ambivilant feelings towards digital (and image link test)part II

[bas1]

Hi guys,

 

Sorry, I screwed up the links in the first post and couldn't delete them, so I reposted.

 

As a general Mac and computer fan (countless hours wasted per day!) I love having my

photo's available digitally but just cannot get myself to really convert over to digital. I'm

not sure if it is only a quality thing. I'm quite confident that I'd be able to get equally good

results from a digital file, but for b/w type stuff espacially I don't think that Tri-X and a

Hasselblad can be beat. Also converting colour shots to digital just isn't the same and

somehow it doesn't seem to make sense to me, at least at an emotional level. I just feel I'm

waisting something and altering something beyond what seems reasonable or honest or

something.

 

Although I do think that I will be replacing my Leica with a 35mm digital eventually I don't

think I'll ever get rid of my Hasselblad and still contemplate adding a 60mm and a 120mm

to my arsenal. Could probably pick them up quite reasonably these days.

 

Strange these ambivilant feelings towards digital he?

 

Below some of the shots I recently scanned. Just learned how to link to external images so

hope this works. Let me know how you guys feel and what you think of these images.

 

<center><img src="http://users.skynet.be/am031079/iphoto/test%20iphoto-Images/

14.jpg"></center>

 

 

<center><img src="http://users.skynet.be/am031079/iphoto/test%20iphoto-Images/

1.jpg"></center>

 

 

<center><img src="http://users.skynet.be/am031079/iphoto/test%20iphoto-Images/

16.jpg"></center>

 

 

<center><img src="http://users.skynet.be/am031079/iphoto/test%20iphoto-Images/

11.jpg"></center>

 

 

<center><img src="http://users.skynet.be/am031079/iphoto/test%20iphoto-Images/

12.jpg"></center>

 

 

<center><img src="http://users.skynet.be/am031079/iphoto/test%20iphoto-Images/

27.jpg"></center>

 

 

<center><img src="http://users.skynet.be/am031079/iphoto/test%20iphoto-Images/

35.jpg"></center>

[shambrick007]

These shots ROCK!!! Scanner info please? Also, how did you sharpen? What settings?

[bas1]

Thanks a lot.

 

These are all scanned on a Epson 4870 as 8bit grayscales. Sharping was set to yes in the

scan program and all on auto exposure. In photoshop I only slightly worked on levels and

curves but I have to say that the Epson does a great job with it standard settings and

autoexposure and even auto colour on some of the colour shots I scanned. I like this

scanner since its a quick way to scan a bunch of negs and just get them into iPhoto for

websharing and creating slideshows. I haven't printed off any of the scans since I have

darkroom for that, but I might have to in the future. I might need to give up my darkroom

for space and expanding family reason, but I'm confident this scanner will do. The new

one suposed to even be better.

 

Sharping was mild and set to around a 100% to a 150% with a 0,7 ratio and 1 threshold.

[norman_wijaya]

Great shots and scans. As someone coming over from the digital side first and then to film please do not belittle the digital format. Digital B/W might still be nonexistant but there are lots of things that the digital do wonders (digital 35mm as I haven't had the budget to try MF digital yet)

 

For example, the changing of ISO with the flip of a switch and ISO 1600 that has very fine noise/grain.

 

White Balance that requires no filters. Not to forget that digital B/W requires no filters as you can do it with channel mixer.

 

Also, since I'm located in a poor 3rd world country getting film processed and developed is getting rather scarce as very few labs do 120 film anymore. Not to mention the scarcity of film types.

 

So in my case I shoot mostly digital and use my hassy on the other times.

[johnmarkpainter]

Bas,

 

Are you dropping your Hassy edges in using Photoshop? I haven't been able to scan full-

frame with the 4870

 

I have a lot of the same gear you have...Hassy, Leica, Epson 4870. I also have a Nikon

D100. I have been using it alongside the anove-mentioned cameras a lot so that I have a

good frame of reference.

 

I can get photos with my D100 that look fine...until I look at the same shots from my Film

cameras! I ending up doing additional Tweaks in Photoshop trying to get them to look the

same but it never quite happens.

 

Someday maybe...

 

jmp

[nikos peri]

Cool stuff. Don't let it go as you would miss it. What film?

[kosmoskatten]

Bas - DON'T give up your MF gear just yet.

We are at work Imacon scanning Hasselblad negs from the late fifties (Tri-X) and print them 50x50cm (20"x20") and they are absolutely stunning and NOT "obsoletely stinking".

 

I have had the fortune to try some fine digital slr's (1dmkII and 1dsmkII) which have other great benefits. BUT the impact these ol' Hassy negs have are not to be frowned upon. I was tempted to bring a Canon 20D on the trip to India but though it is very good - it isn't good enough. And a totally different cup of tea.

 

I will lug my Hassy SWC/M off to India next week, for a month. With a Leica CM as sidekick. Tempted to bring a digi p&s but haven't found one that I like, yet. I do some work on digiSLR that I would have found awkward at best with analog gear but the Hassy has it's place. definitely, in my arsenal.

 

BTW your pictures look great, I too have the Epson but with the Imacon at work it is packed away :-(

[bas1]

Norman,

 

I do not belittle digital or digital b/w. Like I said I love living in the digital age, love my

Mac, love my iPhoto and photoshop, sharing digitally via e-mail or website but when it

comes to photography I at least emotionally prefer Tri-x and a Hasselblad. I have no doubt

that I could do wonderfull things with a good digital, but I still prefer film.

 

John, the frames are from the scans. I just use the regular negative holder (the one that

holds three strips of 120) and that allows me to scan full frame as you can see.

[j.f_f]

Very goods shots, contrast and sharpness are very goods.I like so much.

regards.

[Gup]

Bas, thank you for sharing! Never have I enjoyed waiting so much for images to download on my ridiculous dial-up connection (26,400 bps). I would love some more details on the actual exposures, before the scans. I, too, can't bring myself to switch -yet- and I haven't decided on how much scanner I need to buy. You said you used Tri-X. What speed film, shutter speed, f-stop, etc.? I don't detect a fill light, right? All hand-held, too, right? Did you need to meter, or does your experience over-ride that step? I have a Hasselblad 503cw I bought new that I never use accept on a tripod for formals at weddings. I always take my Nikon F5 when I go portable for its ease of use. It's easy to get lazy with this for a back-up. And I love shooting kids, too. Your work inspires me.

Gup.

[kelly_hicks1]

These are great pics Bas. I love the square and these work very well within the structure. As someone who has just closed down their darkroom, I understand what your going through :(

I still haven't decided whether or not I'm going to sell my hass. and pick up a DSLR or go ahead and purchase a 4870 and do the scan thing. I love the big neg of MF but the instantaneous feedback of a DSLR can't be overlooked. You'll have to give us an update once you print these out!

[bacsa]

Very good shots, nice family, good luck with the "expansion":)

I'd say you don't even need those extra lenses. And, why would you give up something which you can use with such great results?

[bas1]

Gup,

 

Thanks for your kind words.

 

All those shots where on Tri-x, rated at 200 for those shots. I typically rate my Tri-X

anywhere from 200 to 1600 depending on need. The exposures were done using a

incident meter, metered in the shade and left that there for the day. I take only a couple of

measurements during a day, the light doesn?t really change that much during a day when

you stay in one location. No flash, no fill lights used. I cannot recall the actual meterings

but I believe they where somewhere in the 1/500 @ F5.6 area or 1/250 @F8. Developed in

D76.

 

I have a tripod but never use it. It doesn?t fit my style and shoot all handheld on the

Hasselblad. A 503CW that I bought new as well. I had a Nikon F100, but sold it since I

never used it anymore. The blad is not that much heavier and is such a joy to use. Bit

difficult to focus on the kids, but you just need the experience on when the kids are still

enough for you to shoot them. Real candid stuff is better on an AF or the Leica but I find

that my Hasselblad shots are always better and very few of the candid shots actually make

it to print with me. Kind of strange since I always thought I?m more of a candid shooter but

turns out I?m more a deliberate shooter...

 

Regards

Bas

[robert_clark]

I too like the shots, and I'm impressed by your scans. I shoot with Leica M6's(mostly) and a Pentax LX and MX, but also with a Rolleiflex. I'm setting up a darkroom again, albeit frustratingly slowly, but am also thinking of scanning B&W and slides.

 

I'll probably end up using the scanner mostly to scan to the web, but would also like to try some black-only printing.

 

Questions: have you printed any of your scans yet, if so to what size, or to what size would you feel confident printing?

 

Also, have you scanned 35mm slides or negs on this scanner? If so, what are they like? And finally what size do you think you could print them and have them still looking good?

 

I suppose I'm wondering if such a scanner will meet my rather ill-defined needs, or whether I'll need both this and a film scanner (Oh profligate!).

[bas1]

Robert,

 

The largest I've printed is A4 since that's my printer size. That was good quality, and I've

printed a crop of a A3 print on A4 that was equally good. I would have no hesitations to go

larger then that on this printer.

 

Having said that though, sometimes is it a bit of a pain to get a good scan and to ensure

the negative is level in filmholder. I purchased this scanner for the price and cause it is

good engouh for the webwork and occasional print. If I where to close down my darkroom

and I would have to rely on a scanner to get all my printing done, I would have gone for

the coolscan 9000, especially for the quality on the 35mm scans.

 

Have a look around PN. There are plenty of people around that have a lot more expirience

with this 4870 scanner then I have. For MF and at that price it can't be beat. For 35mm I

think you'd better look to a film scanner. If you wanna do both and use a scanner for all

your print work I believe the coolscan 9000 is the only game in town, apart from the

Imacon scanners that are extremely expensive.

[e_b7]

I have the same feelings about film versus digital, so I shoot both. I recently ran out of 120 Plus-X and used my Canon G3 instead of the Hasselblad 503CW. I converted the digital image to BW in iPhoto and was pleased with the results.

 

The two problems I see with digital are: loss of 2 f-stops contrast ratio; inconsistency in color printing. The latter seems to be getting better with time (I upload to Kodak.com). As for the former, in strong sunlight, the sky gets whited out with digital more easily. Film just handles high contrast (usually outdoor) situations better. The only thing you can do is some image post processing with a program like Photoshop. Emotionally, however, there seems to be no substitute for Kodachrome, Plus-X, Tri-X and other fine films. I can't tell whether I'm just being sentimental or the results are that much better, but I'm not going all digital any time soon.

 

I also shoot movies (16mm film and digital video). The DV is convenient, and you get the sound easily, but it lacks the emotional and aesthetic impact of film. This is true, even when the film is transferred to video (film still has greater impact). In the end, I watch my films, but mostly just archive the DV.

[kevin mayo]

Awesome work Bas. I understand your feelings, I ordered a D70 kept it 1 day and sent it back. There wasn't any emotional contact with the process. I have G5 for snapshots that I like but for anything more serious I am staying with film.

[streetlevel]

Some great shots!

 

For my own part... I use digital anywhere I would have normally used a 35mm,

(excepting for a pocket camera, where I still have an XA with tmy at 800) but I still carry

around several medium and large format bodies. It all depends on what I'm shooting and

the circumstances. Eventually, I imagine that I will have to add a digital back to my

medium format systems, but for now, film still treats me very well.

 

Thank you for sharing these wonderful moments with us.

[derek_stanton2]

Nice. REAL nice.

[patricks]

Bas, you have my adminiration and ovations! These are just magnificent family images - just what I personally expire to achieve. My own kids/friend's kids have a tad too much energy to be captured easily with soemthing like a Hasselblad so a AF D/SLR is always good to have. Also, a Leica is fab for that low/available light stuff. But for everything else I'm convinced that one cannot beat a Hassy combo for mono shots/prints.

 

Curious - what lens do do you use?

[derek_stanton2]

Bas-

Maybe i missed it in the thread - were these made with the 80 Planar?

And, when you rate the film at 200, do you then Pull the processing, or are you trying to

get denser negs?

 

Thanks.

[bas1]

Thanks for the positive feedback, very appreciated. The lensses are both the 80 planar C.

An older uncoated one that I really like and a 150CF. I'm not a 100% sure anymore which

lens was used when, so I'll leave that open.

 

The processing time is adjusted for the 200iso exposure. Not sure what the time was, I'd

have to got my notes. Tri-x is pretty forgiving though.

[paul t]

I am so BORED at looking at photos of kids. Or I thought I was. These are

wonderful, so full of life' they're not 'cute' - they're totally joyous. Made me

want to buy a Hasselblad and have loads more kids... enjoy the addition (and

no, I don't mean a new lens). <p>

BTW, I feel the same as you, I've worked on Macs for ever, usually testing new

technology for publishing - and messing around on Photoshop to me means

work, not pleasure... if we are living in the twilight of film, good for us, if it

means we can capture images as beautiful as these.

[tim_stephens]

Bas,

These shots are fantastic! And I thought I was one of the few to chase my kids around with the Swedish cube! A testament to the versatility of the 80mm lens. Well done.