Going all film?

And, another thing about film. People still use it because it works!

Wow... a nice topic! Dude, keep both. Film is a super sweet format however, it is slowly becoming phased out. I Use a Canon DSLR and I have two Medium format cameras. The MF comes in handy with certain situations and the digi is an all-around performer.

 

Do not disguard digital. Use all of your cameras and figure out if one has a niche over the other and exploit it.

 

-E-

If you're thinking about going 6x7, don't forget the Pentaxes. Built like tanks, and way

easier to hand hold than the RB or the RZ (kind of like a 35 mm on steroids). Arguably

not so well suited for the studio, because the back doesn't swivel (in fact, there is no

separate back (the single back will, however, take both 120 and 220 film)). On the other hand, I've

used it in the studio myself, and really had no problems.

Josh,

One reason I stick to film is the "smell". There's something magical about the emulsion itself. I always relished opening up my newly processed box of Kodachrome of slides.Memory cards just don't do it for me.

 

The main reasons I stick with and prefer film is that I have been shooting with it and processing it since I was 10. Over 50 years ago!

 

It is so simple and I have never found operating an enlarger boring. However, sitting in front of a computer screen? Mmmm.As for letting someone else do the printmaking, I liken it to buying a car and letting someone else do the driving.

 

I get great joy from the "Creating" of the picture. That includes choosing the lens to shoot it all the way to taking the final wet print from the darkroom.

 

Maybe one day I'll buy a digital but it wont be for my serious stuff or achieving self-satisfaction. ..

"If you're going to put years into learning something, why not choose the

technology that will still be around years from now when you're retired? Film isn't

going to go away completely, but it will be a smaller and smaller percentage of the

business each year."

 

Not true, you have high volume users who don't mind high priced digital gear (they

can justify it in film/processing over a short time). They can afford the best digital

gear ($40K for a p45 39mp back). Then there are the professionals doing

landscape. These are the low volume shooters (maybe a few rolls every few days

because they are waiting for the perfect conditions), and low priced gear (large

format) and maximum quality from big film is their priority (5x7, 8x10 can't be

matched). You can summarize the markets as follows:

 

(High End digital Backs/ Scan backs)- Commercial high volume shooters, pays

for itself in 1-2 yrs in film/processing. Want fast turnaround. Very high quality.

Price is no object, quality is. Time is money for these guys.

 

(Med-High priced dslr)- wedding shooters, amateurs, journalist, serious amateurs,

etc. Anything from Nikon D300 , D3, or Canon equivalent. For the few times they

need more quality, they pull out a few sheets of 4x5 film for the view camera.

 

(Low priced digital) ﾖ real estate agents, family snaps, wanting cheap prints (do

at home on computer or direct from printer), business people wanting a quick

snapshot, holiday snaps, sports photos (surfing, etc). Prefer to process

themselves direct to printer, or using photoshop.

 

(Film- small format)- people not into computers (uncomfortable around digital

imaging), prefer bringing in their

film to a small lab or Wallmart while they shop. You won't convince them of digital

while they have old reliable 35mm film. You have a very large market age 50+ that

do not feel comfortable around digital cameras. You just don't dump this market

that was brought up on film!

 

(Film- Med format film) ﾖ landscape, portraits, where high quality is required. I

expect this format to be very strong in 6x9,612,617 formats. New int roductions in

the Technorama by linhof, new mfrs like Fotoman, Goaersiﾅ.are making these

120 formats popular.

 

(Film- large format)- art market, where maximum quality is desired, pro market

(where low volume and top quality is required). This breed is also not dead, linhof

Technica has been updated twice (2000 and 3000 model), and new mfrs like

Fotoman, Goarsi, Chamonix, and many more have appeared in the marketplace.

China is very heavy into large format now.

 

This market segmentation process is not complete, not necessarily 100%

accurate (Just some quick ideasﾅresearch brings better results), but you get the

ideaﾅ.different markets have different needs. Film satisfies one set of needs, and

digital another. New product developments in film and equipment support this.

What I believe is happening is a rebalancing, digital came to the market, but it

cannot replace film completely because it cannot satisfy all the different needs

different people have. A pro who shoots a commercial job (McDonalds) doesn't

care if the image survives 2 years, but an artist doesﾅ.he is building a portfolio to

retire on. His art career depends on his portfolio being around (here digital is not

archival, but film isﾅ.satisfying a different need).

 

I recommend you write down your needs/criteria. Do you want to do only

landscape, or portraits? Do you want to print big? Are you interested in top

quality, with immense color saturation, incredible sharpness? Do you want to

produce fine art (then larger format cameras are the only choice for max quality, at

your age I doubt you have $40k in loose change for high end digital). Do you want

maximum archivability? Each camera is suited for a different purpose, just like

digital and film suit a different purpose. I realize your new to photography, but age

isn't the criteria, it is what you want/can afford (film equipment gives absolutely the

best quality and at 1/2oth the cost. If you want to do top quality landscape, think

big film, and camera movements. Medium format doesn't cut it for me, it is in

between 2 worlds (you are investing not just into the camera, but lenses and other

accessories). Sony is within a year or so (already announced) introducing a

25mp sensor, making 6x7 less desirable.

 

Also, where does everyone get the idea film is expensive? I have been using film

all my life, film/processing costs never bothered me. Its just that digital is free in

the short run that makes it sound expensive (because we get stupid shooting 150

shots when I use to only need 3 to capture the perfect landscape after

bracketing). But in the long run my Nikon D200 I found was fun for a while, but

couldn't even come close to my 6x7/6x9/4x5/612/617 filmﾅthe great shots I got I

could not enlarge enough, quality wasn't there (not even close), and I worry how

long they will last (media changes, operating systems change and support is lost,

reading errors, storage failure). How many times do you read in here I cannot

READ the camera card/ or other read error? I just put my film in polypropylene

Calumet sleeves in Calumet Safe Keeper 3 ring binders and never need to worry

30 yrs from now. Flatbed scanners only get better, so you will always have a way

to scan your film.

 

If your thinking strictly landscape, you might consider a Fotoman 612 camera

(new about $1100 for body) if you're into wide and normal focal length lenses. A

couple of lenses and your all set, itﾒs the cheapest and easiest large format

camera to use! The Mamiya RB67 has a prism finder, but the camera is bigger,

heavier, and 6x7 just doesn't cut it for landscape, and will become obsolete with

talks of the Sony 25mp sensors announced (likely out 1 yr from now). The 120

film for 612 is easier to get processed compared to 4x5 (same quality), no need

to load sheet film/use darkcloth/focus on groundglass like with 4x5, film available

in many camera stores, easy to shoot, has a depth of field scale(hyperfocal also),

with VIEWFINDER, handles like a big 35mm rangefinder camera, easier to

process yourself (and cheaper to process)ﾅIMMENSE quality, very portable. It

will scan easily with higher quality using a flatbed, and also you can rent digital

stations at $35/hr on a Mac with a Imacon 848. The quality would be matched

closely only by a $40k p45 digital back! For portraits choose something else.

Check out Ken Duncans website (except he uses a 617 format) if your into

landscapes, these pano cameras are what he uses. http://www.kenduncan.com/

 

Good luck.

 

Chris, it seems there is a lot of nostalgia around here but to be practical about it consider this:

 

there is truth on either side. Film is great but so is digital. I've went completely digital some years ago for various reasons. Do what your gut feeling tells you to do. It's the only thing that works. Will you regret going film, of course not as long as you remember that it serves your results.

 

I don't agree on the quality issues however. I've some very large b&w prints hanging here which where shot with a 10 mp digital camera that are of top technical quality. You'd be hard pressed to note a difference with a analogue print. On the other hand I still miss that darkroom feeling of making fine art prints myself. During my study I used a Pentax LX and a Yashica Mat, great camera's. After that I bought Hasselblad and used mostly Ilford's Delta 100 film. Great stuff all around. But it's also true you don't have to pay a fortune to get a high quality digital camera.

 

Whatever you do have lots of fun doing it.

Such an enlightened and pertinent string! Here's my two (or four) bits...I was an avid film shooter shooting all chrome with top of the line professional Nikon gear JUST before the digital 'revolution' in 35mm SLR photography. Around then, my circumstances changed, and I sold off all of my 35mm AF gear, reserving only an old FE2 and 50 1.4 lens.

 

About a year ago I picked it back up, vowing to shoot strictly B&W film and do my own processing. I have since added a Hasselblad 501C kit (paid $400 for it by the way!) and I am producing what I think is the best photography of my life and can foresee much more to come.

 

I will resist the digital call as long as I possibly can. I love my elegant, all manual, mechanical equipment. I love the knowledge that my final prints originate from something tangible and "real" in the beautiful silver negatives I produce myself. I love that those images will never be lost to a failed hard drive or some other such malfunction. And above all else, I love the fact that if I make an image that satisfies me, I can create a beautiful sliver print that in my opinion, transcends pixels and resolution and all of those things and becomes a work of art with connections all the way back to the beginnings of the medium.

 

I may eventually try to do full(ish) time professional photography and only then will I think about digital imaging. I don't believe a working, earning photographer can really compete using film these days. Until that day however, while I'm making pictures to feed my soul and not my wallet, I will continue to use and to love film.

I shoot film and always have done. I have a digital compact but never use it for 'serious' photography. I shoot film for the same reason that other people paint water colours or oils - or carve stone: I love the medium. For me, digital can never deliver the thrill I get from handling film, paper and chemicals.

 

I have an RB67 and love it. I also have three Mamiya TLRs. And oddly enough, most of my students are people in their twenties who have grown up with digital technology and have recently discovered film.

I'm 24 and started photography at 19. Back then digital already had quite a stranglehold on photography as a whole but was a broke student so I bought a old nikon FM with a 50mm (which is a fair few years older than me) because all the PJs used to use Nikon back in the day :) and it was dirt cheap: ﾣ80 for the lot.

 

Eventually I wanted better quality for landscape and moved up to an RB67, again it was cheap. The lack of lens tilt eventually got to me for landscapes after 4 years of use and I moved up to large format. The Nikon FM is still my street photography camera and probably my favourite camera to use. The quality of my photographs for such a minimal investment compared to digital is outstanding and I bought/sold many lenses with minimal loss to find what I liked. Even when I sell my RB, Mamiya 7 etc I won't lose much money. High quality for low investment and negligible depreciation was the biggest reason I have stuck with film and to a lesser extent because there is no digital slr that is as easy to use as my nikon for street. Film costs have been low since I mostly shoot b&w and dev myself.

 

I shot a wedding last year with my Mamiya 7 and swore if I ever did it again I would use a dslr. Film cost, 10 shots on a roll, poor high iso, working blind was not fun. For pro work film just does not make sense anymore. If you work a lot in low light, film also does not make sense ﾖ digital is SO much cleaner at high iso.

 

When the 5DmkII makes it appearance I will seriously consider dumping my MF gear since it will equal 6x7, have much better high iso capability, is handholdable and has no narrow dof issues at reasonable cost. LF will remain since the quality is equal to 39MP backs which cost a kings ransom.

 

One serious plus to being all film has been that I understand the fundamentals of photography so well that I can use any camera without any problem at all and produce decent pictures. Moving up to LF was no issue for me. My friends who started with dslrs have major problems since when it comes down to it they just do not understand the basics.

i'm not much older than you and i have the rz67 - bought for a reasonable price and seemed a good investment. i decided to go for it after one of my lecturers at uni said it was a great camera and with the rz67 you can always get a digital back (though i wont be able to afford one for years)

i still use my digital equipment occasionally but i love my rz67 so much. i think the quality and colours are so much nicer than digital. if you can i'd keep your digital as well.

My wife and I have been into photography since 1973. The last four cameras we have bought were a Sony P&S digital, 4X5 Shen Hao, Pentax K10D and a Hasselblad 500 C/M. I have taken some great shots with all of them and one of my favourite images is of my dog taken with the Sony while I was bent down tieing up my shoes. Could not have taken that with the 4X5.

 

As far as costs go in my last job we were making a purchase of a printer and when comparing good digital paper to good fibre darkroom paper the darkroom paper is less expensive and chemicals are less than inkjet inks. And compare the cost of a large inkjet to a good used enlarger than film is much much cheaper. On the other hand our last holiday we had if had to buy slide film for the amount of digital shots we took with the Pentax and a borrowed D200, the savings alone paid for the Pentax. What I am trying to say is the cost factor depends more on what you are doing and how much you shoot than the digital/film argument.

 

Only two things count if you are shooting for yourself 1) does the process work and you get the results you want and 2) do you enjoy it. If no to either question than it is the wrong process. For us film and digital answer both questions depending on the project or the mood. For me the choice of when to shoot digital and when to shoot film is an easier one than when I choose between MF and LF. I do however find myself shooting less 35mm but there are times it is the best.

 

Film is getting stronger although you may need to depend on on-line or mail order to get your stuff but many of us live or lived in communities that was the case even before digital. Digital is of course getting better. I opened this thread with a bit of hesitation as often this subject degenerates but all the responders provided a well thought out position and even an old hand (old anyways) learns from these comments.

 

Good luck and go with what you enjoy, that is what will give you the best images and the most satisfaction.

Hi Chris,

 

My first camera was a Canon digital P&S about 6 years ago. Like you, I handled my father's Minolta SRT-101 and got hooked on film. I ended up diving all the way into medium-format (Mamiya TLR) and 4x5" (Shen-Hao) photography. I have my own darkroom setup in my basement utility room. I've enjoyed the ride and feel my technical photography skills are at a different level than someone who has been all-digital.

 

But with our new baby that arrived last month, I recently bought a new Canon dSLR. It is a great photographic tool and I am very happy with it.

 

So here's my take: don't dump digital completely. I do not see myself shooting 35mm or medium-format color film. I too have a flat-bed scanner and film-scanning just sucks in my opinion (too time-consuming...my 6x6 tranny scans are roughly equivalent to a 6 megapixel camera with my Epson 4990).

 

But I definitely will continue shooting film (35mm, 6x6, 4x5) for B&W. The B&W prints I make in my darkroom are still way crisper and finer than prints made with my dSLR. Plus it is enjoyable to work with the analog process.

I completely agree with Mark L's post. And yes, my friends who are serious about photographer but have never shot analog (with a hand-held light meter) just don't understand the basics.

It must be nice to have extra money to throw around on film........Just wait a few years: a wife, kids and a mortgage will straighten you up real quick.

"When the 5DmkII makes it appearance I will seriously consider dumping my MF gear since it will equal 6x7, "

 

Marek, only true as long as both can print at 300ppi output resolution (1440 dpi). After a cxetain print size film takes over, and keeps on going due to much bigger file size to maintain the 300ppi output. With 6x7 I was really surprised the quality of a 42.5 inch print I had made (Nikon 9000 scanner), the dslr would run out of gas (pixels). Add some noise removal software, and the images are superb. But as long as both can print at 300ppi without interpolation, then I doubt you see a difference in smaller prints.

 

When you want very high quality, film is the only choice and very affordable for initial investment.

Use Both. But get good with fiulm and whatch your digital improve 10 fold.

Sorry I can't spell today. The bottom line...understand how film works and your digital will go far beyond what you've ever expected it would. I use both and love both for the job at hand.

Well b g, I dunno, I still have a land-line phone, and I own a Well-Tempered Record Player that likely sounds better than your CD player or I-pod, and approximately 1300 records. And they aren't going anywhere soon. Chris, I'm 51, so film is pretty much my bag. I shoot with a Yashica GT rangefinder, Pentax Spotmatic and a Ricoh Diacord. I also have a Canon point-and-shoot, it's convenient and it's good for selling stuff on-line. I plan on having a darkroom setup in my place within the next couple of years; I envy your darkroom availability. Film going away? It may not be manufactured by large-scale corporations in the future, the structure of the film business will change, I live 50 miles north of Detroit, get the drift? But Detroit will still make cars,and at least B/W I think will be manufactured somehow for quite a while.

The point is that film is not as expensive as some are lead to believe, and digital costs more than some realise. If you decide to do alot of B&W, I would get an enlarger. The B&W prints I,ve seen from standard B&W film, are pure rotten.There is an increase in large format because nothing comes close. So,Chris, get the RB, it's your money and therefore your choice.I sure like mine.

Interesting topic. You might want to experiment with MF before making a major investment in a camera. MF isn't for everyone. If you have your own darkroom and a lot of time, you can get astounding b&w prints. If you process the film also, you will be spending very little. If you want to shoot color, beware. It can be hard to find a lab that will handle MF properly. And then it is expensive. You may find yourself ignoring your MF camera when you set out to shoot color. That said, the Mamiya cameras can produce great color images when you get everything together. You might want to have your very best shots printed as Fujichrome images, so the colors won't fade. I have a Cibachrome image (same as Fujichrome) from 1979 on the wall in my home. It has not changed a whit!

Hi Chris

This is a very good topic, and you have had some good responses.

 

My advise is quite simple, if you have invested a lot into equipment keep most of it, don't through it away just because you are making a change.

I am a film user and only use Velvia, why because I like the look and feel of slides, simple.

I have used my daughters 400d and it was good but I don't feel the need to but one, I can always pinch hers!

 

Now this sounds bad but, when I was your age i would change from activity to activity, usually doing more than one thing. You should do the same and use more than one format, one day you will have a situation when you might need to use digital again, you may even loose interest in film for a while.

 

I think you will find that all good pro's will probably have a combination of digital and film equipment just to cover all bases.

 

Good luck either way.

Feels like a generational thing to me, and yes, it makes me feel a little old ;-)

 

I used to wonder why my dad was so eager to get rid of the fine-sounding Scott vacuum tube hifi and replace it at great expense with an early solid state thing, but now, I'm the one who sold off his film Hasselblads and Fujis in favor of the shiny digital things! If I had kids, would they someday chide me for selling the Superwide C for a piddling $1400? Ah, but I've spent so many hours processing and printing stuff the old-fashioned way and was never totally comfy with using so much water and exposing myself to ferricyanide bleach and selenium toner.

 

However there are still aspects of film that might interest me again in the future: Hasselblad Xpan, because it can shoot "decisive moment" panoramas, whereas your typical stitched digital panorama is a composite of several moments in time. And a 5x7 view camera, because it seems like a fine size for contact-printing, and sheet film lends itself well to experimenting with processing techniques. And for photos that capture everything from the glowing filaments in the light bulbs to the deepest shadow, film still has a certain magic. Don't know how to do that digitally in a single exposure.

If you live near a camera store, they might be able to develope your color film. Mine can handle film up to 8x10, including slides.Slides in 2 hours, that includes putting the images on a CD.

Wow, I still can't believe I've gotten so many responses in this thread. As I signed on and saw that this was one of the most popular topics my jaw dropped. LOLOL! I only disagree with the statement that digital camera capture color better. I don't think any DSLR image with any amount of photoshopping can capture color as well as Provia 100F :-)

 

 

I agree that it's probably my best choice to have both digital and medium format readily available, and that gaining skill at one medium will also help me excel in the other. That being said, my D1H is sold as of today. I sold it (somehow) for over $100 more than I paid, so I couldn't refuse the deal. If at sometime my budget permits it, and I feel I'll have an adequate use for it, I'll probably purchase something inexpensive such as a D40. My D1H was very old from a digital point of view, and for what I was using it for, I was getting terrible noise, even at ISO 400. I just couldn't justify keeping it. Long exposures, even a few seconds, weren't possible because of noise, and it really became limiting to what I want to do. But film, it just seems limitless. And the feeling of opening your developing tank and getting excited about pictures you completely forgot about? It's a feeling a hundred times better than I ever got checking an LCD screen.

 

I've chosen to make the leap to 100% film for now. As I learn and progress at photography and the chance of it being a career increases as I learn, I'll decide then what is right for me to do then, but for now, I'm just going to enjoy shooting.

 

Thanks again to all of you who responded!

Hi Chris,

I have a Mamiya RZ67 for portrait shots and a Mamiya 7 for everything else.

Recently, I just acquired a LF camera to play with the rise, tilt, and swing functions that the camera offered.

I also develop and print my own B&W and color films.

The quality of prints were so good that surprised me and the people around me so many times.

As digital cameras becoming more and more popular, the prices of film cameras reduced to make them more affordable than ever.

I also had a digital camera, but I only used it when there was the need for digital files.

My suggestion is having both systems on hand. We will find situations when we need to use one or the other.