Is it worth it?

<p>Dear Fellow MF Enthusiasts,<br>

I'm still trying to find my way with my recently acquired 501C. I've shot a few rolls with some good pictures.<br>

Thanks to this great forum, I met some experienced photographers and have gotten some great ideas for processing my pictures - North Coast Photo in San Diego and the V500 scanner for previewing my photos before printing them. <br>

I find it challenging loading the slide or negative film on the "carrier" that came with the scanner and how do you avoid fingerprints on the negatives or slides - wear gloves? The scans are coming out pretty well but I still haven't nailed down the formula for which side to put down so the scans come out right side up and not reversed. <br>

And shooting the Kodak Ektar 100 negative film and the Fuji Velvia chrome slide film I've had mixed results. My light meter is an older Sekonic Auto Lum1. Some of the shots have been right on and others not so good. I was at Joshua Tree monument and used my Polarizing filter with the Velvia and most of the shots were way underexposed - I probably should have had a calculation to compensate for the filter as the camera does not have in a built in meter.<br>

My other challenge is the stock lens - I'm thinking of a 50mm lens to shoot wide - the stock lens - 80mm is okay but not good at all for wide angle or group shots - I have to keep stepping back, back and back.<br>

So, I'm thinking . . . I have a Nikon D50 with all the lenses I need - wide, telephoto, intermediate zoom lens . . . is shooting film worth it? <br>

If some of you could share your "strategies" and mindset for shooting and how you use these cameras, it might help me understand more about what I'm doing. I figure just getting the film processed and then using the scanner to see what I've got is a good way to save some bucks instead of throwing away money on prints I don't want. Once I've scanned the pics and I want to get reproduction prints, would you recommend sending back the negative or slide to the lab or using the scanner and then the FTP site to upload the images? I'm not shooting poster size and the largest prints I'd probably make are whatever the equivalent is for 16 x 20 in medium format.</p>

<p>Hope I'm making sense here . . . thanks, Ken</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Ken, without opening the whole digi vs film deal....I simply shoot both. I have a full Nikon D80 digi kit that I use 95% of the time for everything. I also have an RB67 MF that I shoot velvia and Tri X with. There is no right answer for your question. The Blad is an awesome camera with awesome glass. It is really up to you to decide why you bought it in the first place and how to use it. I certainly would not give up on it...You mentioned in your post "recently aquired" I interpret that as meaning " I haven't ran much film thru it and have had mixed results and now I am not sure what to do" If that is the case, keep practicing! I would also mention that you should probably try to compare light meter readings with your handheld vs your camera meter to get a feel for "metering" Obviously spot vs center weighted vs matrix and actual lens difference will play a roll in this. When used properly any camera (especially a Blad and Zeiss combo) will give great results.<br>

As far as the scanning goes, after you have established how to make great negs (or Velvia slides) drum scanning is going to get you the best results, but for those special few shots that you want to blow up and hang on your wall it is more than worth the $$$. My scanner strategy is exactly what yours is: develop the negs, scan and decide what's worth printing.<br>

So anyway, keep at it, make sure that film camera is on a tripod with a cable release make your best shot and enjoy both formats!<br>

Mark</p>

<p>Ken, I wonder if you could make it easier on yourself by getting a proof sheet or machine proofs when you have your film developed. I do that with my MF film and it's not that expensive. You can look at the proofs (and your slides, too) with a loupe and choose the ones you want to scan.</p>

<p>When using the polarizer the best starting point is to add 2 stops of light to the metered exposure.</p>

<p>Ken, you're on the cusp of making some great photos and absolutely loving that camera. You just need more time and experience. Yes, use gloves whenever you handle film; be sure they are in good condition so that you don't get cotton fibers floating where you don't want them. For my scanner (Nikon 8000), if the slide is in the right orientation when I look at it, that's how it goes down on the glass. Yes, you absolutely must compensate for your polarizing filter. Most require 1.5 stops more; some require 2 stops. The best way to determine the compensation for your filter is to point a spot meter at a gray card, determine the exposure, then point the spot meter through the filter at the gray card. The difference in readings will give you the compensation factor for that filter; I write that down on the plastic case for the filter. Regarding workflow with the scanner you've got, I'd strongly suggest you find the transparencies you really want to print, and send those transparencies to a professional lab for scanning (and possibly printing.) I fear (based on my own experience and reading posts from others) that a flatbed scanner is going to be a significant and critical weak link in getting the most out of the potential of your camera and film. I'm thoroughly happy with my Nikon 8000, but would use a lab rather than my Epson V750 flatbed for scanning medium format film.<br>

<br /></p>

<p>Thanks so much - for the pics that have come out well, the Blad glass is amazing. I think I just need to be more patient (a tough character flaw) and shoot more film.<br>

Getting a gray card also sounds like a good idea for little investment. I'm thinking the wide angle lens will benefit my style of photography- landscape. And thanks for the comments on compensating with the polarizer.<br>

Wondering - is there an upload site, like Shutterfly is for digital for Medium Format so I can upload pics and they will appear square and maybe a place to order square prints online?<br>

I guess I'll also have to learn the paper sizes for med. format - not 8x 10 but probably 10 x 10. <br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>is shooting film worth it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. As someone who had owned 100+ cameras and still has about two dozen film cameras in all flavors shooting film is not really "worth" it if you have a digital workflow. Shooting film for fun is one thing, but you cannot measure this enjoyment in "worth". If you have to ask, it is probably not worth it for you.</p>

<blockquote>

<h1>Is it worth it?</h1>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely yes!<br>

1) Get a copy of E. Wildi's book, the fifth edition. The sixth edition dropped too much good information to make room for the digi-snappers. <<insert wink here>></p>

<p>From that book, here is condensed information about exposures:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>

<p >When and how to change the light meter reading and books on composition</p>

<p > </p>

<p >· Mostly black with very little white – close one or two stops – counter intuitive.</p>

<p >· Mostly white with very little black – open one or two stops – counter intuitive.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Scene Compensation</strong></p>

<p >fog open 1 stop (smaller f number, bigger opening)</p>

<p >sand open 1.5 stops</p>

<p >light flesh open 1 stop</p>

<p >dark flesh close 1 to 1.5 stops</p>

<p >overcast days open 2 or 2.5 stops</p>

<p >palm of hand open 1 stop</p>

<p >evergreen trees close 1 stop</p>

<p >blackboard open stop</p>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>2) Go to www.apug.org to get your film questions answered. Hybrid processing questions should be directed to the sister site www.hybridphoto.com.</p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>"Wondering - is there an upload site, like Shutterfly is for digital for Medium Format so I can upload pics and they will appear square and maybe a place to order square prints online?<br />I guess I'll also have to learn the paper sizes for med. format - not 8x 10 but probably 10 x 10. <br />Thanks again."<br>

Ken,<br>

If your photo is square it will appear square. Sites don't crop photos. There is no paper size for medium format. For one thing, many people crop. And if you want a square, just get paper bigger than the square.<br>

Whether shooting film is worth it depends on your entire philosophy of what a hobby or art means. Many people have become addicted to the ease of digital, and attempt to produce as many photographs as possible as quickly and easily as possible.<br>

Some people play the piano, and some people buy a keyboard at Costco that plays for you with a button push. Some people hand-stitch quilts and some buy machine-made components. <br>

Personally, I enjoy processing my own film, and for the most part despise digital. If you enjoy making more decisions yourself involving the nuances of metering or the use of filters or the art of chemistry, then it may be worth it. While all these decisions can be made with digital, they are made with a slider control or mouse click, and not by actually DOING anything. If you enjoy the simplicity of an all-mechanical camera for its own sake, it may be worth it. However, if you enjoy automated gadgets that make most of the decisions for you based on software someone else has written, or enjoy faking the look of film with software written by some company, then no, it will not be worth it. <br>

Scott</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is shooting film worth it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Totally depends on the person.</p>

<p>" . . . which side to put down so the scans come out right side up and not reversed. "<br /> The film holders on some of the later models (V700) I know have a cartoon printed on the side of the negative carrier to help remind you. Load the film in the carrier. Hold it over your head, looking through the film; this will give you the same point of view as the scanner, if you are careful about how you orient the carrier. Does the film look like it's pointed the right way? Scan the film. If it came out right, then break out some masking tape and write a note on the film carrier, showing which way the manufacturer's marks go.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, in printing, you will print emulsion to emulsion. Keep this in mind when sorting out orientation problems with film. It's your anchor point.</p>

<p>Fingerprints: clean, dry hands are the answer.</p>

<p>You don't need gloves for a few rolls here and there. Wash your hands before and after labs (safety anyway); towel dry your hands; wait a minute or two, then do your stuff. Washing and drying your hands will cut down on a lot of the fingerprint problems. A lot. Like, if you got a fingerprint on there from just casual handling, then you need to wash up.</p>

<p>And, yes, I think it is worth it. Blaming failure on the equipment is about as thin of a claim as crediting success to a different kind of equipment. There are some instances in which both ideas are true, but they're not necessarily causal.</p>

<p>Between a DSLR and a medium format camera, I prefer the medium format. I have pretty much stopped using the DSLR altogether. I just have not liked it, and not found myself gaining much from a whole different process that won't let me do what the first kind would.</p>

<p>I ran into someone yesterday who was using a D300 with a superzoom on there. He asked me about my camera, because he had never actually seen a medium format camera in use before. It'd be worse to make me use his stuff, or to make him use mine, against our desires and capabilities than it would be to slowly learn about each and then pick what you prefer to do.</p>

<p>In D40 to 501, I would lean towards the 501 because I know and understand how to think in film. "Git 'er done" with either, but I think I would like the 501 more.</p>

<p><strong>Photographers see in silver.</strong> If you can see in silver, then you can use most anything. The equipment will be an extension of yourself, regardless of what anyone else says. If you can't see in silver, you'll be stuck with whatever somebody feeds you to be the right answer for materials and equipment.</p>

<p>We have had audio recording devices for decades; yet, musicians can still benefit from reading and using sheet music. This is the type of thing I mean by, Photographers see in silver. Not being able to use the basics, especially the basic ideas, no matter what your media, would damage or limit your ability to get a task done no matter what it was. </p>

<p>All great comments - thanks a bunch! It's a love/hate and learning curve all packed into one. It's a format I've always been intrigued with and the art/science of dialing in the right exposure setting is a "feel"I'll learn - in time.<br>

Thanks again,</p>

<p>Ken</p>

 

<p>If you have access to a digital camera some of the learning curve can be accelerated by using it ina a totally manual mode. Even my wifes little Canon P&S allows me to set the ASA, shutter speed / aperature combination manually. </p>

<p>I taught my youngest how to visualize what would come out on film this way. Now you don't get to stop down your aperature to see DoF, but at least you can tell what the changes did to your exposure once you snap your digi picture. She also learned how to compose a picture using the Zone system by using a spot meter to figure out her zone values and then setting the camera manually.</p>

<p>Now when she shoots film she is much more likely to have correctly exposed negatives each time she goes out. THis gives her a great deal of confidence and allows her to focus more on composition.</p>

<p>yes, it is worth it, unequivocally. it might just take you a while to figure out the best use of the camera -- the types of settings, light and subjects that exploit its considerable capabilities. it probably won't perform like a good quality DSLR of 35 mm SLR with a zoom lens, in terms of quick candids or versatility in shooting groups. but it will render skin tones amazingly, and detail smoothly and exquisitely, with practice. it will work very well in a relaxed setting, like a party with posed shots where you have a little time to focus, adjust settings and talk to your portrait subject/s.<br>

if you have doubts about the metered exposure, try bracketing. or, when you're still in the experimental stage, shoot B&W -- it's a lot more forgiving, you can miss the correct exposure by a stop or two and still have something usable -- whereas transparencies demand exacting metering.</p>

<p>Separate the 2 systems in your head. One isn't better than the other! First let's deal with the scans..Having seen some scans and images on my monitor from a certain photographer who is "hated" here" on photo-net, they are simply stunning. See "Route 66", "Barstow" and "Yosemite". If your Hassie cannot match a Kodak Hawkeye 120 box camera..!Film is expensive in a way. The good news is you don't shoot the trillion pix of one boring thing. One has to think! I know, i know! I didn't say it would be easy. I recently developed a roll from my Rollie. It had been in the camera for a few months..My rate of printing 120 format is about 5~7 prints per 12 exposures! In 35mm, it's good for about 2 prints per 24. If i had started with 120, way back when, I would have shot way less and had way more prints.<br>

Digital has allowed me to "grow" in a whole new direction. The instant feedback a plus. I DO NOT CHIMP! Suggestion, have prints done at that lab, same as KR.Test the shutters of your Hassie-lenses, it's mechanical and there will be variances. Neglible in color neg, muchio importanto in slides esp Velvia.You have 2 good systems. Get some more film, leave the digital at home, or use it for exposure. It may be better than that old light meter. See! Some things are easy. Last but not least, make it fun. I did even or especially pro jobs.</p>

<p>It's a Zen kinda thing!</p>