Getting Back into Film

[colin_cooper]

I recently made a trip up into the pacific northwest to visit family, and one

particular member whom is mostly responsible for getting me into photography in

the first place.

 

I started shooting weddings and portraits professionally in the early 90's. Back

then, if you were in the wedding and portrait business you generally shot some

variant of medium format camera. In those days I used an assortment of mamiyas

and hassleblads, and usually a canon 35 for the candids. My partner (who was 40

years my senior) would usually insist on shooting his Rollei for everything, and

over time he slowly converted me into a Rollei believer.

 

Fast forward a dozen or so years - I now shoot an entirely digital system for

everything I point a lens at. It was truly a shock to the system at first, but

once I had devoted myself to the new medium, in terms of weddings, moving to

digital made my work immeasurably easier and more profitable.

 

Real or imagined, I have to admit that the look of film in portraiture,

especially film thats come out of a high quality medium format camera, has an

entirely different visual "Feel" to it. I dont know what it is, but in terms of

a finished print, film still looks better to me.

 

During this recent trip, I spent some time in the darkroom with my

aforementioned uncle who is a certifiable film nut. I found out that I miss the

darkroom - the smell of the stop bath emanating from his basement brought back

many memories.

 

So I made the decision to start shooting some film again... At least on a

limited basis. I need to get my fix.

 

Long ago I traded off my original Hasselblad and Mamiya 645's for EOS gear, so

wanting to shoot some film gave me the an excellent excuse to buy a new camera,

except that I didnt buy just one - I bought Two! Two Rollei's to be exact.

 

One is a 2.8f Type 1 with a Xenotar and the Other is a 2.8f Type 1 with a

Planar. Both cameras have seen some use, but the glass on both of them is as new.

 

After all of these years, the age old rollei lens debate never left my mind

completely, so I had to get one of each.

 

Yes - I am going to find out for myself, and I'll be happy to share my findings

with all of you along the way if you're interested in my little journey.

 

To keep things fair, I'm only going to use one film/developer combination - Plus

X and D-76 - Mostly because I know how this combo works.

 

 

Look for some posts from me in the next few upcoming weeks.

 

Cheers,

 

-C<div></div>

[russ_britt3]

I have also started playing my vinyl albums more as I get older. Getting ready to order more film......digital is colder, too perfect sometimes.

[russ_britt3]

Heck I may even start writing letters and putting them in the mail.....is that taking it too far?

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

Photography with film is fun!

 

You gotta slow down when using film. At least I do!

 

Take time to see and smell the roses!

 

Looking forward to seeing more of your pictures.

[d_purdy]

Save your testing time and film. Sell the inferior Planar and buy good fiber paper.

Dennis

[colin_cooper]

If I bought fiber paper, than I'd have to buy chromium plates, a squeegee, and a hot print dryer too.

 

No more ilfobrom for me!

 

I guess I only miss >certain< parts of the wet process!

[sw12dz]

Looking forward to more posts from you. There's is just something about film that is magicical. I love taking my negs out of the tank and holding them up to the light in order to see what I have achieved. The feeling never diminishes, it is the same for every roll of film. I agree with Dennis, save your time testing and just go out and take pictures. The Planar/Xenotar debate will never be put to rest. IMHO they never built a Rollei with a bad or inferior lens. Whatever model you own, be it a Tessar, Planar or Xenotar, f2.8 or f3.5, you have one of the finest pieces of equipment ever made for MF photography. My 2.8E/Xenotar (bought 2nd hand) has been around the world with me a couple of times and has never let me down.

[spanky]

Welcome back to the Dark Side.

 

PS - I still write letters by hand and snail mail 'em. I guess I'm just a 37 year old dinosaur lol!

[d_purdy]

That is a very funny picture of the girls. they look like someone in the room just got yelled

at by a grownup, right in the middle of a very fun birthday party. Now they have to check

out all the grownups, afraid there is going to be a general yelling at all the kids.

 

It is hard for me to imagine the love of using a great camera like a Rolleiflex without the

ultimate appreciation of a fine print. However I realize that a lot of photography now days

is done just to be seen on a monitor. I think it keeps the Rollei at a disadvantage quality

wise but it is still a nice camera to handle. I would never miss processing film but if I

couldn't look at silver gel prints I would give up photography.

Dennis

[fotografz]

Welcome back to real photography Colin : -)

 

I think the internet is what is killing MF photography. Sub one meg files compress all that

visual richness into a shadow of it's former self. The web is the great equalizer that

homognizes all images to the lowest common denominator ... so a Point and Shoot can

compete with a fine MF instrument. It's all "Immediate Need Greed".

 

Dispite all the authoritive discourses on how digital capture is so great, IM (informed) O, it

still pales in comparison to the same scene shot on film ... even if the film is scanned and

printed digitally.

 

I've found some intresting inkjet papers like Crains Mueso Silver Rag that are pretty good

substitutes for silver printing. Not the same, and may never be, but damned good to the

eye.<div></div>

[ronald_moravec1]

Congrats. New Plus x may need slightly different times so test first. It is still nice film.

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

Hi Collin, keep on workin with film, work HYBRID!

 

 

Cheers

Wolf

[drjedsmith]

Glad to hear we're not the only ones...if any of you followed my recent thread in the Leica forum...I think my wife and I are going to move to the Mamiya 645 AFD system so we can shoot higher end film, and she can have a digital back for when the client insists on that.<BR>

Film still has a certain look to it that I love - maybe it's the tonal seperation, sort of 3D look because of the grain/crystal structure. Plus-X in D76 is one of my favorite films. Very nice looking tones.<BR>

Jed

[gnashings]

I have yet to see this supposed "feel" when the film is scanned and spat out of a printer... But then again, it is and always was the printing that is the final performance, and thuse requires most virtuosity of all the steps in the making of a photograph. Hence, it doesn`t surprise me that so many people are willing to settle for inky ejaculations...

[fotografz]

"Yet to see" being the operative words.

 

Film scanned is still better than digital capture, and prints are getting better as people

practice at it ... just like as needed in the darkroom. Film printed as silver prints stills rules,

but really requires mastery of the darkroom.

[debejyo]

I apologize for budging into the conversation. I use Yashicamat 124G. For me digital is just a point and shoot. The pain is in making digital copies to share. I tried scanning and they are fine as long as it is not a sunset at grand ganyon or some fireworks. Pictures with sharp color transitions have made my scans look so ugly that I wished scanner was never discovered.

 

What would you guys do with such pictures? I'll attach one right out of the scanner in a photo lab. I saw them and shrieked. They were 8bit TIFFs.<div></div>

[debejyo]

Here is the other one. Just see what scanning did to my Provia 100s.<div></div>

[debejyo]

PS. I just downsampled them and made them JPEG for uploading here. I did not try to correct anything. I have no clue how to get rid of the "RED DISC".

[fotografz]

Better, high res scans with deeper D-max is needed (16 bit scans in a broad color gamut like

Pro RGB wouldn't hurt either.)

 

If the tonal transitions are there on the film, a good scan can get it.

[michaelchristensen]

Wow what an interesting thread. I have a Nikon D200 and don't shoot sunsets with it because of the effect pictured above .. and, well probably not fireworks now. And, after two years with the D200, which has supplemented my income for event shooting, I'm less than fully "digital" having just bought a 50-year old Rolleiflex.

 

Film never screwed me with highlights like digital does; okay I guess slide film has sometimes when I was careless. But the two pictures above, while technically very good and most people would love them .. they do exhibit an "unrealness" which has hounded the digital photographer for many years now. Recent threads in digital photography are well aware of its' limitations and Thom Hogan alludes to a departure from the Bayer pattern in digital sensors for new generations .. but the simple question for the photographer remains .. how to get rid of that red glob of light .. only one way I know is to shoot it with film and accept the trade-off of missed images, improper timing of the shot, and the convenience of instant feedback .. I still admire that "old guy" who can load a roll of film, analyze the scene by visualization and capture the shot .. and I ask, "are you sure you got it?" and he replies, "you bet I did" .. and I think to myself .. well I've just "shot-gunned" this scene and taken more shots than I ever want to see in photoshop .. and he'll have his film processed and printed by tomorrow .. who is the wiser guy here?

 

Since photography is not always about what we saw, both of the above shots are very good. The sunset is a bit more disturbing for anyone not under-the-influence though. I took a similar digital shot in St. Louis and people in the office loved it .. for me it was a trash-can image. I have to remind myself that most people only look at photography via the internet, not in galleries ...that seems to be driving us to a lesser-standard of acceptance of what images can be. At least film would have represented the above scenes with seemingly less artificial influences.