Q2 vs. medium-format film?

[malligator]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Aryel said:

Please note: I do not argue against the Q2 at all (I never touched one) but how do you meter with your m-a currently? How did you meter the ones that were so off that they couldn’t be saved? Which film?

It's a combination of many things:

1. I bias toward underexposure from years of using a DSLR.
2. I misunderstood EV for a little over a year. 1/125@f16 is ~15EV(100). I thought using 400 ISO film and changing SS to 1/500 took me back to EV15. It doesn't. Camera EV settings are independent of ISO. Metering is not. Anyway...my metering process was underexposing by 2 stops until I realized my mistake.
3. My only meter was inaccurate in low-light. I've since bought a Reveni spot meter and Sekonic L-758 for more accuracy.
4. I think Tri-X is slower speed in my setup. I've been taking a class that has us using HP5+ and it seems to expose more consistently in my setup.
5. I wasn't reading my negatives correctly to show me my issues. I knew I was underexposing in low-light. Thin negatives are easy to see. It wasn't until recently when I started darkroom work I diagnosed that even my daylight photos show signs of underexposure and overdevelopment (adequate density with poor midtone gradient).

[hepcat]

5 hours ago, Aryel said:

« If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail »

The medium doesn’t dictate anything, I agree with you. However, a mechanical camera is vastly different in usage than a dslr. The camera has a direct influence on how you expose, frame and shoot. You pick the tool for the photo you want to make. The dslr was simply not the tool for me and my photos. 

A mechanical camera encourages you to anticipate because you have no other option with it. If you did not set the exposure by the time a scene starts to unroll you won’t get the shot. They are beautifully simple if you anticipate. They lack the options that I do not need.  I like tools that encourage me to work in that direction. I have a mechanical camera always loaded and ready to shoot, as soon as a scene unroll I just need to frame and press the shutter. A dslr is less suited to this type of work. it is designed as a do it all tool. Nothing stops you from making the above work with a dslr, but I would personally  have a hard time simplifying and be as fast and efficient as with a mechanical camera.

Finally, I much prefer the look of film and that dictates all my photography choices (beside my phone). They are different medium and have their pro and cons. 
 

This is not meant as a mantra, this is simply what works for me and my photos. We are all enjoying and exploring photography in our own way. 

I'm not disputing that film and digital have different appeal as media.  I actually prefer the rendering of vintage lenses on film myself.  What I'm saying is that the essence of making an image with a hand-held digital camera and a film camera are, in fact, identical rather than "vastly different."   They use the same settings: shutter speed, aperture, ISO and focus.  The controls are roughly in the same locations.  You can do exactly what you describe as "ancitipate" with a digital as well and not be "reactive."    Just because cameras have an amazing arrray of automated features now doesn't mean you MUST allow it to be automatic or that those features are even desireable, quite honestly.   One of the finest DSLRs built was the 5mp Olympus E1 that had only a basic control set, but a FABULOUS Kodak CCD sensor.   These cameras all have manual settings specifically for the reasons you so eloquently detailed.

Soooo... it appears that the problem the lies NOT with the equipment itself, but with your perception of the way the equipment should work.   You're ascribing "process" as being different between digital and film;  the "process" of making an image if you will.  And the "process" by which I make an image is not affected by whether the equipment records it chemically or digitally.   I brought my thirty years of film "process" to digital when I first acquired digital gear.   I don't feel a need to shoot more frames, or use automation, or fail to "anticipate" because I'm shooting digital.   In the studio I always shoot my cameras with manual settings regardless of the medium.   In the field, I find that turning OFF the automation is sometimes more frustrating than I like, but I figure it out and do it because my "process" often demands that I make those judgements myself; film or digital.   Otherwise, I might as well have a large-MP "Instamatic" or point-and-shoot.

I'd suggest that rather than ascribing "process" to the equipment, that you examine closely what YOUR "process" is, and then standardize that across any equipment you may find yourself using, and make the equipment conform to your process rather than you letting the equipment dictate how you use it or form your opinion of it.   It's truly about the image and how you come to make it, not about the gizmo you use to make it.    I would go so far as to say that the gear, so long as it's competent to do what you require of it and that it's comfortable for you to use, is irrelevant in image making.   If it conforms to your "process" then you ought to be able to use it to make the images you want to make. 

And back to the OP's question about MF film v. the Q's sensor, the REAL reason to move to medium format, EITHER film OR digital is for the difference in perspective gained with medium format lenses, and the subsequent depth in the images.  And film has even more because it in fact HAS physical depth to the film and emulsions themselves.   Granted you're talking very slight depth, but it has depth nonetheless, and I believe that makes a difference in the images.  You move to medium format for the lens optical focal lengths and how they're different.  

Edited June 3, 2022 by hepcat

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[malligator]

16 minutes ago, hepcat said:

I'm not disputing that film and digital have different appeal as media.  I actually prefer the rendering of vintage lenses on film myself.  What I'm saying is that the essence of making an image with a hand-held digital camera and a film camera are, in fact, identical rather than "vastly different."   They use the same settings: shutter speed, aperture, ISO and focus.  The controls are roughly in the same locations.  You can do exactly what you describe as "ancitipate" with a digital as well and not be "reactive."    Just because cameras have an amazing arrray of automated features now doesn't mean you MUST allow it to be automatic or that those features are even desireable, quite honestly.   One of the finest DSLRs built was the 5mp Olympus E1 that had only a basic control set, but a FABULOUS Kodak CCD sensor.   These cameras all have manual settings specifically for the reasons you so eloquently detailed.

Soooo... it appears that the problem the lies NOT with the equipment itself, but with your perception of the way the equipment should work.   You're ascribing "process" as being different between digital and film;  the "process" of making an image if you will.  And the "process" by which I make an image is not affected by whether the equipment records it chemically or digitally.   I brought my thirty years of film "process" to digital when I first acquired digital gear.   I don't feel a need to shoot more frames, or use automation, or fail to "anticipate" because I'm shooting digital.   In the studio I always shoot my cameras with manual settings regardless of the medium.   In the field, I find that turning OFF the automation is sometimes more frustrating than I like, but I figure it out and do it because my "process" often demands that I make those judgements myself; film or digital.   Otherwise, I might as well have a large-MP "Instamatic" or point-and-shoot.

I'd suggest that rather than ascribing "process" to the equipment, that you examine closely what YOUR "process" is, and then standardize that across any equipment you may find yourself using, and make the equipment conform to your process rather than you letting the equipment dictate how you use it or form your opinion of it.   It's truly about the image and how you come to make it, not about the gizmo you use to make it.    I would go so far as to say that the gear, so long as it's competent to do what you require of it and that it's comfortable for you to use, is irrelevant in image making.   If it conforms to your "process" then you ought to be able to use it to make the images you want to make. 

If the process is the same no matter which camera I'm using why do I have to change the process based on which camera I'm using?

[hepcat]

2 hours ago, malligator said:

If the process is the same no matter which camera I'm using why do I have to change the process based on which camera I'm using?

What makes you think you do?  Up to pressing the shutter button, you don't.   Post-processing is, of course, different.   Tell me what you believe is different?

[malligator]

44 minutes ago, hepcat said:

What makes you think you do?  Up to pressing the shutter button, you don't.   Post-processing is, of course, different.   Tell me what you believe is different?

I have a Q2 and my M-A slung around my neck. You're telling me the process to get from grabbing each camera and making an equivalent exposure is the same? Tell me you don't actually believe that.

[hepcat]

37 minutes ago, malligator said:

I have a Q2 and my M-A slung around my neck. You're telling me the process to get from grabbing each camera and making an equivalent exposure is the same? Tell me you don't actually believe that.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that semantics is beginning to rear its head in our discussion.   I'm sitting here looking at my Leicaflex SL, my Phase One XF/Leaf Credo, and my Lumix DC-S1.   I manually set the exposure on each, according to the meter and the DOF I want, and whether I want blurring in moving objects.  The controls are different on each camera, of course.  Some are dials, some are dials and menus, and the XF is entirely menus and buttons, except for the manual P-6 lens I currently have on it.  Of course the procedure for manipulating the camera controls will be different; but in that regard, the Q2 is very different from my XF and they're both digitals.   The Nikon Df I had for four or five years, I chose specfically BECAUSE the control set largely mimicked film bodies' controls, which I also appreciate.  I wish the S1 had a similar control set.   

I'm not talking about manipulating the camera though... I'm talking about seeing, taking time to frame, find perspective, determine the DOF you're looking for, determine the shutter speed you want for the effect you're after, and then releasing the shutter after that process has been achieved.  The actual process of making the image, not manipulating dials or menus.   And yes, if you're doing street work with your MA, you can do the same work with my Phase One XF in the same way... pre-sets and let DOF carry you.  My XF is cumbersome for that, but not necessarily moreso than my Rolleiflex 3.5 MX-EVS or my Arax CMs.   I would argue that my R6.2 body is just as adept at pre-set street work as your M-A.   Of all my cameras, the Panny S1 is probably the most complex in terms of a control set, yet once you tumble to the manual controls, it's just as easy to use manually as my Leicaflex SL.  But, again...  I'm talking about the process of actually making the image and why there seems to be this recurring theme that a digital image requires some process to make that film doesn't or vice-versa.

Now, if we're merely talking about manipulating the equipment being the fly in the ointment that's an entirely different issue.  I shot M Leicas for over forty years, until I couldn't see the rangefinder patch well enough to critically focus any more.  I concur that the M series is one of the easiest film cameras to shoot,  but any other camera can be set up to be used the same way you'd use your M-A and can capture the same kinds of images...  as could my Nikon Df, or my Panny S1, or Rolleiflex, or even the Phase One XF.

So I guess my question remains:  how does merely the choice of medium (film/digital sensor) change your process of seeing, framing, and choices about how you want that image to look as the OP was indicating occurs for him and you're suggesting it does for you?  What am I missing here?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rated is as one star. Typical apple to oranges. 

[frame-it]

1 hour ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Rated is as one star. Typical apple to oranges. 

you actually spent the time and bandwidth to rate it? i prefer the ignore button

[Aryel]

3 hours ago, hepcat said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that semantics is beginning to rear its head in our discussion.   I'm sitting here looking at my Leicaflex SL, my Phase One XF/Leaf Credo, and my Lumix DC-S1.   I manually set the exposure on each, according to the meter and the DOF I want, and whether I want blurring in moving objects.  The controls are different on each camera, of course.  Some are dials, some are dials and menus, and the XF is entirely menus and buttons, except for the manual P-6 lens I currently have on it.  Of course the procedure for manipulating the camera controls will be different; but in that regard, the Q2 is very different from my XF and they're both digitals.   The Nikon Df I had for four or five years, I chose specfically BECAUSE the control set largely mimicked film bodies' controls, which I also appreciate.  I wish the S1 had a similar control set.   

I'm not talking about manipulating the camera though... I'm talking about seeing, taking time to frame, find perspective, determine the DOF you're looking for, determine the shutter speed you want for the effect you're after, and then releasing the shutter after that process has been achieved.  The actual process of making the image, not manipulating dials or menus.   And yes, if you're doing street work with your MA, you can do the same work with my Phase One XF in the same way... pre-sets and let DOF carry you.  My XF is cumbersome for that, but not necessarily moreso than my Rolleiflex 3.5 MX-EVS or my Arax CMs.   I would argue that my R6.2 body is just as adept at pre-set street work as your M-A.   Of all my cameras, the Panny S1 is probably the most complex in terms of a control set, yet once you tumble to the manual controls, it's just as easy to use manually as my Leicaflex SL.  But, again...  I'm talking about the process of actually making the image and why there seems to be this recurring theme that a digital image requires some process to make that film doesn't or vice-versa.

Now, if we're merely talking about manipulating the equipment being the fly in the ointment that's an entirely different issue.  I shot M Leicas for over forty years, until I couldn't see the rangefinder patch well enough to critically focus any more.  I concur that the M series is one of the easiest film cameras to shoot,  but any other camera can be set up to be used the same way you'd use your M-A and can capture the same kinds of images...  as could my Nikon Df, or my Panny S1, or Rolleiflex, or even the Phase One XF.

So I guess my question remains:  how does merely the choice of medium (film/digital sensor) change your process of seeing, framing, and choices about how you want that image to look as the OP was indicating occurs for him and you're suggesting it does for you?  What am I missing here?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Let me try to rephrase: for the subjects and the way I shoot, the best tool is a mechanical camera. It has all the features I need and nothing else. This makes it simpler to use and more efficient. I don’t use autofocus, internal light meter, auto-exposure, etc  so why would I pick a camera with all these and turn it off? This works for me, we all have to find our own. I use camera that works with me if you prefer.

This is true for me, it is not a mantra. Frankly speaking, it doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree. One of my camera is on my desk ready to shoot the next smile. 

We all have to find and explore our ways. 
 

[hepcat]

3 minutes ago, Aryel said:

Let me try to rephrase: for the subjects and the way I shoot, the best tool is a mechanical camera. It has all the features I need and nothing else. This makes it simpler to use and more efficient. I don’t use autofocus, internal light meter, auto-exposure, etc  so why would I pick a camera with all these and turn it off? This works for me, we all have to find our own. I use camera that works with me if you prefer.

This is true for me, it is not a mantra. Frankly speaking, it doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree. One of my camera is on my desk ready to shoot the next smile. 

We all have to find and explore our ways. 
 

So indeed, your concerns are not the medium itself, but the controls of the box in which it is contained.   In other words, you like a fully manual camera and that's the crux of the contention, not actually digital vs. film?  Is that a correct assessment?

 

[Aryel]

22 minutes ago, hepcat said:

So indeed, your concerns are not the medium itself, but the controls of the box in which it is contained.   In other words, you like a fully manual camera and that's the crux of the contention, not actually digital vs. film?  Is that a correct assessment?

 

Yes, this is spot on 😊. 

[Chris W]

I'm not passionate either way, but I have experienced differences.

I started shooting film in the 80's (Leica M6). I have been digital only the last 20 years. I remember medium format being super clear and sharp, but I couldn't afford to get into.

I briefly owned a Mamiya 7 in the early 2000's but everyone was switching to digital and I didn't make enough effort to learn the 7.

Recently I looked at some of my old Mamiya 7 negatives and thought the clarity and colour was wonderful. So I bought a Bronica Q - I wanted to go with 6x6.

After years of looking at digital, I am shocked that film is less sharp and the grain is so prevalent. From starting with the most popular film stocks I'm gradually moving towards faster films, but then light (especially in the UK) is becoming an issue.

Film bakes in character. I enjoy choosing a film for a certain task (and look), rather than having the blank canvas of digital, which can be B&W or colour and can have film-like presets overlayed.

I shoot film differently to digital. I take great care over every shot of a roll of 12 exposures. In digital I might take 12 shots of one subject in a matter of seconds.

I like both formats. I enjoy the mystery of film (until you get it developed), the relative slowness and the baked in character.

[JoshuaRothman]

2 hours ago, Chris W said:

Film bakes in character. I enjoy choosing a film for a certain task (and look), rather than having the blank canvas of digital, which can be B&W or colour and can have film-like presets overlayed.

I agree, and I think this is relevant to this interesting discussion of film vs. digital. The process of making a photograph includes post-processing. For me, in a digital workflow, that means making decisions in Lightroom about how to manipulate a RAW file. But with the film process, a lot of those decisions are either made ahead of time, through the choice of film stock, or afterward, during the development process (I develop at home but don’t have a darkroom for printing—if I printed, that would also be part of the film process). There’s a sense in which the film process substitutes for time at the computer. It replaces some “controls,” but they’re sliders in Lightroom, not dials on the camera. I don’t think this is better, in some objective sense, but i do find it more enjoyable, personally.

2 hours ago, Chris W said:

Recently I looked at some of my old Mamiya 7 negatives and thought the clarity and colour was wonderful. So I bought a Bronica Q - I wanted to go with 6x6.

After years of looking at digital, I am shocked that film is less sharp and the grain is so prevalent.

This is also part of my own thinking. When I first started using the Q2, I fell in love with the extreme clarity of the pictures. There’s a kind of hyper-real detail to the images which is its own aesthetic. On 35mm film, it’s the opposite: the aesthetic is softer, more graphic and painterly. If the Q2’s detail is “unreal” in some ways—certainly a Q2 image is full of more detail than the my perception of the visual world tends to be—then film, with its colors, tonalities, and grain, is “unreal” in different ways. I’m finding that, despite my initial enthusiasm for the Q2’s look, I like this second aesthetic more. But there are certain times when I do want more detail, especially in landscapes, but even in portraits. And I have an idea that medium-format film will let me split the difference, giving me the film character along with detail. (I know that there are other differences having to do with depth of field and the size of the image plane, but I’m less sensitive to those.)

Thanks again for these replies—they’re all very helpful to me (and interesting in themselves). On a practical level, I think my next step may be to buy a Texas Leica or Fuji medium-format rangefinder and see where they take me before selling my Q2.

Edited June 4, 2022 by JoshuaRothman

[Chris W]

The main difficulty with film for me is the scanning. There aren't many great options.

Currently I'm using a local film lab (Imacon) only for the odd keeper film shot. I have a Minolta Dimage, which is fine, but eliminating dust spots (pre and post scanning) is tiresome.

I've tried DSLR scanning but found the set up too finicky/critical.

I'm not interested in scanning 30+ shots on a 35mm roll, so that's why I chose 6x6 medium format.

[hepcat]

5 hours ago, Chris W said:

Recently I looked at some of my old Mamiya 7 negatives and thought the clarity and colour was wonderful. So I bought a Bronica Q - I wanted to go with 6x6.

After years of looking at digital, I am shocked that film is less sharp and the grain is so prevalent. From starting with the most popular film stocks I'm gradually moving towards faster films, but then light (especially in the UK) is becoming an issue.

Film bakes in character. I enjoy choosing a film for a certain task (and look), rather than having the blank canvas of digital, which can be B&W or colour and can have film-like presets overlayed.

One of the interesting asides to this discussion, but salient, is the very difference you describe in the two mediums and how we percieve imagery.   Your observation is exactly why I don't get rid of my 1080p TV for 4k.   I don't want razor-sharp clinical imagery in casual entertainment.  It detracts from the aesthetic rather than adding to it. 

We see very clearly with our eyesight.  We look to art and photography to bring clarity and focus to what we see, but that doesn't necessarily mean realism.  Clinical clarity and sharpness (hyper-reality if you will) merely replicates our vision.  Large, busy complex constructs in an image are too busy,  confusing, and tend to be what we see unaided.  Our minds tend to seek organization from chaos, and simple constructs in the frame with the reduction of that hyper-sharpness, and subsequent softening of details gives more simplicity and tends to focus our eye and thinking as we look at photographs.   This is probably best illustrated by Fan Ho and his amazingly framed photos done mostly with an early Rolleiflex.  He knew how to use the medium to its fullest while keeping his compositions simple and strong.   I don't think they'd have the same power had he shot them with the searing clinical accuracy current digital sensors bring to the table. 

Edited June 4, 2022 by hepcat

[Mr.Prime]

10 hours ago, hepcat said:

So indeed, your concerns are not the medium itself, but the controls of the box in which it is contained.   In other words, you like a fully manual camera and that's the crux of the contention, not actually digital vs. film?  Is that a correct assessment?

 

I can relate to this too. A big part of my dissatisfaction with digital cameras is nobody makes one that’s as nice to use, in my hands, as my film cameras. I even wondered if things started slipping away when AF came out, even for film. High quality manual lenses are a joy to use and putting one onto a digital body like the M10 which has a manual type of interface must be really nice although I’ve never had a digital M in my hands. 

[bags27]

We all have our own film-(re)conversion experiences. Look at the length of these replies!

So, very briefly, when I returned to film 3 years ago (turning my back on my Q, M10, and CL), I thought I was doing it for the aesthetics and the pacing.

What I've found is that now, with a darkroom (but not yet wet printing), the entire process, including mixing my own developer and my obsession with digital scanning, is intellectually challenging and enthralling. 

From top to bottom it is just way, way, way more fun (and expensive!) than digital. The most important thing is to laugh at one's own stupidity: when I put the blix in before the developer or opened my HB 500 and the exposed film rolled across the floor. It's all part of the glorious, crazy, ill-advised but transcendently interesting world of film.

Film photography is not an outcome but a state of mind. Embrace it.

 

[Ouroboros]

On 6/3/2022 at 7:38 PM, hepcat said:

 

And back to the OP's question about MF film v. the Q's sensor, the REAL reason to move to medium format, EITHER film OR digital is for the difference in perspective gained with medium format lenses, and the subsequent depth in the images.  And film has even more because it in fact HAS physical depth to the film and emulsions themselves.   Granted you're talking very slight depth, but it has depth nonetheless, and I believe that makes a difference in the images.  You move to medium format for the lens optical focal lengths and how they're different.  

And here's me believing for all these years that medium format film spools might eventually become collector's items.

Damn.....