film photography
Apr 21, 2015 10:29:43 #
After years of digital photography, I'm acknowledging the urge to return to medium-format film work again, specifically thinking about picking up a Bronica. The cost of film and processing is a fact, however. Yet, the image should be equivalent to 50 mp...a great sharp image. Has anyone had any experience returning to the "film roots" of photography?
Apr 21, 2015 10:38:48 #
As a matter of fact...NO...tried it a year or so ago...would not be happy without my own darkroom...the price of film...developer, enlarger, paper, space and the many other considerations make the nostalgia fade quickly.
Apr 21, 2015 11:04:25 #
oldeman wrote:
After years of digital photography, I'm acknowledging the urge to return to medium-format film work again, specifically thinking about picking up a Bronica. The cost of film and processing is a fact, however. Yet, the image should be equivalent to 50 mp...a great sharp image. Has anyone had any experience returning to the "film roots" of photography?
Today's give away prices of all film cameras is very enticing !.....Lets do some math :-)
The cost of a Pentax 645N (body- and is what I recommend ! ) today is a about $350 most places. Most manual lenses average around $175 - most AF lenses around $350. So, the body with decent AF lens is about $7-800.
Now lets look at a good full frame digital like 5D MK III ( or Nikon D800) - about $3500 used, with some sort of lens. The difference, is $2.7 K .
I figure, for $2.7K, I can buy a LOT of film and processing/scanning ! I would not shoot everything on film - only the most important/appropriate stuff like landscape where, it mostly excels.
Apr 21, 2015 11:04:30 #
ggttc wrote:
As a matter of fact...NO...tried it a year or so ago...would not be happy without my own darkroom...the price of film...developer, enlarger, paper, space and the many other considerations make the nostalgia fade quickly.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Apr 21, 2015 11:14:03 #
RobertW
Loc: Breezy Point, New York
I have been very enticed by what I could buy a Hasselblad 300C with a Zeiss 80mm lens for (a camera that I used for years in the Middle East). Whole package with body, 80mm planar Zeiss, viewfinder and a couple of 24 backs would come in under $2000 now!
Apr 21, 2015 11:15:20 #
oldeman wrote:
After years of digital photography, I'm acknowledging the urge to return to medium-format film work again, specifically thinking about picking up a Bronica. The cost of film and processing is a fact, however. Yet, the image should be equivalent to 50 mp...a great sharp image. Has anyone had any experience returning to the "film roots" of photography?
I can't see shooting film unless it is for the purpose of making darkroom prints. Everything I do now is for either publication or the web, and those are all digital now. I can't see the point of shooting film if you are just going to have to scan it. I had a commercial darkroom for 30 years, and I don't miss is a bit.
Apr 21, 2015 11:38:48 #
I alternate between the two mediums. Sometimes it is refreshing to get away from the dependency of menues. And I enjoy the challenge of getting a perfect shot without the crutch of image preview - it makes me concentrate a lot more on what I'm doing. Making every frame count.
I think many photographers who grew up with digital only would feel completely lost if handed a film camera. Especially an older camera that lacks a built-in light meter.
I think many photographers who grew up with digital only would feel completely lost if handed a film camera. Especially an older camera that lacks a built-in light meter.
Apr 21, 2015 12:10:25 #
oldeman wrote:
After years of digital photography, I'm acknowledging the urge to return to medium-format film work again, specifically thinking about picking up a Bronica. The cost of film and processing is a fact, however. Yet, the image should be equivalent to 50 mp...a great sharp image. Has anyone had any experience returning to the "film roots" of photography?
I would also suggest you go to Ken Rockwell's site and do a search for film - where he expresses many (good) opinions about film photography and which cameras are best.
Apr 21, 2015 13:49:51 #
oldeman,
I did exactly that. I started in the early '50s with a Brownie, a Kodak twin lens reflex and a Kodak Pony 135 slide film camera, and ended in the 80's with a Yashica rangefinder. By the 90's I was using a Kodak bridge camera, then a series of higher MP Lumix cameras. About a year and a half a go I bought a Nikon D3100 on ebay and a bunch of Nikkor film lenses to use in manual mode. A few months later I got the film bug looking at flicker picture pools for Velvia 50 slide film and medium format film cameras. I bought a used Mamiya 645 1000S and a couple of lenses on ebay. I got a roll of 36 exp. 120 Velvia 50 slide film and a prepaid mailer for processing the transparencies on B&H for about $25.
So far I have shot and processed that one roll. On the plus side, to me, the color and resolution cannot be duplicated with my D3100 and photoshop. I know I'll get lots of flak for that but that's how my eye sees it, so no apologies. I'm considering shooting a red white and blue flag in the corner of all my digital shots and cropping it out, just to get better color. The velvia 50 is 100% realisitic right out of the camera. If I shoot my cd case which has hundreds of different colors on the cd jackets, the velvia gets every color 100% the same as my eye sees them. Every digital shot, regardless of how much PP with photoshop and film emulations, etc. is a compromise and can never get every color and shade spot on. The exact same is true for lanscape colors including blue skies and white clouds, etc. Bear in mind, you would never notice the disparity in the digital colors unless you compare them to the velvia. The mind ignores it.
So why have I only shot one roll since I got the camera? Well if you used to spend a whole day tuning your v-8 engine with dwell angle testers, spark gap tool, and strobe light, replacing plugs and points, getting the timing perfect so that your engine purred like a contented baby lion, and now you just turn the key on your electronic ignition, that's is why.
When you get the velvia 50 transparencies back, if you want all that film resolution, you need to scan them (free scans are basically crap and defeat the entire process) at something like 4800dpi. This gets you a 240MB tiff file to bring into Photo shop where you need to use the spot healing brush tool to remove each dust spec and fiber by hand, which takes about 20 minutes per slide. Any auto dust removal software is also crap and leaves approriately colored band-aid patches in place of the dust and fibers. Then you can save it to an 80MB jpg which you can show on flickr or down size the jpg to a 20MB jpg you can show on UHH.
Do I plan to shoot film again? Yes. I bought a used Nikon 135 F1 that I can use with my film lenses and a roll of 35mm velvia 50 slide film and a prepaid mailer at B&H for less than $25. I'm waiting for summer flowers and colors to give it another try. But all cameras and films are tools for specific purposes. For birding I use a Nikon J1 with the FT1 adapter and a Nikkor 55-300mm zoom which gives me center spot auto focus with an 810mm equivalent field of view. In this case (in my budget) getting the close up shot at all trumps resolution and color.
Bob
I did exactly that. I started in the early '50s with a Brownie, a Kodak twin lens reflex and a Kodak Pony 135 slide film camera, and ended in the 80's with a Yashica rangefinder. By the 90's I was using a Kodak bridge camera, then a series of higher MP Lumix cameras. About a year and a half a go I bought a Nikon D3100 on ebay and a bunch of Nikkor film lenses to use in manual mode. A few months later I got the film bug looking at flicker picture pools for Velvia 50 slide film and medium format film cameras. I bought a used Mamiya 645 1000S and a couple of lenses on ebay. I got a roll of 36 exp. 120 Velvia 50 slide film and a prepaid mailer for processing the transparencies on B&H for about $25.
So far I have shot and processed that one roll. On the plus side, to me, the color and resolution cannot be duplicated with my D3100 and photoshop. I know I'll get lots of flak for that but that's how my eye sees it, so no apologies. I'm considering shooting a red white and blue flag in the corner of all my digital shots and cropping it out, just to get better color. The velvia 50 is 100% realisitic right out of the camera. If I shoot my cd case which has hundreds of different colors on the cd jackets, the velvia gets every color 100% the same as my eye sees them. Every digital shot, regardless of how much PP with photoshop and film emulations, etc. is a compromise and can never get every color and shade spot on. The exact same is true for lanscape colors including blue skies and white clouds, etc. Bear in mind, you would never notice the disparity in the digital colors unless you compare them to the velvia. The mind ignores it.
So why have I only shot one roll since I got the camera? Well if you used to spend a whole day tuning your v-8 engine with dwell angle testers, spark gap tool, and strobe light, replacing plugs and points, getting the timing perfect so that your engine purred like a contented baby lion, and now you just turn the key on your electronic ignition, that's is why.
When you get the velvia 50 transparencies back, if you want all that film resolution, you need to scan them (free scans are basically crap and defeat the entire process) at something like 4800dpi. This gets you a 240MB tiff file to bring into Photo shop where you need to use the spot healing brush tool to remove each dust spec and fiber by hand, which takes about 20 minutes per slide. Any auto dust removal software is also crap and leaves approriately colored band-aid patches in place of the dust and fibers. Then you can save it to an 80MB jpg which you can show on flickr or down size the jpg to a 20MB jpg you can show on UHH.
Do I plan to shoot film again? Yes. I bought a used Nikon 135 F1 that I can use with my film lenses and a roll of 35mm velvia 50 slide film and a prepaid mailer at B&H for less than $25. I'm waiting for summer flowers and colors to give it another try. But all cameras and films are tools for specific purposes. For birding I use a Nikon J1 with the FT1 adapter and a Nikkor 55-300mm zoom which gives me center spot auto focus with an 810mm equivalent field of view. In this case (in my budget) getting the close up shot at all trumps resolution and color.
Bob
oldeman wrote:
After years of digital photography, I'm acknowledging the urge to return to medium-format film work again, specifically thinking about picking up a Bronica. The cost of film and processing is a fact, however. Yet, the image should be equivalent to 50 mp...a great sharp image. Has anyone had any experience returning to the "film roots" of photography?
Apr 21, 2015 14:05:22 #
imagemeister wrote:
I would also suggest you go to Ken Rockwell's site and do a search for film - where he expresses many (good) opinions about film photography and which cameras are best.
He likes Mamiya 6 and 7 - but they are still expensive - even today !
Apr 21, 2015 18:43:52 #
Hi,
If interested I have a Broncia S2a with 4 different Nikkon Lens extra backs lens shades Bellows Attachments etc. If you are interested email me back, @br236425@gmail.com
Bill Reider
If interested I have a Broncia S2a with 4 different Nikkon Lens extra backs lens shades Bellows Attachments etc. If you are interested email me back, @br236425@gmail.com
Bill Reider
Apr 21, 2015 21:04:17 #
oldeman wrote:
After years of digital photography, I'm acknowledging the urge to return to medium-format film work again, specifically thinking about picking up a Bronica. The cost of film and processing is a fact, however. Yet, the image should be equivalent to 50 mp...a great sharp image. Has anyone had any experience returning to the "film roots" of photography?
After a brief experiment with 35mm, I found that film processing is a BIG problem. Even allegedly pro labs seem to be careless with cleanliness and handling. I could not find one that measured up to the Kodak mailer service in days of yore.
What you propose is appealing but I think you may not be satisfied unless you do the developing yourself. As for printing - if you don't want to invest in enlarging equipment yet you can scan the slides or negatives making you a "half-purist".
Apr 21, 2015 21:12:27 #
oldeman wrote:
After years of digital photography, I'm acknowledging the urge to return to medium-format film work again, specifically thinking about picking up a Bronica. The cost of film and processing is a fact, however. Yet, the image should be equivalent to 50 mp...a great sharp image. Has anyone had any experience returning to the "film roots" of photography?
I also want to say that I found that while negative film seemed to be softer (less sharp) than digital images from a D5100, the colors were something else. I've not seen any presets or film emulation plugins that match the colors. Don't ask me to describe then, besides while digital is probably more accurate regarding color, film especially negative film, gives colors that are unusually pleasing even if not accurate.
Apr 21, 2015 21:24:57 #
Never left. I do 35mm, 120 and 4x5 both in BW and color. BW gets printed in the darkroom. Color gets scanned and printed via inkjet. I don't as much color film, I mainly use digital for color.
Apr 21, 2015 21:29:48 #
Search "digitized film vs digital". I asked basically the same question. Lots of comments.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.