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

[kevinbriggs]

<blockquote>

<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>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Mauro!</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>i think the answer for you is simple...you shoot landscape, so you need a large format camera. no need for a lab to get involved in the process really.</p>

[gerber_van_der_graaf]

<p>As I am only shooting film, 35mm and MF, I cannot compare image quality with top-rated digital gear. But to my feeling, colour slides are amazing good for large prints. Unfortunately laboraties for developing slides have mostly been disappeared in my area (Catalunya, Spain). So I decided to process E6 by myself as well: picked a JOBO processor and a 3-bath processing kit from Fuji. Actually, it turned out it is very easy to process slides and I cannot distingish the quality from the laboratories I received my slides in the past. In case you will change to film, it is worth to consider processing by yourself, apart that it is fun as well.</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>I don't know I never left film, I'm still trying after more than fifty years trying to understand the wonders of film photography.</p>

[iwao_sakurai]

<p>If you are working with color I would stay with digital and move up to a MF camera for large size prints or drum scan MF/LF negatives. There are many more creative possibilities in terms of media in the final output through a high quality inkjet printer.</p>

<p>Personaly I believe that for whatever system that print output should not be just focused on inkjets "or just one way to print stuff"; but include all alternative processes on various medias using inkjets to get there (via digital negative for example) for creative work. Hence mixing traditional darkroom with digital post process and printing. But I'm running of topic here...</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I wouldn't do 4x5 unless you're feeling very committed to that. The equipment is larger and less like the SLRs you're used to (there's a learning curve in things like focusing) and the film comes in single-frame sheets instead of rolls which must be handled individually. Now the payoff for that is fantastic capabilities (not just resolution but tilt-shifting the lens, composing on a huge 4x5" ground glass, etc) but medium format really is a good compromise.</p>

<p>For metering, you can use a camera that has a meter along with your MF camera (I used to carry my XD11 in my RZ67 bag) but a handheld meter has its advantages. I carry a Minolta Auto Meter IIIF now and do a sort of incident metering zone-like system (take a reading in the sun, in the shade, pointed up, pointed at the camera, depending on what's in the scene).</p>

[stp]

<p>Kevin, to answer your most recent question, the simple answer is "yes." However, most folks will find that carrying a 1Ds3 to act as a sophisticated light meter will be a major PITA. My advice would be to get a good light meter and learn how to use it. Your use of a digital camera as a light meter is just a crutch and a stopgap measure for not learning how to use a much smaller, more manageable, and equally accurate piece of equipment</p>

<p>You once asked about which large format cameras might be good ones to look at. You're going to get a very wide range of comments on that question. Some will say to start simple and cheap until you know whether you like the format. Personally, I didn't follow that advice, because I wanted a camera that would work exceptionally well and give me the best insight into the use of a large format camera. I would suggest to look for a good used camera of the make that you want (IF you ever decide to go that route). My piece of advice here is that I really learned to appreciate asymmetric movements; they just made tilts so much faster and easier. True, large format photographers have been using their cameras for decades without this feature, but I really like it. Others have made the same kind of comment: they didn't understand the need and cost for such a feature, but most who got it wouldn't do without it. I chose the Ebony system and had six lenses (most bought used but in perfect condition). I eventually found the workflow to be too slow for my liking, and I especially didn't have a good way to make a scan except to send it to a lab at a fairly high cost. I could get the same detail, probably more, from a medium format scanned on a Nikon 8000 than I could from a large format scanned on a flatbed. I gave up on large format, but not without misgivings -- I sometimes still miss the potential it had. If I were to get back into it, I'd be looking for a non-folding Ebony with asymmetric movements. That's unlikely, however. The pending Pentax 645D looks very interesting. It's a camera I've been waiting for for 6 years, I have the lenses, and I'll probably get one. 40mp for ~$10k is not bad (if the reviews show it to be a good camera). At the same time, I'll keep my film cameras.</p>

<p>BTW, Nikon 9000 scanners can still be had. I could have purchased two over the last month at about #2100 each. I put my name on the some lists only because I doubt that I'd stay in film if I didn't have a Nikon scanner, and my Nikon 8000 is one of the very first that was produced. I need a Nikon scanner so badly that I thought of getting a backup. But I don't have money to throw around, I want to get a Pentax 645D when it becomes available in the US, I'd like to get a 1D4 (after trying to shoot a bike race with my 1Ds3 and my desire to shoot birds in flight), I'm retired without the big bucks income, so I have to be much more discerning in my purchases. I've got a working Nikon 8000 scanner, so I haven't jumped on the 9000. But they are available, and they're snatched up fast when they come in.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>My advice to Kevin would be this:</p>

<p>* Do not sell your working (as opposed to old/no longer used) digital equipment to finance film equipment. The mediums and work flows are different and I think you would sorely miss the digital side.</p>

<p>* If you print larger than 24", then you will see an improvement using MF or LF, assuming proper scanning, or using digital stitching. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.</p>

<p>* Film is another tool that can add to what you're able to accomplish in terms of look and style. It's worth exploring, especially at today's prices. However, unless money is no object for you, I would recommend holding off on the film scanner until you know just how much film you will shoot, process, and print. Find a lab which can provide quality scans to you and start with that. You may never reach a volume that justifies the price of a CoolScan or Imacon as opposed to paying someone else with a CoolScan or Imacon to scan those special frames. (You don't tend to shoot nearly as much film in the first place, and you have to ask yourself what percentage of your shoots, film or digital, are actually offered for sale at large print sizes.)</p>

<p>* Give stitching a try ASAP. It costs you nothing to try. A simple 3 frame stitch with your camera will give you better quality than a MF 6x7 scan. (Example: if you have a horizontal scene, shoot three vertical frames side by side with the camera on a tripod.) That's a very simple stitch to shoot and process and can be done without special software in Photoshop CS3 or higher. For certain focal lengths and scenes you still want a pano head (http://gregwired.com/pano/Pano.htm).</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>Why choose one or the other? Why not both?<br>

I'm mostly a wildlife and nature photographer who has run the gamut from shooting only Kodachrome for magazine submissions to Ilfochrome printing from transparencies in my own lab to hybrid printing from scanned slides, to DSLR to expanding the print size with 645 and 4x5 for gallery prints.<br>

Each format is different, each has it's strengths and their weaknesses-- and that goes for digital, too. I don't see myself shooting much tele work of wildlife with film, or trying to beat large format with a MF chip still smaller than a 645 that costs more than my car just to match what can be done on a $2 sheet of film. <br>

The "pro" landscape photographers heralding their digital switch from medium or large formats are likely hawking some camera brand or another, selling workshops to amateurs, or else their work involves high volumes and quick turnaround for editorial or commercial clients.<br>

For landscapes in Alaska, I'd suggest that the tremendous subject brightness range, long distances from the electrical grid, and need to pack gear into wilderness areas all suggest film still has an important place, particularly negative film. Too, the occasional landscape sale of a large print doesn't warrant a $25-$50K investment in digital, which will rapidly become obsolete and be a poor investment unless you're doing big volumes of shooting and have the sales to back it up it just doesn't make a lot of senser right now.<br>

For no more than 10% of the outlay, one could have a very competent LF system (though outsourcing of drum scans might still be necessary). Or, Pick up and RB67 or a Pentax 645N for under $500, go shoot some Ektar to see if you like the results.</p>

 

[marklcooper]

<p>Kevin,</p>

<blockquote>

<p><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...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First off, I'm not a landscape photographer. Second, I'm not a digital processing expert. I've learned enough to satisfy my needs.</p>

<p>I believe you can get very, very nice large prints from a decent dSLR. This photo is of a large print I made to put on my office wall in one of my IT client's server room. We had just installed an HP DesignJet 130nr loaded with plain old CAD roll paper. I used my Nikon D300 with 17-55 2.8 lens, mounted to a cheap antique aluminum tube tripod. I use Corel Paint Shop Pro X2 to upsize and tweak. The print is 24 x 36.</p>

<p>Seated at my desk with the wall 36" away, I think it is a really decent print. My workflow for this print was: take my camera and tripod out the back door of the office. Compose and take the picture. Bring the camera back in the server room and copy the RAW file to my laptop. Upsize and tweak using my $40 PSP X2 software. Print to the DesignJet. Hang the print from some pins I stuck into the wall. </p>

<p>There is a lot of room for improvement once the picture was recorded by the camera. I could have messed around with levels and shadows. I could have printed to photo paper if I'd had some available. Framing it would definitely help.</p>

<p>But, paying attention to details and using a quality printer and paper, you should be able to get really nice large prints with your existing Canon.</p>

<p>

<p>If I'd have used my Mamiya C330f I'd be lucky if I got the film developed within a couple months of taking the picture.</p>

<br />

</p><div></div>

[brian_m.1]

<p>Am I the only one who thinks the pictures on Kevin's web site, although very pretty, have no resemblance to reality? I have never seen landscape look like that. </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>You can make many compromises if they don't interfere with your personal satisfaction but it is different when you are trying to sell a print.</p>

<p>The HP 130 produces great prints (brighter than most pigment printers) but have to be laminated before selling or they will smear. It also does not accept general gallery media. Additionally, the D300 will look good from 3 feet away or farther but if your picture is nice (as yours is) people will tend to come close to enjoy and inspect.</p>

<p>In the end though, to honestly look at selling your prints at those sizes you need to shoot film, scan with a Coolscan or better, and print on a pigment printer on the paper chosen by the customer.</p>

<p> </p>

[kevinbriggs]

<blockquote>

<p>Do not sell your working (as opposed to old/no longer used) digital equipment to finance film equipment. The mediums and work flows are different and I think you would sorely miss the digital side.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Daniel,<br /><br />No, I would never sell the current equipment I have -- the Canon 1Ds Mark III and Canon 5D (I sold the Nikon D100 a while back); I would only be adding to this camera body and other Canon lenses.<br /><br />I very much agree with you on this point.<br /><br />Best,<br>

Kevin</p>

[kevinbriggs]

<blockquote>

<p>Am I the only one who thinks the pictures on Kevin's web site, although very pretty, have no resemblance to reality? I have never seen landscape look like that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Brian,<br /><br />Believe me, no offense taken. =)<br /><br />I have heard such comments more times than I can even begin to count.<br /><br />My response...?: You have to come to Alaska and shoot during the summertime (especially the evenings) in order to get the colors in the sky I'm able to reproduce.<br /><br />Furthermore, I have been asked at least 100 separate times (at least!) what I did in Photoshop to color the water blue within many of the photographs.<br /><br />The answer of course is that I did absolutely nothing -- this is glacial water. It is blue (or blue-green, depending upon location within Alaska) naturally. The first time I set foot in Alaska (1980) I could not get over how blue the water really was. It totally blew me away!<br /><br />I'm shooting throughout the Kenai Peninsula and just South of Anchorage most of the time. And generally, I'm only able to get these colors in the evening hours of the Summers (which are the "white nights" as they have been referred to in North American and Russian parlance). I do use one or two filters the vast majority of the time, nothing special; but they are able to amplify the colors coming through the Alaskan evenings remarkably.<br /><br />Best,<br /> Kevin</p>

[ifti]

<p>For my hobby the digital gives me control that film does not offer. I have a 12 mega pixil camera , shoot raw and open as tiff in PS. Selected pictures I sent to MPIX and the prints are stunning. Regards, ifti</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Iftikhar, what "control" does your digicam give you that you cannot acheive with film? For me, it is quite the opposite...I can use my high res (16 bit!) scans in PS or LR, or I can print them optically to produce one of a kind hand made prints. I can't do that with my D3.</p>

[troyammons]

<p>My opinion for what its worth is shoot 4x5 film if you really want the best IQ. 8x10 is even better but the equipment is ridiculously big and heavy.<br>

I had a 4x5 super graphic folder and it was really nice and not too heavy and tough. The Aluminum shell camera, not the wood one. Perfect to throw in a pack. Put a cambo back on it and add a cambo viewer with readyloads and a readyload holder and you have a nice setup.<br>

If 4x5 is too cumbersome my next choice would be a Mamiya 7 or if you want a 2/3 format a Fuji 690 GW/GSW.<br>

Although a Mamiya 23 is mentioned above, the one I had was just not that sharp, at least not at the super super sharp level I wanted. There are a few MF cameras that are worthy of 4000 dpi scans, although at that level you will be resolving more grain than scanning 4x5 at 2000 dpi. Rollei, Mamiya 6 and 7, Hassy, Fuji 670, 680, 690 and a few others.<br>

E100G is really nice, just learn how to develop it. <br>

Its not that difficult. Although more time consuming, when its dry its ready to scan.<br>

If you are selling work, then I would also buy a scanner for more control.<br>

For 4x5 you are pretty much stuck with a Drum scanner or an Imacon. IMO forget Epson scanners for professional level work.<br>

That said E100G drum scanned at 2000 dpi is really nice. Very clean. That would give you about 72mp Equiv. I have very rarely found it beneficial to go beyond 2000 dpi for large format.<br>

2000 dpi scan, Printing at 204 dpi on a lightjet (4lp/mm in print) you could enlarge about 10X.<br>

For MF I would get a Nikon 9000 and a glass carrier and wet scan.<br>

Here is a link to some of my 4x5 drum scans. This is E100S film. The last 3 are 4x5 drum scans.<br>

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/blue_ridge<br>

All that said if you do decide to shoot some 4x5 your fist drum scans will blow you away.<br>

Its really bulky equipment though. I think the handiest, lightest and sharpest MF cameras I have used have been the Mamiya 7 and the Fuji 690 cameras.<br>

For digital a 24mp Sony might work. You could Print on a lightjet at about 20x30 with minor interpolation. A Pentax 645D would be a good option too.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>For hobby, it's fine to buy into film.<br>

For professional use, it's nuts.</p>

[pjjdxn]

<p>You may want to take a look at the new Pentax 645 digital body which some people have in their hands now for testing. As for me I still have my color and black and white darkroom in my house. Still have frig full of film and color paper. I do like still shooting with film, digital has made it easy for new shooters who know nothing about developing and printing. One day it will be a lost science..My Two cents worth.</p>

[User_2000406]

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

<p>So you're the one who took that one from under my nose! I went back to look at the bodies after perusing the newly-arrived lenses and the bargain-grade body was gone, the same day it arrived. Not that I was likely to have bought it this time around. Seriously, I've been deliberating getting a Mamiya 6 as a lightweight, compact way to get medium format with multiple lenses while hiking, but that purchase probably won't happen for quite a while. What I need more than another camera right now is more free time to go out and actually shoot. It's been a busy year so far.</p>

<p>All I can suggest to the OP is that you can try out MF film with a basic system and see how you like it, in the field, in IQ, and in terms of overall workflow. If it doesn't work for you then you can sell the system for about what you bought it for, assuming you bought it on that auction site or otherwise cheaply. If you do like using MF film then you can upgrade your system as needed over time. A lot of these kinds of decisions come down to personal preference.</p>

<p> </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I'm in Southern Cal and there's several places developing MF, slide film etc. I don't think you've looked very hard. Also Adorama does MF, don't know about B& H. Here we have Samy's camera, color and they send their b/w out for development to Image Control which I think can develop any format b/w, there's also IA in L.A., Swan photo (expensive), Pro Photo, etc, etc. So I really can't tell if you are trying to talk yourself into or out of using film? I've been shooting MF along with digital for a while now and have no problem with getting my stuff developed with people I trust. I am pretty upset though that Fuji has decided to limit a lot of their print film, that does hurt, especially the 800.</p>

[kevinbriggs]

<p>I'm assuming products like <a href="http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=7">these</a> are not of sufficient quality to help with my present situation....?</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<blockquote>

<p>Kevin asked:<br /> "I'm assuming products like [Genuine Fractals software] are not of sufficient quality to help with my present situation....?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Kevin, there's no magic bullet or free lunch when upsizing digital photo files; you're essentially guessing at information that wasn't in the original capture. (If the uprezzing programs were miraculous, a lot fewer people would be shooting medium- and large-format film!)</p>

<p>In the detailed <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/03/its-bigger-bu-1.html">comparisons</a> that I've seen, GF doesn't do appreciably better than bicubic uprezzing in PS (<em>"A lot of the time Photoshop's Bicubic produced the best results of all, most especially when the photographs contained fine and subtle texture and detail,"</em> as your distant foliage shots have). So if you're not thrilled about what you're getting with enlargements in PS you won't see much or any improvement with GF.</p>

<p>(For those who missed them, here are <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/02/its-bigger-but.html">Part I</a> and <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/03/its-bigger-but.html">Part II</a> of Ctein's Part III upsizing comparison linked above.)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ian wrote:<br /> "For hobby, it's fine to buy into film.<br /> "For professional use, it's nuts."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If your job is to deliver a lot of photos under a deadline, that's certainly true.<br /> <br />But if you're a fine-art photographer selling prints (whether small black-and-white prints or huge color prints), it's not true. Large-format film is preferred over digital by many photographers and many print buyers.</p>

[troyammons]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=757676">Kevin Briggs</a> , May 09, 2010; 05:47 a.m.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm assuming products like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=7" target="_blank">these</a> are not of sufficient quality to help with my present situation</p>

<p>Computer Interpolation no matter what you use can not create detail. Hopefully you can hang onto edge sharpness so that will print better huge, but you still wont have the detail you want at say a 20" view distance.<br>

You really want to print at a native rez, IE like on a lightjet at 204 dpi (4lp/mm in print). If you do interpolate up use only a small amount like maybe like 25% max.<br>

I dont think I saw int he thread,<br>

How big do you really want to enlarge ??</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>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). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>HDR is not necessary with film. It handles the dynamic range with just one exposure. What do you mean by holding as much EV? EV is a numerical system relating to a combination of shutter speed and aperture.</p>