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

[john_jennings2]

<p>I have a functional Mamiya Super 23 with the 100mm 3.5 lens and two 6X7 backs. I recently checked out market value, and found it really isn't worth trying to sell. No big deal. I am keeping it a) as a cool looking antique, and b), to produce ultra sharp tripod mounted b & w posed shots, ala Pancho Villa and crew.<br>

My planned workflow, is to develop my own film, then scan digital myself. (Still got the nikor film tank and reel.) I'll bring in a pro lab, if and when. When will I actually do this? Rarely, to be honest. But it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that I can actually make a really sharp photo if I want. I may do some group photos at my familiy reunion.<br>

And heck, it does look kewl on the shelf!</p>

 

[steve_larese1]

<p>I use a Mamiya 7s alongside D700s, and use Leica m6s as well. For me, it pays to shoot images I know I'll want big on the medium format. Beyond resolution, there's a quality in the shadows and highlights that I appreciate in film at that size. It's nice to have a digital file and chrome of the same scene, depending on use/client. I scan with a Coolscan 9000 and 8000; if I didn't have these scanners I don't know if I'd still shoot film.<br>

I'm lucky to have a lab that does great E-6; if I'm not in a rush I even use Target - they send to Fuji here.<br>

You can get an incredible medium format system for pennies on the dollar now. The latest greatest digital camera is $2,500-$7,000, and make your current camera "obsolete." I paid $5,000 for my D2x a few years ago, I'd be lucky to get $1,000 for it now. A $300 medium format camera would blow it away.<br>

I know of "grandmas" who have gone back to their old film point-and-shoots because for them it's easier to drop off and get prints. Even messing with a SD card is too bothersome. Of course, cell phone digital photos are the new point-and-shoots for most.<br>

Digital is wonderful and has the lion's share of photography now, but the honeymoon is over, and I think more and more people are "discovering" film, which is pretty amazing stuff, too. Have fun :)</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>In the Us there will likely be labs developing color films for ever. Black and white you will likely develop yourself.</p>

<p>It would be a shame if your digital pictures generate interest for large prints. You wouldn't be the first one suffering this problem created by the hype and missinformation about DSLRs' ability to produce large prints like fim.</p>

<p>It is never late to switch. You will take many great pictures in the future and you'll be glad you have them on film.</p>

<p>If you need advice on the process and equipment required for your goals, send me and email and I will help you the best I can.</p>

<p> </p>

[kevinbriggs]

<p>Many thanks to everyone who has contributed input! It has been an invaluable experience to initiate this posting and to receive such remarkably helpful info from all of you.<br /><br />I wish I had the time and ability to respond to everyone individually, but alas, that's just not possible right now.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I will proceed by providing a little additional information:<br /><br />Here is my website -- <a href="http://www.kevinbriggsphotography.net">www.kevinbriggsphotography.net</a> -- I initially started out doing wedding photography and that is why the initial image/splash page represents this aspect; however I'm no longer doing weddings.<br /><br />The images in "Landscapes 7," "Landscapes 8," and "Late Summer 2008" were taken with the 1Ds Mark III. The other images are a mixture of the Nikon D100 and the Canon 5D.<br /><br />It is the images from the "Late Summer 2008" gallery that represent most of the requests for prints (as noted in my first posting).<br /><br />And yes, I haven't taken a single photograph since late 2008 -- the reason is totally work-related (financial services industry). I also haven't obviously updated my website since that time; I'm going to be remedying this whole situation this upcoming summer.<br /><br />In working with a printer during 2007-2008, I was given the same information that is posted on the following website with regard to "optimal resolution" for printing (see the "Optimal Resolutions" section towards the top of the following page):<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mpix.com/support/Help.aspx?id=3#anchor_15">http://www.mpix.com/support/Help.aspx?id=3#anchor_15</a><br /><br />Since the 1Ds Mark III comes in at 5616 x 3744, I was informed by this printer that 12 x 18 was probably the largest size I could be looking at printing. We went ahead and printed something that was more along the lines of 16 x 20, and it just didn't look all that great, to be honest (it looked slightly pixelated, slightly dithered, if you will; he printed from the original TIFF file; this was one of the images from the "Late Summer 2008" gallery, by the way.)<br /><br />The size at which I was hoping to print was something around 20" x 30" or 24" x 36". This same printer informed me that I would need to probably switch to a medium format digital camera with a higher resolution in order to move towards those sizes. But I hear from a number of you that this is not necessarily the case.<br /><br />(And quite frankly, I just didn't have the money at the time to be able to do a number of experiments. This summer will probably be different in that regard.)<br /><br />The follow-up question that I have -- actually, I have a number of follow-up questions, but I will start with this one:<br /><br />Let's say that I acquire the Hasselblad H2F, for example. I would most definitely want to migrate any and all landscape shots into Photoshop. I am someone who doesn't like to tinker around with my shots a great deal, i.e. I don't think I go overboard by any stretch, but I do like to add some minor finishing touches on almost all of them.<br /><br />And let's also say that I just so happened to be able to afford the Nikon 9000 Coolscan ED (http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Film-Scanners/9237/Super-COOLSCAN-9000-ED.html) for medium format film/slide scanning.<br /><br />Once I have scanned the file, (1) how large (generally speaking) of a digital file are we talking about, and (2) is there any disadvantage in going from a film negative - to scanned digital image (for use with Photoshop touchup processes) - and then to print that image as opposed to simply printing directly from the film/slide negative...?<br /><br />Meaning, I have only gone through the digital process; I don't know anything about the advantages and/or disadvantages of shooting with film, scanning, working within Photoshop, and then printing (again, as opposed to simply shooting with film and printing directly from film).<br /><br />Looking forward to any and all follow-up input.<br /><br />Thanks again!</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The CS 9000 is ideal for medium format. The scan of a 6x7 frame is 580MB in size.</p>

<p>For the camera, if you can carry the weight, I recommend the RZ67II. If you prefer something light to handhold, the best the the Mamiya 7II.</p>

<p>You can process the file from a scan on Photoshop w/o any problems.</p>

[mikem77]

<p>If you already work slowly with a tripod and are primarily doing landscapes, then consider 4x5" film since it is essentially the traditional gold standard in landscape photography. Even a conservative 2000dpi scan of 4x5" film gives 80 megapixels. The up-front investment is not that great if you ultimately decide its not your cup of tea. In 2005, I bought a Shen Hao wood field camera for $650 and I picked up a few used lenses for another $500-600. Color film and development costs are steep-- probably $4.50 for a single exposure! I had a lot of fun with this and made a lot of nice photographs before fatherhood took away all my time for landscape (and film) photography. <br>

I'd still consider B&W medium format having a decent edge in quality, but a high-end dSLR gives medium-format color a run for the money (or even exceeds), thus for MF color, I see no clear benefit beyond personal preference of working with film vs. digital. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I still shoot mostly film and just got my first DSLR. Black & white film is still wet printed but in most cases this is not so practical for color. As has been pointed out already, you will only realize the advantages of medium format and large format film if you have very high end scans made. Too many people use flatbed scanners for medium format film and then wonder why the end result doesn't look any better than what they got with 35mm film. I was sorry to see Type R printing come to an and. When you had the right slide for it, the results were excellent. Scanning and then printing digitally gave much more control over contrast and color and these are advantages. The wide digital printers allow great flexibility.<br>

If cost is no object then you can get a medium format camera with a digital back or a purpose built medium format size DSLR. This might give you 40 or 50 MP. If your subject is one which can be shot with the camera on a tripod then one of these models might work. If I use Ektar 100 color print film in the 6X7 format in a high quality 6X7 film camera I will be able to get a negative and then a large final print which would take a very expensive piece of digital equipment to match. If your volume is not too high and if the materials and processing remain available then this could be a less expensive way of getting large size prints. Materials and processing costs for 4X5 and up are an order of magnitude more expensive so you will need to make very large prints to justify them. Two possibilities for landscape work in the non-panorama area are the Fuji GX-680 series cameras and lenses and a 4X5 camera with a 6X9 roll film holder. The Fuji gives some movements and allows the use of small f/stops. The Fuji GX-680 equipment is much more expensve than Mamiya RB67 or RZ67 equipment. A 4X5 view camera will have more movements and will allow you to choose between 4X5 film and roll film. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>A 9000 is a true 4000 PPI scanner. Say you shoot 6x7, that's a 56x70mm frame which is 2.2"x2.75" is non-Communist units, so your scan would be 8800x11000 pixels. Which is a lot. Shoot something like Velvia or Ektar that can support that much resolution and you'll be getting freakin' incredible large prints - I wouldn't hesitate to print at 60"x48" (though for huge sizes like that, a pro lab scan is worth it).</p>

<p>But I don't buy into 12x18 being the maximum print size from your DSLR. For hanging on a wall, you can print those files at 24x36. It's 156 PPI at that size, and it's viewed from a couple steps back, and it will look very good.</p>

[kevinbriggs]

<blockquote>

<p>If you already work slowly with a tripod and are primarily doing landscapes, then consider 4x5" film since it is essentially the traditional gold standard in landscape photography.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Mike,</p>

<p>What makes 4x5 the gold standard as opposed to 6x7...?</p>

<p>Just wondering.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>4 x 5 inches is a heck of a lot larger than 6x7cm. It in turn is light and portable compared to 8x10 inch negatives, but...</p>

[kevinbriggs]

<blockquote>

<p>If you already work slowly with a tripod and are primarily doing landscapes, then consider 4x5" film since it is essentially the traditional gold standard in landscape photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... and where/how would I get it scanned, since the Nikon 9000 (for instance) doesn't accommodate 4x5 (or at least not from the specs I've read thus far).</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[kevinbriggs]

<blockquote>

<p>If you already work slowly with a tripod and are primarily doing landscapes, then consider 4x5" film since it is essentially the traditional gold standard in landscape photography.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Any recommendations on specific 4x5 camera bodies/manufacturers...?</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Kevin: As a traditional darkroom printer for decades, I would advise that the real revolution in modern imaging is not digital cameras, it's digital printing. There are many that will disagree, but the absolute control over the image plane in Photoshop, the repeatability, the speed of production and the beautiful quality make it my approach of choice. Archival ink sets and a gorgeous array of fine art papers add to the advantages along with working in daylight without the hands in chemicals. When you pull that first print from a scanned large or medium format neg, you'll know what I'm talking about. Prints that look stunning from across the room AND twelve inches away.</p><div></div>

[stp]

<p>I used to use large format, but the process was a bit too slow for me (that's a very personal determination), and scanning on a flatbed scanner was a bottleneck in terms of throwing away so much of the detail that's present in a 4x5 transparency. Sending that transparency to a lab for scanning was (for me) prohibitively expensive. That's why I settled on medium format that I could scan on a Nikon 8000, and from that I can get beautiful scans and 36x48 prints (by a pro lab). However, I can also very easily get at least 20x30 prints (again by a pro lab) from the same digital camera you have -- a 1Ds3. True, I send them a 20x30 file at around 180-200 ppi (I can't remember the exact numbers), but their printers do the necessary uprezzing to produce the smooth 20x30 print. While I could also do the bicubic interpolation to get the 20x30 @ 300ppi, their printers do a better job of uprezzing than I can in photoshop.</p>

<p>If money were no object, I'd get a $40k digital camera (which will depreciate rapidly) and get my own digital shots that will print very large. But for me money is an object, so I'm content to get nearly the same (some may say better) with my medium format scans. I don't find scanning to be a PITA, but that's yet another personal determination. In the end, I find that scanning film (especially 6x7) will give me the ability to produce very large and exceptionally nice prints, just as I would want to do with a $40k digital camera. If I were doing landscapes and didn't mind the slower workflow (but wanted exceptionally quality in large prints), I'd do large format and scan on an Imacon scanner (I think I could make it pay over time by not getting scans from a lab). However, I can still do very, very well with a 1Ds3, especially if I employ digital techniques that involve the combining of multiple shots (I do landscapes, so that's a very viable alternative for me in most situations). All of these alternatives are based on very different workflows, and you've got to enjoy the workflow to enjoy photography. Fortunately (although this is also part of the problem and the reason for your questions), you have choices. Perhaps the most prudent way to proceed is to start cheap (and/or with what you currently have) and go from there -- see if you can get those prints that you want.</p>

[robert meier]

<p>8x10 is four times the size of 4x5.<br>

4x5 is four times the size of 6x7cm.<br>

6x7cm is four times the size of 35mm.</p>

[kevinbriggs]

<blockquote>

<p>8x10 is four times the size of 4x5.<br /> 4x5 is four times the size of 6x7cm.<br /> 6x7cm is four times the size of 35mm.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Robert! Very helpful!</p>

[kevinbriggs]

<blockquote>

<p>However, I can also very easily get at least 20x30 prints (again by a pro lab) from the same digital camera you have -- a 1Ds3.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Stephen,</p>

<p>This does give me some hope.</p>

[kevinbriggs]

<blockquote>

<p>A 9000 is a true 4000 PPI scanner. Say you shoot 6x7, that's a 56x70mm frame which is 2.2"x2.75" is non-Communist units, so your scan would be 8800x11000 pixels. Which is a lot.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Andrew! This info really helps alot!</p>

[arda]

<p>Hello Kevin,<br>

I myself am a big proponent of shooting film but I insist on developing the film and making the prints myself. I work predominantly with black and white film and print on fiber based papers because I love the process and I love the results. Resolution has been the main topic of discussion on this thread. As a landscape photographer, you would have great creative freedom with the movements offered by a large format camera. The movements of lens and film plane will give you perspective control over your images which may be a more important reason to start shooting film than resolution alone. There is a learning curve but I think it is well worth the effort.<br>

Best of luck.<br>

Arda</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Louis says "As a traditional darkroom printer for decades, I would advise that the real revolution in modern imaging is not digital cameras, it's digital printing"</p>

<p>Louis I don't have the long term dark room experience you have and I still enjoy making wet prints but have to agree with you on the quality of digital printing especially hybrid scanned film, B&W digital printing. I'm shooting a lot of 35mm Tri-x and Delta 100 with my M6 and am blown away with how sharp my digital prints are using this combo. Bigger formats only get better.</p>

[kevinbriggs]

<p>And now for a follow-up question I have always wanted to ask with respect to medium or large format film photography, but was too apprehensive about doing so because it might sound quite... well, ignorant. But here goes:<br /><br />If I was fortunate enough to have the money to acquire a medium or large format film-based camera, but didn't have enough money for a digital back, is it possible that I could take along my Canon 1Ds Mark III and use it as a form of pseudo-digital back device...?<br /><br />In other words, would the settings I've established with the 1Ds Mark III -- assuming I've got a separate tripod set up for the 1Ds Mark III and a separate tripod set up for the medium or large format camera -- be "transferable" over to the medium or large format film camera? (Meaning, I would use the same ISO, shutter speed, f/stop, etc.)<br /><br />My initial assumption is that this is probably not doable, simply because of the different dynamic ranges of 35mm as opposed to medium or large format...?<br /><br />Thanks again!</p>

[don_douglas]

<p>Now that the Nikon LS9000 is so hard to come by, approaching impossible for a new one, I'd like to see Fuji come out with a dedicated film scanner with wet mount adapter, capable of scanning MF and LF film. It would certainly be in their interest if they want to encourage more film sales.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>Let's say that I acquire the Hasselblad H2F, for example.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From what I've seen of your gallery, most of the images would be quite amenable to digital compositing. A digital MF back makes sense if the scene is so dynamic that it can be shot only with a single exposure. A digital stitch can otherwise provide high quality files of essentially unbounded resolution (not to mention being much more affordable as well.)</p>

<p>Go to <a href="http://www.gigapan.org/">gigapan</a> to see what people have been doing with composites. The <a href="http://www.gigapansystems.com/">Gigapan Epic Pro</a> is worth looking into. The robotics makes recording the tiles very much the easier than with a manual pano head.</p>

<p>I've been using a gigapan with a Canon digital compact since the beta program years ago. In workflow "feel", it's a lot more like working with LF film gear than anything normally associated with digital capture.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /><br />And let's also say that I just so happened to be able to afford the Nikon 9000 Coolscan ED ... for medium format film/slide scanning.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a couple of Nikon scanners, and a 9000 among them. The Nikon is capable of extracting essentially everything there is on the film. With medium speed (100ISO) color film, technically excellent 16x20 prints from 6x7 format 120 roll film is easy. Larger print sizes than this starts to require more and more sophisticated post processing. Ultimately, a 10X enlargement is about the limit of what I find generally acceptable.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Once I have scanned the file, (1) how large (generally speaking) of a digital file are we talking about,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A Nikon scan of 6x7 theoretically yields about 80MP. Keep in mind, however, that pixel for pixel the film scan tends to be of lower quality than a digital imager - noisier and of less fidelity. The exceptions (among generally available pictorial films) are B&W emulsions like Acros or 100 TMAX.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and (2) is there any disadvantage in going from a film negative ... and then to print that image as opposed to simply printing directly from the film/slide negative...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>is it possible that I could take along my Canon 1Ds Mark III and use it as a form of pseudo-digital back device...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here's a two part answer:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Look at the <a href="http://www.camerafusion.com/index.html">Camera Fusion</a>. This is a stitching jig that adapts a DSLR body to the back of a LF camera.</li>

<li>Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to use a digital camera as a light meter (but I wouldn't bother with lugging a DSLR around.) I use a Canon A720 digital compact with the <a href="http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK">CHDK </a>firmware. I have the digicam zoom lens keyed, via software, to cover the same FOV as my set of RB-67 lenses. It is a fast to use and accurate metering solution. Don't worry about dynamic range differences; it takes but a mindful evaluation of a few film rolls to know how to compensate.</li>

</ol>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>A 20MP DSLR can print up to 16x20 with decent quality but beyond that the quality of the output is not acceptable to me. Other people's threshold may be more forgiving. A scan of MF can print up to 30x40 with astonishing quality.</p>

<p>4x5 is an option but the problem is scanning. A flatbed scanner has limitations in color, noise, dynamic range and sharpness that go beyond just the limitation of 2000+ true dpi. A Coolscan 9000 for medium format on the other hand does not have any of those limitations.</p>

<p>I also own several digital printers including an Epson 7880, an as others mentioned, produces consistently excellent results (enough to switch to it from wet printing).</p>

<p>The best system you can buy today is a 6x7 with a Coolscan 9000. 4x5 is an option if you are willing to send your work out.</p>