Want to Shoot Film Again

<p>Can you recommend a MF camera that is good ( for Portraits ONLY) and a GOOD lab that will process it and get some great images AGAIN . I will continue to shoot digital BUT I want to shoot my Portraits aof the Bride on Film, (Am I Crazy for doing this ?)<br>

thanks, rollsman</p>

<p>Dennis, No, the idea is not crazy, but a bit more information from you would help. <br /> Some of the associated things to consider are:</p>

<p>1) Do you have previous experience with medium format equipment?<br /> 2) Addressing the lab question. Are you going to have your images processed in the darkroom<br>

(traditional wet-work), or are you going to have the lab run high quality scans,<br>

and finish the processing in a digital flow?<br /> 3) If you don't presently have a film scanner, what is your estimated volume of images to be scanned;<br /> per month, per year, etc...?<br /> 4) Have you decided on a frame size in medium format, ie...6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7, or...?<br /> 5) Are you budgeted for all new equipment, or will most of your purchases be from the used market?<br /> 6) If you go new, you could have an immediate "turn-key" system, capable of digital, or film capture <br /> from the same camera.<br /> 7) Your choice of camera brand and model, now, (new or used), will determine whether you can easily adapt<br /> to digital backs in the future. Offerings from Hassy, Mamiya, and Pentax come to mind.<br /> 8) Looking for better color rendition? Have you thought about remaining in digital, with a Fuji "Fine Pix" system?</p>

<p>You are not crazy, just retarded. Try a Mamiya RB, Hasselblad 500 or Pentax 6x7.</p>

<p>There will be a learning curve. Put 30 or 40 rolls through the camera before you rely on it for anything serious.</p>

<p>Although I prefer Hasselblads and Rollefiex tlrs, I would recommend a Mamiya RB67. The RB is MUCH less expensive than the others, and the bellows focusing will allow some versatility with respect to framing your subjects. If it does not appeal to you in the end, you will have spent perhaps $300-500, as opposed to $1000 or more for an outfit in decent shape.</p>

<p>I occassionally get the urge to shoot film, then I remember the hassels:<br>

Thawing out the film and locking myself in dark room to load. Frustrated with camera not shooting, only to find the dark slide was engaged. Going days trying to complete a full roll - knowing the film sitting on insert could cause problems. Having it sit at home in drawer until I could find time to drop off. Waiting an exhorbent amount of time to have it done. Driving across town only to find that the processing was not done - after checking over phone before driving out. Then scanning, and re-scanning.<br>

Guess I could try mailers again, but I've had a number of rolls ruined with no explanation.<br>

It was however exciting to see the slides under a loupe and light table.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>then I remember the <em>hassels</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hassles or Hasselblads?!</p>

<p>RB67 and 180mm lens for portraiture...trust me!</p>

<p>Lab: any film that I shoot will now go to North Coast Photographic Services (http://www.northcoastphoto.com/) because they've done such a wonderful job on my latest developing and what they call "enhanced" scans. My "regular" lab was a HUGE disappointment when I sent them film...seems they no longer have anyone who knows anything about film...too digital now.</p>

<p>Although I have not used them yet, I hear constant raves about Richards Photo Lab in California too. They are a bit more expensive, but they customize their developing and scanning to your tastes....so after you get something you really like, they do that for you every time.</p>

<p> I have 33 years experience with MF( hassy 500 c/m) I am starting to think MORE seriously that I should stick to Digital. I have to mail the film out and get it scanned and the cost involved. I am spoiled now with digital( seeing the images right away) and much cheaper. I do appreciate all the responses. I will NOT buy a MF film camera. Thanks, rollsman</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><strong>Hassles or Hasselblads?! </strong></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Yes sir. Hasselblads on the brain. I have both the A16 and A24, but have only put a few rolls through them since getting a V96c back.</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

 

<p>Not crazy. It's why I keep my old 35mm film bodies. Canon FD - the lenses are cheap. When I get the urge, I go shoot a few rolls, and after all said and done, I remember why I went digital. :)<br>

I still do much of my landscapes in MF film, as I still have access to a local lab with good techs experienced in processing it, and I stick to the Portra 160VC they still keep stocked in the fridge as they continue to serve a dedicated group of pros in the area. For equipment, I use cheap good old Mamiya M645 gear. You can get a decent body, prism and 80mm lens for around 100 bucks.<br>

As long as this relationship works, I'll keep shooting it. I simply don't have the time or volume to justify and run my own darkroom or more expensive gear. So long as I can keep it an enjoyable experience, the better.</p>

<p>Trollololol...nice trolling-try Dennis. Yawn.</p>

<p>I occassionally get the urge to shoot film, then I remember the hassels (sic):</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Thawing out the film and locking myself in dark room to load.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Why would you lock yourself in a darkroom to load a medium format back...potential zombie attack?</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Frustrated with camera not shooting, only to find the dark slide was engaged.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Guess you need to learn that once the back is put on the camera, the first thing you do is remove the dark slide. You just set and follow an exact procedure each time...not hard to do...</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Going days trying to complete a full roll - knowing the film sitting on insert could cause problems.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would you go days trying to complete a full roll? Film is relatively cheap - take it out - have it processed if you want to get the images, or only load 120 length film...I really don't get this one. What kind of "problems" could "film sitting on an insert (whatever that is) possibly cause? You mean film against the dark slide? - the film doesn't touch the dark slide.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Having it sit at home in drawer until I could find time to drop off.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Sounds like a self generated problem...if it's important, you make the time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Waiting an exhorbent amount of time to have it done.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> The film labs I deal with return the film the same day if you drop it off in the morning.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Driving across town only to find that the processing was not done - after checking over phone before driving out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Self-created problem - find a new film lab.</p>

 

<p>I'm not unlike Pete.........except to the contrary:<br>

When I get the urge, I shoot a few digital frames, and after all is said and done, I realise why I stick with film.<br>

The only times I took to a dark room to load my film, was when I shot pictures using Plate cameras! (1954/56).</p>

<p>I like to shoot film for fun as i enjoy the whole process. As a commercial enterprise Digital is the way to go in almost all circumstances. For landscapes and similar subjects film is still great although I find that I like to scan my own images. By scanning my own images I get the results I want but it does add a $2500 Nikon scanner into the film cost.<br>

The tactile nature and slow process of film makes shooting a film body somehow more rewarding. In addition the Fuji GX680s do not have a great digital solution and it remains the best front movement camera out there (only Rollei has an alternative - but this has less movement).</p>

<p>Tough to beat the look of film sometimes. Especially the larger films. I've been doing my own B&W developing for quite a while now and most recently have been processing my own E6. My first 35mm film was a dud but I figured out what went wrong and my films have been great ever since. Really not much harder than B&W. If and when I get cranky with the whole mess I'll shoot digital for a day or two.</p><div></div>

<p>I use an RB67 for a lot of work. It's big and heavy. I'm looking at a Mamiya AFD2 for wedding work. Film is easy. Shoot it, drop it off, download the scans, done. When I get back shots from a wedding, I have pretty much no post processing that need be done....unlike a digital wedding.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Whilst I'm not a wedding photographer (or any other type of professional photographer) the two weddings I have done were also with an RB67 with a lab doing all of the 'post processing'. I can't think of a better way to do it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I get back shots from a wedding, I have pretty much no post processing that need be done....unlike a digital wedding.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dave, I'm not sure if I necessarily agree (though I prefer film). Digital is easy: load into RAW management software (e.g. Aperture), tag the frames you like, check for focus accuracy, colour correct the remaining images where necessary, crop and rotate if you need to and you're pretty much done. :-)</p>

<p>I was shooting with film exclusively up until 2008 when I got my first digital point and shoot. Then last year I had an assignment and trying to find the right 35mm film put me over the edge. After the assignment was over I immediately went and purchased a Nikon D700. I haven't shot one roll of film since July, 2009.<br>

However, that said, I just purchased 5 rolls of Tri-X in 120 format. I'm actually worried that when I die that my hard drives will be formatted and my discs dumped in the garbage and all my pictures I took digitally will be gone. I decided that the best thing to do was to print all the pictures I deemed worthy of printing so I'd have something for my family to see when they're looking back at my life. My negatives might get dumped too, but at least there's something physical so it might give them pause.<br>

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that I think I may go back to using film again. I enjoyed developing the film and printing in the darkroom. Digital is fun to print since once the picture is "right" printing is repeatable but I think a print made in the darkroom is unique since dodging and burning will be the same for the most part, but not perfect.</p>

<p>Shooting film does add value and purpose to the experience of a shoot. However, in the day to day business of product photography, its costly and slow. The gentleman before me shot with cambo's 4x5 and 8x10. I still have the negs, complete works of art for even the most mundane of ads and brochure supports. Then we purchased our first Canon 1Ds Mk1. That was a game changer. Same day turn-around. You can setup, shoot, deliver and strike in the same day. In fact, an entire days work done in an hour. Once we armed ourselves with an Epson 9800 (the other half of the digital revolution), it was game over. My very first ebay experience was selling off the Cambo gear.</p>

<p>Bean counters aside, I do have to point out that even in digital, my style of shooting and work has not changed. We have a lot of young designers whom think they can fix everything in photoshop, and that making things happen correctly before pressing the shutter is a waste of time. I was even taking direction from designers over an internet feed via desktop sharing. It's not the same, and I put a stop to it. My point is that film, and I'm agreeing with others here, made you slow down and think about your work.</p>

<p>Even in fast paced events like sports and concerts still required that kind of logic, and I've learned. I remember shooting 1000's of images at an event, in hopes that I nail a few keepers. My keep ratio was very low. Like 1 in 10, and it created a a lot of work for me to sort out all those shots. Now, I time things and anticipate, firing when I feel the moment is right. I shoot a few hundred and my keep ratio is much higher, like 1 in 3. So while I learned that pixels were cheaper than film, my time was not.</p>

<p>Put it another way: An old bull is on a hill overlooking a valley full of cows. Suddenly a young bull runs up and frantically panting, he yells "Hey, hey. Lets run down there and have out way a few of them cows!"</p>

<p>The old bull slowly looks up at the eager young bull, then down the hill, and replies. "No. Let's WALK down there have our way with them all."</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=20594">Karim Ghantous</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 11, 2010; 08:24 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When I get back shots from a wedding, I have pretty much no post processing that need be done....unlike a digital wedding.<br>

Dave, I'm not sure if I necessarily agree (though I prefer film). Digital is easy: load into RAW management software (e.g. Aperture), tag the frames you like, check for focus accuracy, colour correct the remaining images where necessary, crop and rotate if you need to and you're pretty much done. :-)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think you missed something Karim. I don't need to color correct all the images....it's already done. It's like having all the files on your CF card complete when you move them to your laptop.....which I don't believe is the case.</p>

 

 

<p>Ah, but Dave! You may need to use CC filters, right? It's easier (on paper) to do that in software.</p>

<p><br /> :shrug:</p>

<p>I myself went back to film photography 6 months ago and have no regrets what so ever. I brought a 645 Pro TL, which i think is a very good camera for both indoor studio and outdoor field work. I process the film at a local photography store and scan them with my canon 8800f. <br>

The process from taking a shot via photoshop or darkroom to a finished printed photograph takes obviously much longer than digital photography but it is for me at least much more enjoyable and creative. <br>

As with any portrait equipment (both digital and film) I argue that the choice of lens is the most important factor for a good shot. But I would in your case recommend the Mamiya RB67 for its fairly modest price-tag and excellent photographic quality. Mamiya lenses are plentiful in quantity and range (mm&f./) compared to other brands which always makes it easier. </p>

<p>Good Luck and hope this helped!<br>

Babak</p>