Is Returning to Film a Boon or a Mistake....?

<blockquote>

<p>Mätt Donuts wrote,<br /> "You have likely forgotten some of the difficulties of film (no auto whitebalance, can't change ISO, HDR is harder, doesn't hold near as much EV as a RAW file)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, you forgot to add that changing ISO with each new exposure isn't particularly difficult when shooting sheet film!</p>

<p>Kevin, this is the system I propose for you:</p>

<p>- Mamiya RZ67 II with 50mm ULD, 110mm, and 180mm lenses. Get two backs to switch from Velvia to TMAX.<br>

- Coolscan 9000 with glass holder.</p>

<p>~ If you want to add a system for light travel add a Mamiya 7II with 80mm lens.</p>

<p>Personally I think it is a realization of the obvious (to some of us at least).........that film still reigns supreme.</p>

<p>How big do you want to print ??</p>

<p><em>Personally I think it is a realization of the obvious (to some of us at least).........that film still reigns supreme.</em></p>

<p>Film is cheap to scale to larger sizes, which means it's cheaper to make larger prints from single frame shots. Digital is cheaper and easier to stitch, which means those who want really big prints tend to turn to that solution rather than spending the cost of a car on a digital MF system.</p>

<p>Does that mean film "still reigns supreme"? I wouldn't go that far. You couldn't pry my Canon 7D from my hands and leave me with only 35mm. The 7D has superior resolution, fine detail, color, and tonality, to say nothing of ISO, yet it has a chip smaller than 35mm film. You have to jump to MF, and print larger than 24" on demanding subject matter, to beat it. That a <em>small format</em> camera can compete at all with <em>medium format </em>systems up to that print size says a lot about about digital sensors and their capabilities. If it didn't cost so darn much to make a sensor in, say, 645 size, I think film would be in very serious trouble in the application we're talking about (large landscape prints for critical buyers).</p>

<p>And we're not done. It's a good bet the next 1Ds will be around 35 MP. Technology marches on.</p>

<p>I should add that whether I choose to use digital or film generally has nothing what so ever to do with resolution or print size, despite the degree to which that is debated online. If I need resolution and big prints, a 3 frame stitch gives me all I need.</p>

<p>No, I if I shoot film (35mm or MF) it's for the visual characteristics or look. I don't consider one superior to the other here, but they are different, and therefore I maintain an ability to shoot both. The various looks are far more interesting to me than resolution. I choose digital or film, then if I need big prints I make sure the film is MF or the digital is stitched. But big prints do not drive the choice of medium. That can be accomplished easily either way.</p>

<p><em>Steve, you forgot to add that changing ISO with each new exposure isn't particularly difficult when shooting sheet film!</em></p>

<p>NOTHING is easy about large format photography. Film holders are bulky, and carrying 4 or 5 holders takes some planning (and big pockets). Imagine multiplying that by three or four types of film. Then there's the challenge of keeping track of which is which (the little white write-in panels get pretty smudged and worn after a few years).</p>

<p>If you don't know what you plan to shoot BEFORE you even leave home, large format is probably not the medium of choice ;-) We call that "visualization".</p>

<p>Kevin,<br>

Re using a digital as a light meter, I've been using a compact digital camera along with my MF gear partially to assist with determining exposure, and also to view things in black and white through the digital LCD. I enjoy that. (I hardly print digital images. I'm a recreational photographer and I find working in a darkroom relaxing, even meditative.)<br>

The digital can be helpful in very low light when the spot meter is useless. The readings are not necessarily comparable, however, especially with different types of film and length of exposure. For general daylight, I use a Pentax spot meter, especially in bright conditions.<br>

Although operating two cameras is distracting, and can be misleading, having the compact digital along can be useful as a note-taker and visual diary, and certainly as a way to share images.</p>

 

<p>Scanning 4x5/MF negatives for an inkjet print is now more of a cost saving solution for good quality prints. I would think it is slightly better quality than a full frame DSLR. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING.<br>

For huge superb quality inkjet prints (COLOR) it is inferior to the latest medium format digital backs now available. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING.<br>

Drum scanning 8x10> negatives is still a whole different league.TECHNICALLY SPEAKING.</p>

<p>Then again I think that the most relevant piece of equipment after a certain camera sensor/negative size is the actual paper, printer and ink combination in use. ON PAPER.</p>

<p>I use 4x5's, several medium format cameras, film Leicas, film Nikons and a Nikon D-300.</p>

<p>Getting affordable scans that get the most out of 4x5 color is impossible. So while a 4x5 original has more information than a digital original, without $150 scans it won't do you any good. So I use the 4x5's just for B&W.</p>

<p>Medium format is easier to scan... either with a Nikon scanner (which I don't have) or with a good "Develop and Scan" processor (which is surely the way to start since it is quite affordable). Check out <a href="http://www.northcoastphoto.com/">http://www.northcoastphoto.com/</a> Medium format negative film can give you quality at least as good as digital. Medium format transparency film can be awfully fussy since it has much less range, and often gets difficult when using longer exposures (reciprocity failure). Its really easy to get blown out highlights or dead black shadows with trannies. So if you will be scanning I definately recommend negative film. I only print to 13x19 but I don't find that MF negative film really beats my digital work from the D-300. And your digital camera should be better than mine.</p>

<p>In the end then, I find that you use fim cameras because its fun, and because the results can be wonderful... but not because the results are superior to those a good digital can deliver. If I were shooting to sell my work to any but the most demanding professional clients I'd shoot digital... where I could be sure I had the shot I wanted then and there.<br>

But hey, half the fun is experimenting and deciding for yourself. So why not buy a used MF camera (RB 67, Rolleiflex, Mamiya Press etc) and shoot a couple of rolls and send them out for develop and scan. Use your Canon to do the metering and to be able to shoot side by side for later comparisons. Then you'll know what feels right to you. The wonderful thing about used MF gear these days is if you don't like it you can easily sell it for what you paid for it. Both Ebay and Craigslist have lots of medium format gear. Plenty of great MF cameras are available for under $400, so its just not that big an investment. Most landscape shooters would prefer 6x7 or 6x9 to the smaller sizes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The D100 isn't going to give you big prints, but the 5D is highly respected among landscape photographers. Did you use a solid tripod? Mirror lockup? Quality lenses? Did you focus carefully? If so, you (or your lab) can blow those 5D images up to a respectable size. (20 x 30 perhaps? Maybe larger?)</p>

<p>Working with film is excellent for developing your skill and discipline as a photographer, but it can get expensive and it's not as flexible as digital capture.</p>

<p>Have you ever used a view camera? I've been shooting 4x5 for about four years and it's not always easy to get good results with the thing. If you want a new appreciation for the word "frustration," try focusing on dimly lit flowers before dawn with a wide-angle lens (e.g. 90 mm) with a loupe in one hand and a flashlight in the other, holding your breath so you won't fog the ground glass, all the while racing to get your movements right before the sun peeks over the horizon. I wouldn't trade my film experience for anything, but I'm pragmatic. I shoot simultaneously with a DSLR because I'll always get more keepers from digital capture. And the quality of today's better DSLR's is very credible.</p>

 

<p>Reading through this thread I saw only one reference to image quality on the OP's website. I took a look myself and saw some beautiful compositions but many (to my eye) were spoiled by overly harsh contrast and exaggerated colours, not to mention unpleasantly blown highlights in quite a few cases. Contrast and colour may be a matter of taste, but noticeable areas of blown highlights seem to me a technical limitation of the equipment used.<br />Of the many thousands of film images I shot in Antarctica during the 80s, mostly transparencies, I'm hard pressed to find cases of seriously blown highlights, except where there was an exposure error or I was shooting straight into the sun or its reflection off water. Like Alaska, Antarctica has no shortage of sunlit ice and extreme image contrast. If transparency film could do this for me, I'd suggest that today's colour negative film will give you an even greater improvement in dynamic range for your Alaskan images.</p>

<p>Thanks again to everyone who's contributed to this discussion -- I've learned a great deal and I'm very appreciative!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The "trouble" is, we're still using digital cameras like we used film cameras: one shot at a time. That misses the potential of stitching several shots together to produce a single large, highly detailed image (which is what Art Wolfe is now doing), or using software to have a grass blade inches from the lens in focus while distant trees are also in focus. It just takes a different mindset and workflow.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Stephen,</p>

<p>Just wondering how you heard about Art Wolfe's stitching projects/techniques...? In other words, just confirming that this is indeed the technique he's employing.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>On stitching and resolution:</p>

<p>I've seen very sharp 30- and 40-inch prints from Canon cameras. These were single shot images of moving animals, flying birds, etc. There's no chance to stitch when your frame contains action.</p>

<p>Stitching is not a panacea. By twisting the camera around you get a bunch of images taken at different angles. The computer has to put all of those angles into a single plane and also has to deal with vignetting on each frame; sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't.</p>

<p>Further, when you make panoramas with a telephoto lens it looks different than shooting the same scene with a wide-angle lens. It's not necessarily BAD, but the relationship of near to far object is completely different. In other words, stitching isn't a way of creating the same shot with more resolution. It creates a different composition altogether, one with more compression and less of a wide-angle look.</p>

<p>In case you need another opinion, you can try medium format without spending a lot of money.</p>

<p>Try a postwar 6x9 folding MF camera. The choice ones would be the Zeiss Ikonta, the Agfa Record, or the Voigtlander Bessa I. See the eBay seller certo6. He cleans and refurbishes them. You can have something quite nice for under $150.</p>

<p>The best news is when you want to upgrade or if decide you don't like it, you'll be able to sell it for at or near the purchase price. It's not like the heavy depreciation of digital.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Am I the only one who thinks the pictures on Kevin's web site, although very pretty, have no resemblance to reality? I have never seen landscape look like that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i looked at his site. i have lived in anchorage for 38 years. he isn't faking or exaggerating anything.<br />people who haven't been here always want to know about snow, cold, ice. but this place is really about the fantastic qualities of daylight and sky -- incredible range, constantly quickly changing/fleeting.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4184163266_57c9dacc9e.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="287" /><br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4577676448_933cf927b2.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="284" /><br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/4566856513_aa1119eb5d.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="284" /><br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2595/3949877298_c1d0ac05e5.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="286" /><br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/3663999477_200048980b.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="288" /><br>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/88/244946115_e5e433eb8a.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="329" /><br>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/92/244946112_2758741cd6.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="342" /><br>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/85/244946108_9087bed725.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="340" /><br>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1375/1297673171_104a87787f.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="500" /></p>

<p>Hello Kevin, please browse this website <a href="http://www.wild-landscape.com/">http://www.wild-landscape.com/</a>, where you can find the answer to your question.<br>

I personally use Mamiya RB67 ProS for landscapes, which is excellent camera, but quite heavy for all day hiking :-)<br>

I love MF transparency (Velvia, Kodak Ektachrome E100 SW,GX), but I think that near future in MF is digital.<br>

</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>is it wrong to say that one cannot get really nice large prints by using some of the latest medium format (or even large format) digital cameras...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not certain that I understand the wording of your question (due to multiple negatives), but medium format digital cameras produce amazingly detailed prints. The problem is that the camera can costs as much as a BMW. It's not something that you'll want to carry through a bad neighborhood, for instance.</p>

<p>Large format digital systems are usually scanning backs. These are not practical for outdoor shooting, because if anything moves during the exposure it will result in a strangely distorted shape in the final image. If you want to photograph a still life of products (or fruit) they'll work spectacularly.</p>

 

<p>Dan, I can understand with MF, but I see no reason whatever why anyone would even want/need a digital large format camera.</p>

<p>Kevin,<br>

For me no sensor image at least in the relatively affordable digital medium format or the high pixel count full frame Nikons and Canons can be compared to a medium format transparency or B&W negative scanned at 4000 dpi and printed let' s say on an EPSON 7900 or equivalent on a prime baryta paper.<br>

I am doing all the work myself, but there are professional labs that are producing excellent results as well.<br>

Dimitris V. Georgopoulos<br>

Athens, Greece.</p>

<p>I've been a film photographer and wet darkroom guy for 40 years. I'm still a film guy, but have switched to digital for printing. I don't shoot 35mm--haven't for years. But I don't think even the highest-end sensors in 35mm DSLR's will compare with the results I get from scanning my 6X4.5, 6X6, or 6X7 negs, either color or b&w.</p>

<p>It's not only the size issue; project yourself 40 years down the line from now. How many of your digital images will still be 1)around or 2)accessible with whatever software/hardware is available then? And how many RAID drives or whatever succeeds them in mass storage will you need to house them if they're still accessible. I can always go back to a wet darkroom should I choose--that technology has been stable for 150 years. 40 years from now, you'll still have the film. I recently re-printed some color negs I shot about 35 years ago to replace some C prints that faded (today's C prints last much longer), and the negs were still in great shape. That's why I stick with shooting film, even if digital printing is as good as anything I could do in my darkroom--though not as much fun. I print on an Epson Pro 3800 which will do up to 11X17 sheets which is big enough for me anytime.<br>

If you're shooting B&W, develop your own film, which you don't even need a proper darkroom to do--it's easy, cheap, and boring. If you're shooting color, there are still decent photo processors around--I've even stooped to going to Target or CV on occasion with color print film (though not with E-6) and have had very suitable results.</p>

<p>Larry </p>

a boon! a boon! a boon! especially with an old Nikon or Leica!

<p>Excerpt of post by <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1113276">Larry Kalajainen</a><br>

"<em>It's not only the size issue; project yourself 40 years down the line from now. How many of your digital images will still be 1)around or 2)accessible with whatever software/hardware is available then? And how many RAID drives or whatever succeeds them in mass storage will you need to house them if they're still accessible. I can always go back to a wet darkroom should I choose--that technology has been stable for 150 years. 40 years from now, you'll still have the film</em>."</p>

<p>I've brought a similiar question up on other forums. I have family negatives that were shot by my grandparents back around the early 1900's. I have a hard time believing hard drives or other media might be passed down through generations of families to save cherished memories and history. Where a "shoebox" full of negatives will persevere, a hard drive inherited by family members just may not be recognized as something of value to be saved. My father in law passed last year and his son was looking to dispose of the computer his father had owned without much regard to what was on it. I took it and found years of family images on it that would otherwise have been gone forever. His father's earlier "shoebox" of film photos and negatives did however survive. The moment may be captured with digital today and we can look at it tomorrow, but don't expect our grandchildren to ever see it. </p>