There are Still New Film Converts!!

<p>Aaaaa...and here this was the one final thing I was for some reason avoiding! Ah well. I will certainly look into it. I mainly shoot Kodak B&W so that'll work just fine.</p>

<p>I have an Epson V700 for scanning. Not the top of the line but not the cheapest either. So far I have been quite satisfied so that'll work great. And if I process my own film, I guess I only have myself to blame if the negatives are scratched or damaged!!</p>

<p>...hmm...time to start hunting online again... :)</p>

<p>Scanner - Yes, this can be a major expense, depending on how deep you want to dig. In the pockets, that is. But again, it doesn't have to be. Many reasonably priced scanners can be found both new and 2nd hand. I use a Mikrotek i800 flatbed which cost me $300 new. Any of those, or an Epson V series is good enough for proofing and beyond. If I see a picture I really would like to get a nice print of, I take the negative to a specialist drum scanning shop. It doesn't happen that often...:) Reasons explained already...</p>

<p>Don't worry too much about the equipment - and above all - don't forget to have fun!</p>

<p>People have different reasons why they prefer films (and perhaps also the rangefinder way of making images). And I believe they are all valid to the person concern.<br>

To me, the reason why I like film is the fact that the look of a B&W silver print is just different. And I prefer that. If someone else prefer an inkjet look, good for him!<br>

It is absolutely true that there are many advantages to using the digital medium, and that is why I am using a Nikon D3 as my main camera now. But the inkjet print just do not excite me. The digital images will do the job that I need to do. But I will rather prefer a traditional B&W print to an inkjet anytime.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I have an Epson V700 for scanning</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you are all set scanning wise. It should even be better than my Microtek, after what I have read.</p>

<p>If you`re already using a V700, you just need some small change to buy the tank, the squeege and the thermometer. Don`t spend a lot; there will be always a chance to spend money. Start with plastic juice bottles, clothespins, etc. Load the film on an absolute light tight bathroom or cellar; if you`re not sure if it is at all, use <em>also</em> a black towel or blanket as an envelop. After a few rolls you`ll know what you really want&need.</p>

<p>Just a small tip (I hope Jose agrees): Squeege - also not necessary. After hanging up the film, wash one hand under running water and let the filmstrip pass between your index and 2nd finger, using them as the squeege. Once is enough. Don't use too much pressure. You only want excess water to come off.</p>

<p>I prefer this method, because the human skin is in fact very smooth, doesn't let dust or abrasives stick to it, after washing, that is. A squeege will, eventually, attract abrasives and has to be discarded. I hope this does not become the case with my fingers!</p>

<p>I think it you haven't tried printing B&W yourself in a darkroom (in my case my tiny bathroom) you are missing the real magic of film. And to go one step further you have to try fiber based paper after you get the basics down with RC. The counter argument is that it takes time. It can take a lot of time. So when I shoot film now I usually have something special I want to do, lately portraits of friends, I shoot one 12 shot roll and only print the single best picture. This keeps the time in the darkroom to a reasonable level. The prints are really special. If I'm just out for whatever or on vacation I bring the DSLR.</p>

<p>I admit, I am intrigued about developing my own film. As for printing in the dark room with an enlarger and everything and on fiber based paper? I...well...damn...that sounds awesome. But I will take this one step at a time. I am enjoying shooting right now. I will most definitely try my hand at self developing. And THEN I will try the printing...once I decide which bathroom to sacrifice and how to make it light proof! :)</p>

<p>Once you process your own...you'll be hooked!</p>

<p>Ha. I know...I know I will be...that's what I'm afraid of. It's a hell of a hobby / passion / all consuming lifestyle I have decided to get into!! :)</p>

<p>"Never let the facts, or common sense, get in the way of a good conspiracy theory."</p>

<p>Oh, <em>of course</em> the profitable business scheme of Planned Obsolescence <em>must</em> clash with common sense;) The fact that Nikon doesn't seem interested in putting out even a single batch of Coolscans, despite the demand (witness the used market!) lends even more credence to a "conspiracy". I remember many years ago when I first got into photo, and a more experienced brother warned me about photography magazines. He said the constant ads will make you feel that you need new equipment when you really don't; this marketing is obviously much more intensified with the advent of digital capture photography. Consider all of the myriad digital accoutrements, rapid software upgrades,... Sure, digital is perfect for those needing rapid results, I've said this many times... But for me and for many others, there is something simple, elegant, and above all, appealing and pleasureable to our film photography, especially with a rangefinder. I'm sure someone is going to pipe up with, "well if all those pros are doing it.." Well, I'm sure it's possible that for some it makes sense, others are themselves involved with the industry (and hey, there's now all those new, latest and greatest workshops to teach:)). Factor the herd mentality in, too, as pro photographers are certainly not immune to it. And still others, stick with film. All of my favorite photographers' images are on film, so it can't be that horrible a medium, can it?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Coincidently, I lost interest in contemporary music around the same time. Why? I personally enjoyed going down to the record store, picking up a couple of LP's, putting them on whilst going through the often very interesting pictures, stories, texts etc. that used to come as an extra with the LP packaging. CD's never had the same allure to me. Maybe it is the same with photograpy? I mean, what tactile/visual enjoyment do you get from handling an SD card, compared with a roll of film, or a negative?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I think there really is something to that, too, Ingemar. (I often work with musicians now, and in many ways, I see analogies with photography.)</p>

<p>i think what I like best about film is the dynamic range that is available as compared to digital...with digital you can compensate for this using a variety of techniques but you become more reliant on post-processing...i use both, sometimes post-processing can be fun, other times it's too time consuming...</p>

<p>I agree about the post processing. To me post processing was kind of like zen. Coming from a technical (hard science then programming) background but now doing more business, this filled the void and allowed me to get "into the zone" while processing one image after another. But shooting film, the post processing is basically just the scanning and the cleanup and compared to some of the more intensive post processing like HDR, it's nothing. And...I kinda liked it :) Then, during this current business trip in Japan, my personal laptop died so I'm using a spare. This meant no Lightroom, no Photoshop, no nothing... I could have gotten GIMP or something but I decided to instead create my own profile on my GF1 and go shoot in JPG (first time in FOREVER) with the new Leica lens attached along with carrying my Voigtlander and do some street shooting in Tokyo.</p>

<p>It's been fun! Very little post processing. And I can't wait now to get back to the states and get some of the film developed too. Either way...what were we talking about? Oh yes. Very little post processing. It's been a great change of pace. I'll go back to shooting RAW once back in the US I'm sure but you're right, that is another great thing I've noticed about film. I guess for the longest time in my mind film = those kinda plain family snapshots, even though I knew that it was capable of greater things. :)</p>

 

<p>I wonder if the Mariners will trade Cliff Lee to the Yankees.</p>

<p>WT, they want Montero and Nunez...not going to happen...</p>

I learned a lot shooting film. I learned a lot from digital capture and desktop post processing. Neither is inferior too the

other. The only inferior thing is an attitude that keeps one from exploring the possibilities of a medium to it's fullest extent.

Alberto,

 

I just looked at a few of your photos. Don't fear digital...judging by your portfolio, you would take better photos with the

crappiest digital point and shoot digital camera than most of us would with a 35 mm Leica.

 

Martin

<p>Tim, if you are still in Tokyo go the 5th floor of the camera building of the West exit Shinjuku Yodobashi. You will find everything you need there. I recommend the HCL changing bag. Get a film tank (LCL is good) and pick up some chems and you are good to go! Should be around 5000yen for everything. The darkroom can wait until you are comfortable with it. Developing and then scanning is a great first step :)</p>

<p>Ha. I was just there 2 nights ago oggling stuff at Map Camera. I will wait to buy the stuff once I get back to the US since I leave on Sunday. But yes. I will certainly try developing my own film!!</p>

<p>Hehe, I drop off film at the Kitamura and then do my rounds of the camera shops and by then, its time to pick the film up :)<br>

Gotta love West Shinjuku!</p>

<p>I've been going through a bunch of old slides shot with minolta and decent lenses in the 80s and 90s. The digital transition has been a bear, although I cant tell you how sick I am of scanning slides, especially when scanners don't do them justice, and it costs as much to buy a good scanner as a new D700. I'm still shooting Bronica 6x4.5 that looks gorgeous, but scanning again is the hangup. In a way, film from this era is going to be the survivor, because its a tangible object. There's rarely a dud in my roll of 15 MF images. Even mundane stuff is spectacular. I dont know why digital seems to go in the opposite direction and mute everything. Actually, I think digital does reasonable in overcast or at late midday rich sunny colors with polarizing. It seems to really fail at sunset and sunrise or fog or unusual lighting. Velvia will turn someone orange or red, but digital just blanks. It could be the chromatic abberation. Even when the colors are there, it looks flat. I see it in studio shots as well. Objects don't round out properly.<br>

Digital destroys my old film setup for action. I have no romantic attachment to film, but it just looks better for landscapes, light, studio and is more 3d, at least in the loupe, then it loses something in scanning. I kind of miss the resolution of direct slide to print making, but that had its pitfalls as well, and the customizability of pshop is irreplaceable, whatever purists say. I will say I'm much happier sending my prints out these days than doing it myself. Inkjet printers and toner refills are a ripoff to what a lab can do, and I dont have to do any labor or be responsible for errors. Still, film makes you a tighter shooter, but it isnt that. Film implicitly renders differently than digital, but we'll see what's up with my next body upgrade. I want the D700 because I own the sharpest 28mm prime Nikon ever made now. It's shot great with my F3, but I want to see it work its magic with full frame. Too bad the camera body is gonna cost an arm and a leg, and I'd hate to buy it just to hate it. A renting we will go.</p>

<p>Chuk, we've probably passed each other in the street. I'll be on the 5th floor tomorrow buying some Ilford paper. Although I notice a gradual decrease in lineup (paper toners have all gone), the Shinjuku Yodobashi 5th floor is a sanctuary for film developers and darkroom users.</p>