Going all film?

Well, to begin with, this is my first post in the forum, but I've read up on

this site for quite sometime.

 

But to get to my question, I'm considering dumping all or most of my digital

setup and going all film, I'll be buying an RB67, hopefully. I'd like so

feedback from people who have made this step.

 

This is something I've been thinking of doing for a while, I'm just slightly

apprehensive because I'm a 17 year old who has been brought up in the digital

age. I began taking pictures with a D1H and slowly invested quite a bit of

money in it, as well as off camera flash photography. But, when I laid my hands

on my father's AE-1 I fell in love, and my D1H and flashes have been slowly

coming out of my bag less and less. I was able to get a (very) beat up

inexpensive ETR and enjoyed using that even more. It made me realize that, the

more (well, maybe the less) I would use my D1H, the more boring I thought it

was, and setting up three flashes felt like a chore. I'd rather partake in

landscape photography, or natural light portraiture, outside of a studio.

 

As I said, I'm planning on selling my Nikon, Skyports, and 555's and investing

in an RB67 and a few lenses, and a light meter, but my biggest question is will

I regret going all film? I have plenty of experience with developing and

printing B/W, and I also own a flatbed film scanner, the only thing missing

would be a camera in better condition, and a bunch of film in my fridge.

 

I guess I'm looking for feedback from anyone, but mainly people in/around my age

group who began photography shooting digital and moved to 100% film. Were you

happy with your decision?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Chris

Looks like you and I are going the opposite direction and we met somewhere in between. :)

I am about to dump all of my MF equipment and head towards 100% digital. Will I ever regret?

I wouldn't burn the bridge on digital quite that much personally. I tried shooting film when I was your age and failed miserably. Digital helped me to learn. Now, as I move back to film and developing I'm enjoying it a lot. I still use digital, but I'd say equally with film. I'm also moving into large format as well as Medium format. I just sold my RB on ebay this week. I'm down to a Mamiya 645 and a Calumet 4x5 along with my digital gear.

 

Digital has its place and like I said above I wouldn't dump it entirely, look for a couple of deals for a 6x7 and possibly a large format 4x5 or 8x10. I realize at 17 its tough to afford, but ebay, craigslist, and other sources have some good deals. I bought my RB locally on Craigslist for $299 and sold it on ebay for $510. that paid for 1/2 of the 645.

 

I think its good that younger people like yourself are embracing film, but don't give up on digital entirely.

The future is digital. There is no doubt about that. Film will not disappear, but it will become harder to use. Processing, chemicals, paper etc. even scanners, will be harder to get. It is good to learn traditional dark room techniques and they can produce nice images. But it is also more expensive than digital and going to get more expensive in the future. Don't be offended, but maybe you just want new equipment? Some people, quite famous and respected photographers, seem to change their whole outfit every couple of years. Their pictures won't improve from it, but they are equipment junkies and need a new fix every once in a while. It is an expensive habit. I would suggest to keep as much of the digital gear you can, especially lenses since they don't go out of date, and just get a cheap second hand medium format film camera and one lens to start with. If you can hold your interest for longer than a year, then you can expand your system.

Well, I'm an old guy but I'll offer my 2 cents' worth anyway! :) I started with film and

stayed with it, adding digital along the way. Now I shoot a mix, but lately a lot more film

(Mamiya TLR, Mamiya 7) than digital (Nikon D300, Kodak ProBack on Contax 645).

For B&W work, to my eye, digital is sorely lacking in tonality and other intangible

qualities found in film. [Note to all: Just my opinion, please don't turn this into a film-vs-

digital whine-fest!]

 

Unless your budget is very tight, I'd not bother selling your digital gear; you won't get

very much for it as it's several years out of date--almost not worth the bother. If you intend to remain

a hobbyist, you don't have to choose between film and digital--you can shoot either as circumstances

warrant.

 

Likewise, you should keep your Skyports, as they might prove useful in the future if

you decide to return to shooting strobes either on location or in the studio. Then you'll

just have to re-invest in Pocket Wizards or Skyports or whatever's current then.

 

There are a lot of RB users hereabouts who can advise you on its suitability for your

intended purposes--by all accounts it's a rugged, reliable camera with terrific lenses,

but about the same weight and size as a boat anchor or cinder block. That 6x7 cm film

frame, though...daaa-um!

 

I have toyed with the idea of an RB myself, for studio portraiture; but I can't justify it as

I'd like to stay married; and I already have a great 645 system (the Contax) which,

even though it has that tiny little 6x4.5 cm negative, is all-around versatile.

 

I'm using my Mamiya 7 a lot for everything but head-and-shoulders portraiture. Great

lenses, lightweight--pricey however.

Hey Chris,

 

Let me start off saying that i am 19, and i have taken over my great uncle's photography studio founded 1954, and guess what i'm 100% film.

Dont let people on the forum persuade you in the opposite direction. People babble on about how digital is the future, well last time i checked our age group was the future, and if we prefer film.....yeah you get the idea!

Let me say that i did in fact start off with a cheap 35mm nikon fg and a couple of weeks after i got it i was given a nikon d70 as a gift, needless to say i played with it for a while becaue it was new, but i kept going back to film, there is just some kind of excitement when you get the film back that is not there with digital.

Once a photographer asked me why i prefered film vs digital and i responded much as you have said, i've been raised with digital film is new and interesting to me not to mention hands on. Sitting in front of a computer just seems like a chore but handling negatives and printing in a darkroom is just plain fun!

Not to mention the proven archivability of negatives, one thing i like to ask/tell people is if they would consider storing their digital images on a 5 1/2" floppy disk, and when they say no and give you a dirty look then say well why would you store them on a CD, negatives are the only proven media to last over a hundred years if cared for propperly.

Also if you need some resourses on processing and printing film try H&H color lab, they still offer very reasonable pricing on their film products as well as they will make prints direct from the negative (optical) but of course scanning is not a bad route either, but it can be time consuming, but it is ususally rewarding.

Sorry i'm so long winded it is just a subject i feel very passionately about so if you would like to ask me any questions or talk further please send me an email!

Good luck with shooting flm, its fun!

Josh

Chris you may want to consider a newer RZ which can be used with digital backs.

Then you have a camera that can shoot both film and digital. Digital backs do cost

a kings ransom, but like all technology prices will continue to drop the older they

get. Like stated above if you plan on shooting b&w extensively, then stick with

film. I purchased my RZ67 ProII strictly for b&w film and figured I'd get a digital slr

for color work. After using my RZ the first few times and printing those amazing

6x7 negs, I thought "The Hell with color and digital...I'll stick with what I've got".

Good luck.

The RB is a great camera! You will like it very much. A 6x7 negative beats digital hands down. For a digital to come even close,if at all, it would be one of the super costly ones.Josh is right about the achivability of film. I would not even think about 8x10 someday. The cost for a B&W film is in the dollars per sheet. 4x5 is an option, but not now.Film doesn't have to be expensive. I have a Mamiya TLR, Mamiya Press and a RB67 Pro-s, 4x5 and others. I bought the RB in EX+ condition with a 220 film back and waistlevel finder (no lens) from Adorama for $166.00. If you do get the RB, I would get the L-bracket grip holder. It makes carrying and handholding any pro size medium format camera, alot easier. Digital does save on film, yes. But, it still has the printing costs, and alot of other costs. You probably won't get much for your digital equiptment, It's changing so fast that it becomes outdated quickly.

Chris,

Don't know how old you are, but I'm 44 and of course grew up with film. Last year I

bought my first digital and took a zillion photos with it, many of them very good. But

now for any artistic work I take out either my Mamiya 6 or Bronica S2. I can't explain

why--maybe it's simply the challenge. The cameras (even the Mamiya) are heavy

and prone to expensive repairs. The film is expensive and time-consuming. Digital

has better shadow detail by a mile and better color. But I can't help myself--now all I

think about is where I can buy Tmax. The bottom line is, digital is easy, and that

bores me.

It's like the difference between people who study the piano and those who buy an

electronic keyboard at Costco and have it play pre-recorded music automatically.

Scott

The RB is a wonderful camera but I would choose the RZ. You will love those big ole negs.

I'm 19, and I recently had I chance to buy a new camera (I had a Canon Rebel G, which is film). At first I was thinking that I

would go digital, but, after research and using a D70 for my job with my college newspaper, I decided to get a RB67 ProS. I

don't regret it at all. With digital I find the whole workflow too quick. I find myself not really worrying too much about

composition. I just take pictures, and if it doesn't look good I delete it. I understand that this is a discipline problem of my

own, but it is like having a liquor cabinet when you are an alcoholic. With my RB67 the slower workflow makes me stop a

think before I take a shot, truly causing me to take better photos. Also with digital the photos look ...digital. The RB67's are

going for amazing prices too. I got a RB67 ProS with a 120, 220, and Polaroid backs; a waist level finder and the metered

chimney finder; 5 lenses; and some filters for

$580. You really can't beat the quality for the money.

 

On a side note Mamiya is coming out with a digital back adapter for the RB67's. I'm not sure it is for all of the models or just

the ProS and ProSD. The backs are ridiculously expensive though.

 

I would also recommend that you think before you get rid of your D1. There are advantages to digital that you may need later,

but, if you are on a budget like I am, I would say go for it. You won't regret it. You can always pick up a decent P&S or

another DSLR when you have more money.

 

I see people recommending the RZ. I couldn't get it because it was too expensive for my budget. It really depends on what you

are going to shoot. If you need a RZ is a question you will have to answer.

 

Be very careful on ebay though, and get a good tripod too.

 

I think that's about everything.

"last time i checked our age group was the future, and if we prefer film....."

 

Your age group is more digital than any other age group. Two or three exceptions won't make any difference.

 

When I was young, I did not have too much money to spend on film or cameras. Shooting film is much more expensive than shooting digital, when you already have the equipment.

"Shooting film is much more expensive than shooting digital, when you already have

the equipment."

 

Maybe the the total cost of shooting film is more, but the initial cost for a digital

camera that comes anywhere near the quality of medium format is ridiculous. Film

won't cost more if you are printing yourself too. I don't take photos to sit in a

computer, and then I would have to buy a ridiculously priced inkjet printer and buy

new cartridges. This will probably cost more than I pay buying film, processing it,

and printing it with the compete B&W darkroom set I got for $200. Why don't you go

tell everyone who lives in an apartment to get out and go buy a house. At least a

house will not be obsolete in the next five years (that's a generous estimate).

I have an RB67 Pro S. It's a great camera. I would not recommend getting the earlier RB67 Pro because it lacks some of the interlocks. The great thing about the RB is that it doesn't use any batteries. The camera is always ready to go!

 

With that said, I also have a digital setup (a Canon 20D). The great thing about digital is that I didn't waste film when I was in my learning phase. My wife also likes it because she can see the results right away.

 

I also prefer film because like some previous posters mentioned, the tonality and the archivability of film is still superior (in my opinion, of course).

I started out with film quite some time ago. Recently I've been working with digital as well.

 

During those times when I might be a little broke, my digital equipment is great! And it allows me a no-cost way to try out different things -- I can "test" compositions, exposures, etc. with it.

 

I strongly prefer film for black and white. For the controls you get in the darkroom plus the resolution, you just can't beat it.

 

For color, I've become what I call a "hybrid" photographer. I like to shoot film and then scan it and work with that. I love the control over post-processing that I get that way, and again, the resolution and other qualities of film can't be beat.

 

But there are times when I need or want to use the digital camera. It's great when I'm not sure about changing light, or other whatnots that come up. Then it can serve well, especially as I don't have to stop and load another roll of film!

 

Anyway, if I had only one choice, I'd stick with film -- I've got everything from 35mm up through 8x10 in my "arsenal".

 

But fortunately, I don't have to make that choice.

 

Maybe you could take the view that they're different media with overlaps?

 

Regarding your lighting equipment: KEEP IT! If you have the skills with it already, you're lucky and you should keep those skills honed. PLUS, if you get rid of it now, you'll just have to spend much more for it later on when you discover that you really need it after all.

 

Anyway, I hope this helps.

Do it!<BR><BR>

Since getting a Rolleicord, a Bronica ETRS and an RB67, my Nikon D100 has seen practically no use.

When I was 17 (now 50), I had a lot of fun with film and my own darkroom. But job

and career slowed my activities down, and I didnt have enough practice. For a

learning curve, digital is extremely helpful. I sold all my analog FE2 and lenses in

2000, and liked the immediate feedback with digital, the creative potential of

postprocessing.

 

Just now I am sitting on the fence for a used 6x7 because a good analog MF shot

is way better than any digital sensor now and in the near future. I will shoot analog

when light and scene are promising, or digital "test shots" come out nicely. I will

not switch 100% to film.

 

If you have landscape in mind - film tonality and detail is clearly superior to digital

now and in the near future.

A used MF equipment is high value for money but running expenses for film are

high if you shoot a lot of frames. BTW, your flatbed scanner is probably the weak

link in the chain. High quality scanner are $$$.

 

Another positive aspect of MF or large format is the slower pace of working, good

for composition. Depending on the situation, you need both worlds, I would not

switch completely.

Don't dump your digital unless you expect never to have a reason to use it. On the film side, I like the RB ProS because it is fully manual and not battery dependant. The images are amazing when done right. I use a hand held light meter primary for incident readings, but on occassion will do reflective metering. I also use digital sometimes.

 

Nobody shoots film cameras like they do a digital camera. Digital is not cheaper to use than film unless you like sharing hundreds of images on the internet or printing to a CD .. but when you begin editing and printing at larger sizes the costs really go up .. and if you factor in your time .. well, did I say I like film? .. and try gettng that TIFF printed to gallery quality, not your home PhotoShop incarnations and tell me where the savings are.

 

Digital may be the future but who cares if you want real quality in your photographs, vs. digital dullness out of camera and significant post processing behind a slow computer; remember with digital you are never current in terms of an imaging system. Perhaps for a year or two and then there is a new computer, scanner, memory hungry software, storage and backup issues, and another digital camera to consider .. who has time for photography?

 

The RB/RZ is a proven performer with excellent lenses .. not to say digital is bad, but it is different and very convenient which is why dumping it is not a good idea. Also sometimes you may want to use digital to pre-shoot something important and then work it with film. Some people see no reason to shoot film any more .. who knows, maybe they lacked the self-discipline to do it right, maybe their workflow and needs are different, maybe they feel it is good enough for everything, maybe they never really felt photographically competent enough to rely upon it for thier shooting style. Film has a history and a look that when you do it right is very, very satisfying .. it was always excellent at 35mm .. its' astounding in medium and large format.

 

When you're comfortable with film and the RZ .. run some slide film through it and then tell me if there is a digital camera that can do that!

When you already have a digital camera, using it, whether for one picture a day or 100 pictures a day is essentially free. With a film camera, you must buy film and you must process it. You can save by processing it yourself, but you still need to buy the chemicals. The more you shoot, practice and learn, the more you spend.

 

Printing high quality prints is not cheap. It is not cheap in chemical darkroom either, where it takes quite some practice before you get a good quality print. And making another good quality print takes a lot of practice and wasted paper. With inkjet, there is a much less steep learning curve and one can better make small trial prints first before feeding the big, expensive sheets into the printer. In a traditional darkroom it is much harder to make a good 4x6 print first and then a bigger one, with all the dodging and burning etc.

 

We are talking about a beginner here. Someone who already has a digital camera and some experience in that field but not from film, let alone from traditional darkroom. I fully agree that it is cheaper to get a top quality large print from film than from digital. But any good digital camera on the market today can make very nice A3 size prints. You don't need a medium format digital back for that.

If I were in your shoes, I'd dump the digital gear while it still has some value. When you want to go back to digital you'll likely have to buy new gear anyway. Of course you could own and shoot both?

I do agree with JOSH GILREATH, If over age group will be stayed with films, then why the film will not disappear..? A film shot has life in the picture, digitals need so much postprocessing and you can't get the results near the film, digital cameras eat so much details of a frame. If you want prints of your shooting, then it is more easy to drop the roll at the lab and get printed, and we can scan our negatives for the computer storage and for some special effects or manipulating if we want. I am just scanning my 2 film rolls which I just shot last day, while writing this para. I strongly beleive thet, the photography is more subjective to the films, not to the digitals.

 

Chris, I would suggest you to keep shooting with digitals, as hobby, testings and experiments, but do shoot your important assignments with films. this is not the digital vs film, but think guys, what we get in digitals at what cost..? and what we have to do after our shooting with digitals...?

cost seems an interesting issue.

A digital camera with circa 20+mp (what you need to take on the quality of 6x7) are hideously expensive compared to a few hundred for a second hand RB with lens and back. Then you have the computer system and softwear needed to process the pics. You could have a very nice darkroom for that money and a basic one for a lot less. As for chemicals and paper - last time I checked printing digital images to any decent quality was not exactly cheap. Indeed, once yo work out the cost per print for processing (especially if you do your own) there isn't that much in it.

Of course, if you change your mind you can get back what you paid (thereabouts) for your film gear whereas you will get a pitance of what you paid for your digital gear second hand (it is out of date in months). Once your digital camera is out of date you basically have to replace it for the up to date technology. By comparison, open the back of your film camera and put in the latest technology. As scanning gets better, so the available info on film will be better realised, so the gap will never change much.

Digital and film are two answers to the same question. Both have good and bad points for them and are better suited to different situation/applications. However, cost should not be used as an argument against film or for digital for if you factor in all associated costs then it can go either way. Instead, people should ask, which system best suits my needs and style?

I say go film all he way. Film has just as much as a future as digital does and looks a

whole lot better and is nicer to work with. I just shot an entire schools end of year

portraits and group photos using a Hasselblad and HP5/Tri-X. The parents are very

happy with the results which I am able to sell cheaper than the digital photographer

who did the school last year. At the end of the day both film and digital are viable

options - just go with your heart, as that is the path that will improve your photography

no matter what anyone else tells you.

Get the film camera, but dont dump your digital - shooting film is very expensive

over the long run. Unless your parents are very well off and will pay for all your film

and developing, you should keep the digital for snapshots and playing around

when funds are low. But definitely check out 6x7, you will love it!

I come back to film too. Shoot a lot of commercial work and use digital (for instant

proofing on the computer screen). But when a client can wait and trusts me or when I

shoot for my book I try shoot as much film as possible. Film has different look which

makes my photos stand out from the digital crowd.