I can help educate.

It's been a while since I have shot film but the M8 was my first experience with a rangefinder camera. I would suggest that an M8 user can appreciate film as it gets the photographer closer to the act of taking the photograph rather than the result.

Take a look at some of the gear forums (DPR comes immediately to mind) and there seems to be little in the Canon forums that I can see about the process of photography, the focus seems strongly on the latest gadget or how many pixels my camera has.

As I joke about my M8, the auto focus seems to be broken and I really have to read the manual to find out how to take a movie.

[noah_addis]

Film is great. So is digital. I always used to wonder why amateurs who aren't on deadline would shoot digital instead of film. I've always loved film, the texture and tonality from tri-x can't be matched, I don't care what software you use.

I've had to shoot digital, first solely on deadline jobs and now for all assignments, since I started in this business in 1997.

Digital used to be a chore and like I said, I wondered why anyone would use it if they didn't need the speed or ability to transmit on deadline.

But as digital cameras have gotten better, I can understand why amateurs and pros who aren't on deadline would shoot digital. The instant feedback is wonderful, and the time savings can allow you to spend more time shooting and less time in the darkroom or, worse yet, scanning film.

The M8 is perfect for me, since I can shoot film for personal projects and digital for work, all with the same technique and lenses. There are things I love about both film and digital, and it's great to have the choice.

[jplomley]

The M8 is ideal for high throughput street work and reportage in general; cost in film savings alone can justify the purchase. The ability to vary ISO on the fly is indispensible and hard to live without once one becomes accustomed to shooting with this feature. Processing your own digital negatives furnishes yet another level of control difficult to achieve in any other medium.

Quality wise, digital has pretty much replaced film in the 35mm format (except B&W), and, arguably in MF as well once one moves to the likes of Phase One and Aptus 22 MP+ digital backs. But these are ridiculously expensive and IMHO one is much better off with the likes of the Mamiya 7 for the documentary genre.

Digital has yet to replace the quality achieveable using sheet film combined with a pro level flatbed scan (Cezanne Elite, Creo IQ3) or drum scan (Tango, etc). Shooting with a view camera is technically challenging, a challenge many find extremely rewarding. Once one becomes accustomed to controlling perspective and plane of focus with the multiptude of tilt/shift features on both the front and rear standards, it is very difficult to go back to any fixed back camera for architecture and landscape genres. Tilt/Shift lenses for DSLRs are a joke. Perspective is controlled by movement of the film plane, which is fixed on a DSLR. All you can control with these lenses is plane of focus. Lots of luck. Those little viewing screens are just not precise enough to determine near point/far point co-ordinates when establishing tilt angle. LF is very tactile if you use film holders (as opposed to Quickloads/Readyloads) since these must be manually loaded and unloaded in a light tight environment. Oh, and did I mention quality The new Velvia 50 is just incredible! Working with high resolution scans producing 16,000 x 20,000 pixels is such delight. Hopefully, the features of the view camera will be films everlasting stronghold.

[Riccis]

Originally Posted by noah_addis

...and the time savings can allow you to spend more time shooting and less time in the darkroom or, worse yet, scanning film.

I am going to respectfully disagree with you here since, at least in my case, it is the complete opposite.

With digital you shoot and then have to post-process all your images (this is what I hate the most about digital since it takes a lot of my time). With film you shoot and hand the film to your lab to develop and scan (I send all my film to my lab in L.A. and they can develop, scan and print proofs in about 3 days). Whenever I am commissioned by a client to shoot on film, I am the happiest since the workflow is so much better. Digital is always the way to go when I shoot something that will be printed in a magazine a few days after a wedding (such as a high profile or celebrity client).

Cheers,

[Perspectics]

Well, I would respectfully like to mention that your lab would certainly accept SD cards and develop and print for you :-)

[charlesphoto99]

Originally Posted by Riccis

I am going to respectfully disagree with you here since, at least in my case, it is the complete opposite.

With digital you shoot and then have to post-process all your images (this is what I hate the most about digital since it takes a lot of my time). With film you shoot and hand the film to your lab to develop and scan (I send all my film to my lab in L.A. and they can develop, scan and print proofs in about 3 days). Whenever I am commissioned by a client to shoot on film, I am the happiest since the workflow is so much better. Digital is always the way to go when I shoot something that will be printed in a magazine a few days after a wedding (such as a high profile or celebrity client).

Cheers,

That's why my wife still shoots film with her p&s Leica I got her a few years back. She can drop the film off and get back a stack of 4x6 prints that look amazing and be putting them in her scrapbook that day. And her pics always look so much better than her friends crappy digital p&s's.

I too love it when a client has the budget for film. It's a much easier and more malleable and forgiving medium imo. And somebody else gets to do most of the heavy lifting. The M8 is great for personal projects though, or travel. I always used to dread that huge lab fee upon return from a big trip. Of course the images were always worth it, esp if shooting medium format. But the M8 is a good alternative, and about the closest one can get to film at this point (with the D3 close behind).

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by Riccis

I am going to respectfully disagree with you here since, at least in my case, it is the complete opposite.

With digital you shoot and then have to post-process all your images (this is what I hate the most about digital since it takes a lot of my time). With film you shoot and hand the film to your lab to develop and scan (I send all my film to my lab in L.A. and they can develop, scan and print proofs in about 3 days). Whenever I am commissioned by a client to shoot on film, I am the happiest since the workflow is so much better. Digital is always the way to go when I shoot something that will be printed in a magazine a few days after a wedding (such as a high profile or celebrity client).

Cheers,

Probably the difference between a pro and a "gentleman-photographer" To me the darkoom was part of the joy of photography - both B&W and colour. I had to give it up- and one of the great things of digital is that it has given me back control over post-processing. But as a pro in a different walk of life - I would be absolutely disinclined to do the work I send to the lab there....

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by Riccis

I am going to respectfully disagree with you here since, at least in my case, it is the complete opposite.

With digital you shoot and then have to post-process all your images (this is what I hate the most about digital since it takes a lot of my time). With film you shoot and hand the film to your lab to develop and scan (I send all my film to my lab in L.A. and they can develop, scan and print proofs in about 3 days). Whenever I am commissioned by a client to shoot on film, I am the happiest since the workflow is so much better. Digital is always the way to go when I shoot something that will be printed in a magazine a few days after a wedding (such as a high profile or celebrity client).

Cheers,

Well, that's the natural difference that always exsists between an economic work and a hobby work ... classic motorcycles lovers like to spend a lot of time having care of their bikes... often an absurdity in economic terms... so is for my wife with some of her beloved flowers...

[KM-25]

The instant feedback of digital is a plus only in a few situations for me. For I can shoot a photo and know how it will look without seeing it, that is part of the intuition or internal reference you get after shooting for decades.

But if I am doing documentary work, it sucks, plain and simple. For one, it is a distraction, not needed and can break the flow of things if subjects ask to see the photo all the time. I find it reasonably useful on commercial gigs, but a pain in the arse for P/J work.

It seems as though many loath the process of analog photography on here...I find that interesting. It's as if many would not be the photographer they are today without digital...that's too bad, because a lot of amateur work only gets so good, then it stops progressing.

And the ISO setting thing? I have found lately that I am getting a lot more interesting stuff in being "Stuck" with one speed of film versus being able to shift it all over the place.

For instance, David Alan Harvey and Bill Allard were talking to a young woman at a late night party on a balcony. I was shooting Tri-X at 400. To get the proper hand holdable speed that the digital fan club would cry hooray over, I would have to had been at ISO 6,400. But I was not, so I got creative.....imagine that...creative with one film speed.

I hand held it for one full second and got a wonderfully painterly image. Just like Earnest Haas got when he was "limited" by one speed.

To me, there are several things I see lacking in most digital images today. One is creativity based on getting to know a medium with a near sub conscious clarity. Another is commitment to superb technique, it is easier to delete what looks to be a mistake on the back of the camera rather than learn what went right with it. And the last is commitment to the subject in a way that you keep seeing rather than chimping along.

And for the life of me, I do not understand why people seem SO incessant on referring to film as "Old" or a "Dinosaur" Umm...folks, it was not that long ago that digital just plain sucked. Less than 10 years ago, film was the only choice for maximum measured image quality.

I do not see better photography from the masses because of digital, just more of the same in far larger amounts.

Digital has also made some people act really dumb.

[Printmaker]

Originally Posted by jplomley

Digital has yet to replace the quality achieveable using sheet film combined with a pro level flatbed scan (Cezanne Elite, Creo IQ3) or drum scan (Tango, etc). Shooting with a view camera is technically challenging, a challenge many find extremely rewarding. Once one becomes accustomed to controlling perspective and plane of focus with the multiptude of tilt/shift features on both the front and rear standards, it is very difficult to go back to any fixed back camera for architecture and landscape genres. Tilt/Shift lenses for DSLRs are a joke. Perspective is controlled by movement of the film plane, which is fixed on a DSLR. All you can control with these lenses is plane of focus. Lots of luck. Those little viewing screens are just not precise enough to determine near point/far point co-ordinates when establishing tilt angle. LF is very tactile if you use film holders (as opposed to Quickloads/Readyloads) since these must be manually loaded and unloaded in a light tight environment. Oh, and did I mention quality The new Velvia 50 is just incredible! Working with high resolution scans producing 16,000 x 20,000 pixels is such delight. Hopefully, the features of the view camera will be films everlasting stronghold.

Sorry, I have to disagree. I've been shooting scanbacks for years. The 309 mb shots from my BetterLight far surpass 4x5 sheet film. The detail and dynamic range is much better than film. I make prints 40x30 and larger from these scans all of the time.
The downside is that these beasts belong in the studio. Not only is it a lot of gear to take into the field, but any subject movement ruins the shot. Passing clouds create scan lines and the slightest breeze brings about ghost images. Shooting interiors, however, is absolutely delightful. Add a couple of daylight balanced caselights and the resulting 11 stop range is really impressive. I use both BetterLight and PhaseOne for product shots, sculpture and art repro. Simply the best tools for the job.

Tom

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by Printmaker

Sorry, I have to disagree. I've been shooting scanbacks for years. The 309 mb shots from my BetterLight far surpass 4x5 sheet film. The detail and dynamic range is much better than film. I make prints 40x30 and larger from these scans all of the time.
The downside is that these beasts belong in the studio. Not only is it a lot of gear to take into the field, but any subject movement ruins the shot. Passing clouds create scan lines and the slightest breeze brings about ghost images. Shooting interiors, however, is absolutely delightful. Add a couple of daylight balanced caselights and the resulting 11 stop range is really impressive. I use both BetterLight and PhaseOne for product shots, sculpture and art repro. Simply the best tools for the job.

Tom

Yup... strictly studio-pro use, no doubt... but fascinating tools... how do you manage those beastly files ? I suppose a trivial Mac/PS cannot dig them...

[Printmaker]

Originally Posted by luigi bertolotti

Yup... strictly studio-pro use, no doubt... but fascinating tools... how do you manage those beastly files ? I suppose a trivial Mac/PS cannot dig them...

Three Macs with lots of RAM and 6TB of hard drives plus 22 waterproof cases of DVDs and CDs. One Mac runs the cameras, another edits and the third drives the printers. Its kinda like juggling, once all of the balls are in the air, its easy. I even sometimes have time to see what's going on in this forum.

Tom

[gesper]

I love my M8, but have recently gotten back into film. It started with a 60 year old Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex TLR I picked up at a rummage sale for $25. Beat all to hell but the lens is perfect and it takes incredible pictures. I fell in love with the large negatives, and after seeing William Eggleston using a Mamiya Press 6x9 in a film, I bought one on eBay. While playing with film again is fun on its own, I think it has helped my shooting with digital as well by making me slow down, pay attention, and think about whatever it is I am trying to accomplish. For those of us who do this for fun, there is clearly room for both film and digital.

[jplomley]

Tom, with all due respect (which I have for anyone who shoots 4x5 and above) my worst scans (Imacon 949) at 2040 ppi generate a 485 MB 16-bit file which I have to down-rez to output at 20 x 24 @ 360 ppi (my standard print size from 4x5). When Dmax is critical, I jump to the pro flatbeds or Tango drum scanner. At a scan resolution of 2040 you are not even close to scanning into the grain of Velvia 50. Even at 4000 ppi (1 GB files size at 16-bit) you would be very hard pressed to see the grain from RVP 50 scans when output on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl at a final print size of 40 x 50. As to dynamic range, if I cannot hold detail in shadows and highlights using GND filters, I will make two exposures and blend in PS. No big deal really.

Now lets talk about detail. What film were you using to compare the Betterlight back to? Were your scans CCD (flatbed) or PMT (drum scanner). That makes a huge difference. Were you using Readyloads/Quickloads, Schneider vacuum backs, or Toyo/Fidelity film holders. Each mechanism has different tolerances for film flatness. Were you using the latest generation of LF lenses (Rodenstock APO Sironar-S and Schneider XL Aspherical)? Again, can have an enormous impact on detail. Were you using focus spreads requiring diffraction limited f/stops (i.e. greater than f/32). I'm really curious, because the comparisons that I have seen between the Betterlight back and high quality drum scans of the finest grain film (including Ilford Delta-100 reverse processed to a chrome) do not mirror your observations.

[noah_addis]

Riccis--I should have been more specific. For me, when I shoot film, it's more time in post than digital is. When I shoot film it's tri-x and I always hand process it myself since I want control over the process and want to use certain developers that the labs around here don't use, or do at a great cost. I then scan film for proofs or printed repro or make wet prints. So that all clearly takes time.

With digital, because of the kind of work I do, I don't do a lot of color manipulations or other post processing. I find the M8 files convert to black and white easily and require little more than some curves adjustments to get the look I'm after. So for me digital is faster. Your work, which is incredible by the way, obviously is of a different nature and I'm not surprised you spend so much time in post to get your unique look.

But, as others have mentioned, there is something special about the hand-crafted nature of shooting film and making darkroom prints. I'll continue to shoot film whenever possible for as long as someone makes it.

KM-25--I agree with your points about the limitations of working with one film stock and how that can force you to be creative and work within the characteristics of your film. I also agree that with digital, it has been easier to make images without first mastering the craft of photography. But lots of people who HAVE mastered the craft of shooting with film now shoot digital, maybe because of market demands and not purely because they want to. But they do and their work is still good.

No one says if you have digital that can go to iso 2500 that you have to use it. I don't and have never shot my M8 above 640, and then only rarely, usually sticking to slower speeds and opting for a blurred fluid look when the light gets low. It's the way I shoot with tri-x and the way I shoot with digital.

I disagree that digital sucks for documentary work, though it might for some, and I respect that. I've never had anyone ask to look at my lcd, mostly because I don't look at it while shooting and I build a relationship and trust with my subjects. I'd gaffer tape over the lcd if I didn't need it for menus. The feedback is nice when youre traveling though. It's reassuring to be able to check that your gear is working and not have to worry about airport x-rays, for example.

My point is that digital and film are different, and no one can say one is better than the other. I personally prefer film. But in today's media landscape I shoot more digital, and with the M8 and to a lesser extent the 5d, I finally feel like I'm shooting digital in the same way I shoot film.

[Kent10D]

Originally Posted by jplomley

Now lets talk about detail. What film were you using to compare the Betterlight back to? Were your scans CCD (flatbed) or PMT (drum scanner). That makes a huge difference. Were you using Readyloads/Quickloads, Schneider vacuum backs, or Toyo/Fidelity film holders. Each mechanism has different tolerances for film flatness. Were you using the latest generation of LF lenses (Rodenstock APO Sironar-S and Schneider XL Aspherical)? Again, can have an enormous impact on detail. Were you using focus spreads requiring diffraction limited f/stops (i.e. greater than f/32). I'm really curious, because the comparisons that I have seen between the Betterlight back and high quality drum scans of the finest grain film (including Ilford Delta-100 reverse processed to a chrome) do not mirror your observations.

Oh boy!
An argument about scanning backs vs. scanned 4x5 film on the M8 forum!

I really don't mind (in fact I'm quite interested because I shoot 4x5 myself), but I'm putting on my flame-proof flak jacket right now.

[Printmaker]

Originally Posted by jplomley

Tom, with all due respect (which I have for anyone who shoots 4x5 and above) my worst scans (Imacon 949) at 2040 ppi generate a 485 MB 16-bit file which I have to down-rez to output at 20 x 24 @ 360 ppi (my standard print size from 4x5). When Dmax is critical, I jump to the pro flatbeds or Tango drum scanner. At a scan resolution of 2040 you are not even close to scanning into the grain of Velvia 50. Even at 4000 ppi (1 GB files size at 16-bit) you would be very hard pressed to see the grain from RVP 50 scans when output on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl at a final print size of 40 x 50. As to dynamic range, if I cannot hold detail in shadows and highlights using GND filters, I will make two exposures and blend in PS. No big deal really.

Now lets talk about detail. What film were you using to compare the Betterlight back to? Were your scans CCD (flatbed) or PMT (drum scanner). That makes a huge difference. Were you using Readyloads/Quickloads, Schneider vacuum backs, or Toyo/Fidelity film holders. Each mechanism has different tolerances for film flatness. Were you using the latest generation of LF lenses (Rodenstock APO Sironar-S and Schneider XL Aspherical)? Again, can have an enormous impact on detail. Were you using focus spreads requiring diffraction limited f/stops (i.e. greater than f/32). I'm really curious, because the comparisons that I have seen between the Betterlight back and high quality drum scans of the finest grain film (including Ilford Delta-100 reverse processed to a chrome) do not mirror your observations.

Whew that's a lot of what do you use... with film I mostly use a Linhof Technika with a 210 Schnider Repro Claron or a 135 Nikkor plus a 75 Grandagon and a 90 Super Angulon. My main workhorse is a Toyo monorail with a 150 Sironar S. My holders are a mix but mostly Fidelities. I currently use an Epson 10000 scanner but have owned several Hell (300) and Crosfield (645 & 635) drum scanners. I use the 10000 mostly to scan small watercolors. When I shoot film I cross polarize using 1600 WS strobe banks at F16 or multi pops at F22. When I scan, I also cross polarize using NorthLight 900 HID banks at F16 for 20 minutes.

What I base my comparison on is 40 years of shooting and color separating 4x5 chromes of paintings. Film looked good 15 or 20 years ago but BetterLight and PhaseOne both passed it by. Scanbacks capture all of the detail in both the shadows and highlights - something film just can not do. Scanbacks also do a much better job with color fidelity. There is no E6 processing drift. No CC filters. No oil mounts. No scratched films or drums to polish. No customer's fingerprints. No suicidal chromes flying off the drum.

Shoot a Q-13 using Velvia or Provia and you can see the DR you get with film. Cross polarized, even overexposing and pull processing, you're lucky to get any detail in the B patch without blowing out the A patch. With a scanback I can go 230 in the A and 30 in the B (in other words all of the detail with 2 full stops to spare). Also, once you get past a certain point, scanning at higher resolutions does little but add to the file size. Sure you can create gig plus scans but you'll probably have to throw a lot of that info away when you go to print. Using 16 bit helps smooth editing but most printers take 8 bit files. Once you get past a 200 mb 16 bit scan from a 35 chrome, you'll not gain anything going any higher.

A good drum scan of 4x5 film might be marginally sharper than a scannback capture but in my business color fidelity and dynamic range are much more important. In the end, the print rules. If the print is perfect, the customer does not care how you got there.

But, I will admit that there are few things more beautiful than a landscape shot on a 4x5. However remember, we're talking about film, and the daily grind.

To keep within the bounds of this forum, I use my M8 for the pure joy of photography. The rest is just work stuff - my daily grind.

Tom