Jump to content

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


kevinbriggs

Recommended Posts

<p>Since I have been working exclusively within the digital domain during the past decade (35mm -- starting off with the Nikon D100, then moving onto the Canon 5D, and now in possession of the Canon Mark III 1Ds), I am very much unfamiliar with the film domain (medium and large format, in particular), even though I started out with film 25 years ago in a high school photography class.<br /><br />The reason I'm thinking about going back to film -- again, in the medium and large format arenas -- is because a number of the landscape photographs I have taken during the past 5-10 years are now sparking interest with regard to potential buyers. (I've recently been contacted by friends of family members in the lower 48 -- I reside just South of Anchorage, Alaska -- who would like large prints for their professional workplaces as well as their homes.)<br /><br />Yet because most of these photographs were taken with the Nikon D100 and the Canon 5D, I'm obviously unable to produce high-quality large prints because of the smaller sensors and smaller resolutions.<br /><br />I recently had a somewhat brief online conversation (on a different photo forum) with a couple of landscape photographers who use film and who emphatically declared that most high-end/professional landscape photographers still use film (with medium and/or large format cameras) and that I would be best served by returning to film as well.<br /><br />So I have the following question:<br /><br />As I have looked online for film developers, it quickly becomes apparent that most of the industry has shifted to the digital domain. Most online developers do not offer film development for 120 mm cameras such as the Hasselblad H2F. (There are exceptions, of course... but not many that I have found.)<br /><br />Therefore,<strong> the overall question I have, first and foremost, is</strong>: with most major film-developing outlets leaving the film-development world in favor of digital -- or at least seemingly this is the case -- is it a bad idea to move forward with the acquisition of a film-based medium or large format camera?<br>

<strong>Secondly, </strong>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...?<br>

I do have some follow-up questions, but I will wait until I hear back from hopefully a few of you on this foremost question before I proceed with the other inquiries.<br /><br />Thanks in advance!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Our local Calumet has increased its stock of film, paper and chemistry in response to demand as people either return to, or discover, 'wet' photography. The Bristol (UK) Festival of Photography opens later this month and much, if not most, of the work is still film based. Many of my students are searching out old Mamiya and Rollei TLRs and getting into medium format.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I shoot medium format film exclusively and, certainly here in the UK, I have no problems getting my colour films developed. I have a very good lab close to me that still offers a wet darkroom service and hand enlarged colour prints. Certainly, most of the work they do is digital, but there must still be a market for film photography or they wouldn't offer the services they do.<br>

Monochrome is not a problem to me as I have my own darkroom so I handle all that myself, and if it were ever to prove difficult to get my colour work done, I also have the ability and equipment to handle my own colour prints as well.<br>

For me I have no reason to go digital, especially as I love film so much. You'd probably be best fully researching just how difficult processing film would be in your area and take it from there.<br>

Could you not hire or borrow some medium format equipment in the meantime, just to see how you get on with it and whether it really is the way you want to go?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kevin, if you are in the USA, send your film to A&I in Hollywood. I walk I'm there about twice a month. It is a professional lab that up until 6 years ago even processed Kodachrome. I pick up 3 rolls of 120 today. A process and proof sheet order costs 15 bucks for 120, 30 for 1 roll of 220. They have got this process down pat. They contact print your negatives onto 11x14 size sheets of Kodak Endura. Furthermore, professional quality digitization of med format film is possible with the Nikon 9000. Get one soon if you want one. I believe a 4000 dpi scan on one of the Nikon 90000 will get you a 30x40 inch 300 dpi print off a light jet, and even larger at 200 dpi on a durst lamda - both of which A&I also uses. There is brand new Mamiya RB gear on the internet selling at 20% of what it sold for ten years ago. Finally, if you elect to print your own B&W negatives you can rest assured that Freestyle photo in Hollywood is your advocate and source for film and paper. The decision to shoot film is an artistic expression choice. Its not a choice Joe Blow consumer will make now or in the future.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Tools are very personal choice. Maybe you could see about renting the film gear for a while before investing. Then again wonderful medium format film gear is cheaper than ever on the used market. You can also see the results from the labs, and decide if you have a good one available. There are still plenty of good labs, you just may not be able to find one locally. </p>

<p>What do you mean by "very large"? So far I've printed landscapes from my 5D much larger than I ever did with my Hassleblad 500c/m or Pentax 67II, but that's probably because larger sizes have become more readily available. I used to think of 16"x20" as big. These days that's barely medium sized. I think that what you will find is that with skills and experience (especially in the processing and printing areas) you can print large very nicely from either film or digital. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>Perhaps a direct conversation with a lab owner is in order. I don't think there is any question that the world of photo processing has been driven strongly to the digital realm due to market pressures from both amateur and professional shooters, and that quality enlargements can be made up to a certain point, from the highest end digital cameras. The is also no question that wet labs have gone away in droves, leaving only a core successful group in most regions of the country, seemingly only one or two in even the largest cities, (US) where once there were perhaps a half dozen or more in the big towns and even two or three in many medium sized towns.</p>

<p>There is also little question that film is enjoying something of a resurgence as both Fuji and Kodak continue to respond positively to a strong core marketplace that demands the quality of film product over digital.</p>

<p>My suggestion is that you talk to at least two or three owners of pro wet labs and get their take on which medium will product the finest prints in the 30x40/40x60 range. Whether those are direct projection printing from negs or transparencies, or digital prints from finely scanned negs or transparencies; see what they say about the ultimate quality compared to the finest print available in those sizes from a digital file from even the highest end Canon or Nikon. </p>

<p>Yes, you can get digital backs for some medium and large format systems, but at the cost of a darned good used car for even a reconditioned back, much less the cost for new gear. Then you have to worry about battery life in the field and whatever other technical challenges might occur that simply don't exist with film in the field.</p>

<p>The lab I use for my commercial work does everything from wet processing and printing up to enormous sizes, to digital work in exceptional quality. They are Allied Photocolor in St. Louis (alliedphotocolor.com) and could be one of your information resources.</p>

<p>As a bit of perspective, I live near Springfield, Mo. which happens to be the home of one of the finest labs in the world for portrait and wedding work (Black River Imaging). I have worked with them since about 1976 and have been close friends with the owners (husband and wife) for that long. They are strictly a digital production professional lab. Last week, in a conversation with the wife, who is a brilliant portrait photographer and very successful studio owner, we were discussing the merits of both types of media and she strongly stated that film is still very superior in color and reproduction quality over digital. Obviously, we both agreed that most of the market is simply driven toward the convenience and technical pluses of ordering, retouching, and lack of a need for storage space, and cost of film that help make digital so attractive. Of course this also keeps in mind that in smaller sizes, digital holds together quite well.</p>

<p>I shoot both, but I find that my D700, while it is fun and convenient, is totally unsatisfying compared to the delights of both the process of shooting film and the energy and excitement of holding a big transparency in one's hands and seeing those incredible colors "sing" to you. There is a wow factor that digital cannot begin to simulate.</p>

<p>Good luck and welcome back to the joys of film.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The answer may well lie in doing both rather than one or the other. Get film gear and use it where highest quality or image impact trumps convenience. Use digital where cost and convenience rule. Consider a hybrid process: film capture, but digital post and repro via scanning.<br>

There are still labs around though there are fewer and that can make it less convenient. Go all the way and not only setup film camera but also darkroom and processing capabilities and you don't have to worry about that. <br>

Quite a few people are rediscovering film - for the result and the joy. And there is a reasonable market for used film and processing gear still, which in some cases can make it actually more affordable to shoot film than digital for the same/better resolution.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> Because, like you, I was not getting what I want as far as large prints with my D700, I went back to film with a Mamiya Super 23. Sweet 6x9cm camera with good optics, interchangable backs, rangefinder or ground glass focusing and rear movements. The whole rig with five lenses and two backs cost about half of the D700 body. I process my own B&W and send the color out to H&H labs in Raytown, MO. One issue is the scanning. I use an Imacon 848, for up to 24x36 prints on an Epson 7800, but you can also send out for high res scans of your best images and use a cheaper solution, like the Epson V750,with the BetterScanning film holder, for smaller prints. 6x9cm is a wonderful format for landscape and I find I don't crop near as much as with my Bronica 6x6cm system. Be aware that "good print" means different things to different people. If you need significantly larger high quality prints, I would suggest large format.</p><div>00WPcb-242327684.jpg.188feb869c9f9c97cfc111b16bb39219.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think you are missing the key point: swtiching gear will not change the potential quality of the pictures you previously took, and the real issue is the quality potential of your current gear (a 21 MP Canon 1Ds Mk. III).</p>

<p>The 1Ds Mk. III should be able to produce excellent prints at quite large sizes. Before you make any substantial changes or spend any significant amount of money, what you need to do is take some best-practices pictures with the 1Ds Mk. III (e.g., excellent lens, sturdy tripod, mirror lock-up, self-timer or cable release, careful focusing, consideration of depth of field and diffraction), get them printed at various large sizes (say, 16x20 and 24x30 inches), and see what you think of the quality.</p>

<p>Will medium format film produce substantially better quality than a 1Ds Mk. III? I suspect that for the most part, overall, especially with color images, the answer is no. With some color films you can probably get somewhat more ultimate resolution, but you are unlikely to get as good color accuracy, or as low grain / noise. Also, getting the most out of the film means a high-quality scan. That means a substantial investment in equipment and learning-curve time, or else spending signigicant money and putting up with some delay. Also, don't confuse scan resolution with DSLR resolution; <em>pixel-for-pixel</em>, they are just not the same. When I want a really good scan, I send the film to West Coast Imaging for a drum scan ($25 and up). If they scan 6x6 at 3800 ppi, you get over 8000 x 8000 pixels. But at that sort of scan resolution, the per-pixel resolution and detail are generally less than a DSLR's. So a typical good 70 MP scan of MF film maybe has overall resolution similar to a 35mm-style DSLR of more than 21 MP, but far less than 70 MP.</p>

<p>Large format film is more or less more of the same, relative to medium format film. Resolution is higher, and grain / noise are lower. Will you see it in the print? With a really large print, I think so, but we're talking mostly subtle differences in common-size prints. Now if you want 40x50 inch prints, it makes sense.</p>

<p>MF (and LF) digital no doubt can produce some amazing images, but for a lot of dollars. Full systems have started as low at $10,000 (Mamiya), but that's for just 22 MP, and the higher-end sytems can top $40,000. Yes, the lack of an anti-alias filter means that a 22 MP digital back should produce appreciably more resolution than your 1Ds Mk. III. Pentax has an interesting-sounding camera on the horizon (not sure when it is supposed to hit dealers).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think the camera doesn't really matter unless you have a specific need. I'm constantly in search for new gear that will make me better, but I look back at pics I took years ago with much less expensive gear and I'm totally happy with them.</p>

<p>That said I shoot mostly film in the moment, for personal use. I simply enjoy it more. I like thinking more about each frame instead of just reflexively pushing the button and looking at the screen. I also mostly shoot B & W and process and print at home, so I don't need to worry about scanning. The quality doesn't matter much to me. </p>

<p>I will say that I find the color of velvia 50 to be really nice. It's saturated but it looks natural. </p>

<p>Have you actually tried making enlargements from your old files? I have an 11 X 16 or so from a 5MP P & S and it looks great.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A look at the market for used MF suggests healthy demand, and thus demand for film and processing (the demise of redundant or less-favored films like TX320 does not spell armageddon). As one example, the prices of a used Hasselblad 501CM with finder, back, and lens is around $1800 (used retail), still fairly expensive. For another example, it's been weeks since a Mamiya 6 was available at KEH, and prices have remained high. Last night I finally found a bargain-grade body as a backup, and jumped on it. With the Mamiya, portraits with Portra 160 have beautiful skin tone, and are razor-sharp and grainless--that's why I'm still using film.<br>

What I find interesting is going back just a few years when everyone jumped on the digital bandwagon for serious landscape work, and seeing the drop in quality from film--just look at any published how-to on digital landscape photography that's a few years old, even by the big names, and you'll see what I mean. Things have of course improved.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It is not a bad idea to get a medium format camera HOWEVER, please pull out your 35mm film camera and get yourself re-acqainted with film again before investing. 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). There's plenty of services around that will develop and scan in 120/220 film professionally. However you will likely not be able to resist wanting to scan in your film, a medium format scanner (a good Nikon one like the LS-9000 or even 8000 aren't cheap even used). </p>

<p>So pull out your old 35mm camera and start using it to "refresh" your memory. It may not be what you remember, if you find it inconvenient medium/large format is even less convenient and more expensive. Also the equipment is big and heavy to lug around, it puts a damper on a hiking style. I don't think there's any doubt large prints from medium/large format are better, it depends on how close you are to looking at them though. </p>

<p>If you buy a used or old medium format cameras don't be too picky about ones with metering. Many came without metering, or with metering prisms that used radioactive material in them which decays over time. Don't expect much I'd say from an old medium format camera's metering. I have an RB67, I have to set my metering prism to ISO 400 to get it in the ballpark when using velvia ISO 50 film from the decay but I don't really use it. Nikons color metering system is a lot better than I am especially with snow, so I take a picture with my Nikon dSLR and review it to determine if the scene is worth taking with my medium format and if so, I use the same settings. Your Canon, you can do the same thing but just need to make a few compensations for snow. I would take pictures with your digital and if you like the results use your medium/large format also with the same settings (run a test roll through the film camera first to see if the shutter is fast/slow). Some medium formats used to take polaroid backs so you could see instant results before taking the real deal... before digital came along. I think that's doing similar. Definetely pull out your 35mm film camera and dust it off though, before you make the investment.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When I was visting the New Orleans area last month I called up the few camera stores I know; and none carried B&W in 120 anymore; thus I mail ordered it from B&H to have it set there. Thus one should not plan on even a major city still carrying MF B&W film anymore. When I was a kid every drug store in Podunk had 120 and 620 in Verichrome; now towns with a Metro population of 1 Million look at B&W MF say Kodak tri-x or Ilford FP4 "something we can mailerorder"; ie major camera store do not carry it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=662498">Mätt Donuts</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, May 07, 2010; 02:01 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It is not a bad idea to get a medium format camera HOWEVER, please pull out your 35mm film camera and get yourself re-acqainted with film again before investing. 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). There's plenty of services around that will develop and scan in 120/220 film professionally. However you will likely not be able to resist wanting to scan in your film, a medium format scanner (a good Nikon one like the LS-9000 or even 8000 aren't cheap even used).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A few things to clear up Matt. True, you can't change iso....true white balance can sometimes be an issue (although my lab scans have no WB issues at all)....but the primary thing to cosnider here is your comment on EV in Raw. A color or B&W negative holds MORE dynamic range and latitude than ANY current DSLR on the market.</p>

<p>It is nothing out of the ordinary to pull 14-15 stops with B&W neg....and in excess of 12 stops from color neg. If you're speaking of chromes, then yes, you're correct. If it's negative materials, then no, you're mistaken.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Don't let the lack of a local lab stop you if you really want to shoot film. I buy film from B&H online, and get my E6 processing and scanning done by a pro lab by mail order. Definitely takes longer but I'm willing to wait. That said, you should be able to get a very strong print from a 1ds III assuming it's a sharp image. With files from that rig, you should be able to get a very nice print at 20"x30" or perhaps larger. Shooting slide film for me is more about having the slide itself and not the print. Looking at the slide on the light table or projected on the wall makes me feel like I'm there seeing it again with my own eyes. It's all about "the look" for me. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>Everything I can't get done locally (and I'm fortunate to have a lab down the street that does a fantastic job on 120/220 negative film) I send to Dwayne's. I find their prices reasonable (120/220 print film processed and scanned for $7 plus shipping, E6 is a bit more) and have never had any problems at all with them.</p>

<p>The difficulty is getting a good scan, but if this is for huge prints that people are paying for, just get low res scans or use a flatbed scanner for your own use and shop out the good scanning and printing to a good shop.</p>

<p>BTW if size and metering are going to be a problem as Matt suggests, try a TLR - a Mamiya C330 is going to feel like nothing compared to your Canon, and cost about $200 with a lens and WLF - and you don't need us to tell you about handheld meters and technique.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I visited quite a few photo exhibitions where the images on display were in the 30X40 range. I'm guessing that most of these images were taken with a medium format, or large format camera since they were taken prior to the Mark II 1ds, or similar Digital cameras. The photographers rarely include the medium used in their captions.

 

What surprised me was that these images were indistinguishable from images made with a digital camera as far as grain and resolution are concerned. One such example are the images displayed in the Arlington Cemetery club house. http://www.wherevalorrests.org/ The pictures are amazingly clear and very sharp despite their size. The color is very well balanced also.

 

Last year, I attended another exhibit that displayed images taken recently by the White House Press photographers. This time I asked what medium did you guys use ? and most of them said Medium format film. These days however, there are Medium Format digital cameras that can certainly print those large sizes without any problems. You might want to look into those cameras, but the costs are a little outrageous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'll preface my remarks with the fact that I started with film, still use film (120), prefer film, but primarily use digital (1Ds3 and hopefully Pentax 645D). Ralph Jensen brings up a very good point: stitching. Software exists to do anything any film camera can do: you can use a digital camera to make huge prints or to have huge depth-of-field (obtained from camera systems that can tilt the lens). 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>

<p>Having said that, I'd still rather use a film camera, especially medium format, and get a beautiful shot without having to spend so much time in front of a damn computer. It's that aspect of the digital change that I dislike the most -- it's not the same experience that I used to enjoy.</p>

<p>Film and digital can both produce remarkably detailed prints at very large sizes. With film, it depends on the camera system (size of film, ability to control lens movement if you want extensive DOF). With digital, it depends on how you use the system. Each has a distinctive workflow and therefore a different experience. We each have to decide what kind of experience we want to have when we photograph. For some, the process is as important (maybe even more so) as the product. For others, only the final product matters. Some look at a final print and see beautiful print as well as an experience; others look at a final print and see a beautiful print.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I prefer large format for landscape. It's not just about resolution, although with sheet Ektar available from Kodak, it's hard to argue that the resolution isn't leaps and bounds above everything else for now. Tilt-shift on the LF bellows is wonderful for many types of shots you'll end up making, and you might find that your ability to take nice photos blossoms when you get proficient with the LF camera's suite of features.</p>

<p>That said, it's NOT fair to say you can't get good landscape photos with digital. It's about which tool is best for what you do, and digital cameras (esp if you have a full frame camera and know how to use it and how to digitally process the photos). You can also get Tilt-shift lenses for digital if you want.</p>

<p>I personally LOVE film and use it extensively for landscape and street work primarily. My biggest complaint with it is how long it takes to get results after snapping your shot, and how much of a PITA it is to scan sheets and how expensive it is to get someone else to scan them.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Do you really like stitching? You can't see the shot in the finder, if anything is moving it messes you up and the software can get it wrong and screw up the transitions between shots. I think of it as an "in a pinch" thing, not a "plan on shooting this way for your highest quality stuff" thing. I'd much rather have one big negative.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The comments about stitching are always interesting because in every forum everyone compares film to stitched digital. Yet no one mentions the obvious: stitched film is also excellent: This is a 4-part stitch of Crater Lake during forest fire season, taken from the summit of Mt. Scott with a Mamiya 6. You have to see it big to appreciate it.</p><div>00WPoe-242431584.jpg.7369ca31b2ab85e67925172fdcc25bf1.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

<p>Whereas you can stitch film, I have even done it, it is less attractive to stitch film vs. digital.</p>

<p>

<p>Scanning film is already a pain IMO and so scanning a number of film shots to get one higher resolution shot is even more of a pain.</p>

 

 

<p>

<p>But beyond that the OP already has good digital gear, and if the only thing missing is higher resolution then for many people stitching can give that, without all the work of using film.</p>

 

 

<p>

<p>Whereas I have stitch a few film shots I have stitch well over 3,000 digital photos, something I don’t think many film shooter would ever do.</p>

<p>If someone likes shooting film then MF or LF are great ways to go, but they are not the only way to get very high resolution photos.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...