Desire to get back to film

[dloringphotos]

<p>I'm interested in everyone's thoughts. I shoot primarily flowers, both macro and botanical garden shots. For the past 3 or 4 years I've been shooting digital - a Nikon D200 with an assortment of lenses. I love the D200; no complaints. The thing that I've noticed, however, since moving to digital is that I seem to enjoy photography less. It's less of a challenge. I shoot in RAW and I know that I have some latitude to fix a shot post processing. Now I know that those that shoot film can scan and post-process as well; but I find that with digital I spend more time shooting and less time composing and thinking about the shot to get it "right." Digital is free; film is not. I have lost that excitement of shooting a roll of Velvia and eagerly waiting to see the results.<br>

 

 

This is a long way of wondering what people's opinion is of medium format. Something like the Pentax 645N, for example. Is it difficult to find a place to get the film developed? Is it extremely expensive (relative, I know)? Do people think it has a different "feel," a different "look" than shooting digital?

 

Obviously these are all very subjective questions. But I'd appreciate people's thoughts and experiences.

</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

David</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>David, My last three posts and some of my older posts are MF (High Falls, Bracebridge, Ontario). Pulled them out of an old shoebox (circa 2001) and with my new Epson V500 (last Christmas) scanned them for possible printing and also re-sized them for the web. The resulting inspiration has moved me to order some more film & get using my Bronica SQ Ai system again. It's been an expensive paper weight for too long now. Tough to compare MF quality on the web (my P&S Canon A540 results look as good on the web) but I can detect the higher quality in a print, even at only 8"x8" over my 35mm offerings. Good used MF cameras today are a bargain over original cost so don't sell the farm to get one. They are often 1\10th the original price. How do I know this? :-) I've been trying to sell my system for about 8 years now but am now resigned to keep it & use it rather than take the loss. Best, LM.</p>

[dave_s]

<p><em>Is it difficult to find a place to get the film developed? Is it extremely expensive (relative, I know)? Do people think it has a different "feel," a different "look" than shooting digital?</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

It's not hard to get 120 film developed, but depending where you live, you may be looking at mail order. Mine goes to North Coast Photo in Carlsbad CA. They will develop C41 for about $5 and do what they call an 'enhanced scan' of the roll for another $11. (The enhanced scan is incidentally around 26 megapixels for a 6 x 7 negative, and North Coast sends back high-quality jpg files which seem to have very little compression.)</p>

<p>You can find places that are cheaper, and places that are more expensive, but I use mail order for anything serious in C41, and they do a better job than anything I can get in my city. When the dust clears, it costs $2 every time I trip the shutter on the RZ67. </p>

<p>The alternative is of course to develop it yourself. B & W chemistry costs maybe a buck a roll. </p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>David, many of us are doing the same: Exploring film again. </p>

<p>For 35mm, you can still get C-41 developed at your neighborhood photo store. For B&W, E-6, and MF, it's harder. North Coast Photographic Service looks good: Develop and good sounding scans for a reasonable price. I bought some tanks and reels to do my own B&W, but haven't got a rhythm going yet.</p>

<p>Costco isn't doing wet processing any more. </p>

<p>I do post processing from scans, and then various outputs (4x6 print, enlargements, and posting here). A new possibility is B&W conversion from color film... You get to pick your "filter" during post-processing, filters more exotic than we used to have.</p>

<p>Here's a MF image scanned on Epson V500 that will make a print at 12x18 that's plenty sharp:<br>

<img src="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<h4>Cheers Pub, a Favorite Test Scene -- Mamiya Press 6x9, Ektar 100, Epson V500 Scan</h4>

<p>The discussion thread with more details and samples is at:</p>

<p><a href="../film-and-processing-forum/00W7Rk">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00W7Rk</a><br /><br /></p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>I have a digi SLR but I only use it for stuff that needs uploading to the net. The quality of the pictures just doesn't fit my vision. The colours are all weird and it seems no amount of PS work can fix it.<br>

I shoot with an assortment of MF stuff from a Pentax 67II to folders and TLRs. They are all much more fun to shoot with than the digi. First they slow you down and make you think about the shot more. With digi I tend to just take a shot because I know I can delete it later. As you say, it becomes less about thinking about how you want the shot to turn out. It just becomes tedious trial and error.<br>

There is also the enjoyment of using old mechanical kit. Its just more fun to fondle with metal knobs and wheels as opposed to plastic buttons.<br>

Cost is actually very reasonable. The cameras themselves are very cheap. It depends on what you want of course but you can get a very good MF kit for very little money. The film cost is also reasonable if you are smart about things (i.e. take a shot only if you want it and print only what you need). First the cheapest is to shoot B+W and develop yourself. A roll of B+W here in Japan cost me on average 400 yen. Developing is extremely cheap. Probably less than 200 yen. Then you have negs that you can look over on a light table or scan. I print myself too and that is also cheap. Enlargers can be had for low prices and the paper and chems are not too expensive. This way you can just print whatever you want and that will decide your cost.<br>

With colour I shoot slides mainly. The reason is that they are easier to judge on a light table. I will only get the best shots printed as I need them. A roll of film costs from 600 to 800 yen a roll. Developing costs 500 yen or so. With 6x7, that equates to about 130 yen a shot. Not bad! B+W is obviously cheaper still. I don't like C41 because you can't judge the colour very well without printing. There are also very little films I like in C41.<br>

Developing is easy here in Japan. Lots of shops do it. But as mentioned above, you may need to send the film off in more remote regions.<br>

The quality of pictures from film is one of the main things I like over digital. The colour is much better and everything looks a lot more natural to me.<br>

One thing you might want to keep in mind is that MF cameras don't do macro as well as smaller formats due to their lack of DOF. For larger subjects its usually OK, but for smaller flowers where you want to fill the frame, you might find it hard to get sufficient DOF even when stopping down all the way. It can be done though and I think the Pentax 645 is one of the best in that area. The system is very cheap now and the lenses are excellent.<br>

Is there a reason you want to go MF instead of 135? You might be better served with a nice 135 system. Shots will be a lot cheaper too. If you are after the quality and print big then MF is the way to go. The shooting experience is also a lot more fun with the MF stuff too I find.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Most people with DSLR's would agree that my compact camera isn't in the same league, but even so, I find that with a bit of technique, it can come pretty darned close to looking like film under the right circumstances. The DSLR's have got to be even better at it. And yet, I understand where you're coming from, because I don't get the same kind of pleasure using it as I do with film cameras. Maybe it's just nostalgia, I don't know. For me, there's nothing magical about looking at a digital image, neither on the camera's LCD, nor after transfering it to my computer.. but having a look at a developed film coming out of my Paterson tank is still magical to me even after so many years since the first time I did it. I think it may be partly because I've had to actually do something with it, other than pressing some buttons and punching some keys. I suppose it's ultimately more satisfying because there was actually some work involved, and some skill. There is a lot more opportunity to mess up using and developing film than there is snapping digital images.</p>

<p>If you will allow me an analogy, it's sort of like being teletransported somewhere à la Star Trek as opposed to having to make a physical journey. Getting there is more than half the fun.</p>

[boris_de_swan]

<p>FWITW: I shoot 80% of my work on digital slr and those photos are what I do to make a living. I put all my knowledge and expertise into those jobs. My passion resides only in film photography, specially medium format, which is done with Pentaxes 6x7's Hasselblads, Mamiyas 645's and some Ukranian and eastern german fun stuff. Why is that? Perhaps as many photographers have so aptly mentioned there is a magical feeling about developing your own film, or seeing those gorgeous chromes. Certain untangible things in life one ought to enjoy and leave without the over-analizing. Enjoy film photography, which will enable you to think and feel your photos, not just record them.</p><div></div>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>Try MF, it is very enjoyable. As far as developing, Walmart has a contract with Fuji Labs for the film sendout service, and they do 120/220 slide and C-41 for very good prices, and quality too (Fuji/Dwaynes Photo does the processing, not Walmart).<br>

$5.88/6.88 for 120/220 slide, and under $2 for 120 C-41!</p>

[henrik_lauridsen]

<p>+1 on the magic of developing your own film :-)</p>

[dloringphotos]

Thanks everyone for your comments. Very helpful and makes me more excited to take a stab at MF. A few followup questions:

 

(1) Any recommendations on film type? I presume there are different brands (both B/W and color) and different film speeds. Obviously some of this is subjective, but I am not sure if there are certain rules of thumb with MF film.

 

(2) Is MF film a negative or slide?

 

(3) The comment that MF cameras have less DOF than their 35mm counterparts is curious to me. Generally DOF is based on distance to subject, lens choice and aperture. Is there something unique with MF?

 

(4) I am not trying to turn this post into a "what equipment should I buy," but that said is there any reason why a Pentax 645N is a bad choice? Is there a recommended "starter" lens that is good to use to play around with and learn the attributes of a MF camera?

 

Thanks again everyone.

 

David

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>David,</p>

<p>1) Though the selection to choose from isn't enormous, there's enough choice in MF film. And which one of the many you like is indeed much a matter of personal taste.<br>

I like Kodak's T-Max for B&W (both speeds, 100 and 400), and Kodak's Portra 160 NC for colour.</p>

<p>2) Both. Negative if you get a negative film, Slide if you get slide film. ;-)</p>

<p>3) DoF is based on magnification and f-stop. The image of the same subject/same angle of view on a larger format is magnified more than on the smaller 35 mm, or even APS-C sized digital sensor format.<br>

If you maintain that difference in magnification in the final print, you will also maintain that difference in DoF. (But if you print the larger MF negative to the same small size you would a 35 mm negative, such that the same scene/subject ends up on paper the same size, DoF will be the same.)</p>

<p>4) Some people like the Pentax. I don't. It's not very versatile.<br>

But to each his/her own.</p>

<p> </p>

[charles_wood]

<p>David, disregard the comment that the Pentax 645N isn't very versatile. I have no idea where the poster is coming from. I own several medium format systems including the Pentax. It is by far the easiest to use of all of my systems. The lenses are sharp and contrasty and used systems are extremely affordable with a wide range of choices in lenses. The 645N is a great choice to start in MF.</p>

[dloringphotos]

<p>Ok. Well, like I said, I'm not trying to drag this forum into an equipment argument. They good thing is that it looks relatively inexpensive to try a used MF camera like the Pentax, so I can always try a new "better" system in a few years if I fall in love with MF.<br>

With respect to the slide vs negative film, are the same advantages/disadvantages of slide vs negative that exist in 35 mm film the same in MF film? </p>

[m_allegretta]

<p>I shoot film and now, digital. I will always enjoy film photography, be it slow and painstaking. I find it difficult to evaluate a digital image because, unlike film, there is no way to look at the image directly except with a computer screen crippled by color spectrum and contrast limitations. Then, digital printers have other limitations. Together, the digital workflow process becomes complicated and just as painstaking. But, film transparencies are rich and contrasty, and have the widest color range, if exposed correctly. Thus, they are the most rewarding. Film negatives are subject to printing variations, but have the widest exposure latitude. Both can be processed at large mail-in facilities, and if you are lucky the pro lab around the corner. Medium format advantage is in the interchangeable magazine. Magazines allow quickly switching between negative and positive film to record an almost identical view. Then, positive transparency will be the reference used to print the negative to reflect the right colors. It's a technique I like and has proven to be effective when printing at the lab, or after scanning and outputting with my home digital printer.</p>

[jukka1]

<p>Hi!<br />I have been shooting six years with dlsr but also film. I gave up film 6 months ago but only for 4 months. 2 months ago I bought Hasselblad 500 c/m with 2 backs and 100/3.5 planar (non-t) for 260 euros. I think they are my best ever spent money. I use tri-x and develop it with d76 1:1, maybe the most classical film/developer combination. I print then with durst m805 for 16*20 inches. Quality is outstanding compared to my flat prints from Nikon d700 and prime lenses. I use dslr only for commercial work, everything else with Hasselblad.<br />It really doesn't matter, which mf-gear you'll by, if it just works. Stick with succesful brands, Mamiya, Pentax,Bronica,Hasselblad. There are many used gear for very cheap price.<br>

SIncerely, Jukka</p>

[jodys]

<p>Go for it. I find 99% of the shots I take for my personal enjoyment are with film. Of those, 75% MF, 20% LF (4x5), the rest 35mm. I do use a dSLR to explore certain technical aspects of what I'm doing before I commit the $$$ when I press the shutter on one of the big boys, but that's just using the tools you have.</p>

[lubos_soltes]

<p>I am just starting my MF career, been shooting with Nikon F100/F80 bodies so far.</p>

<p>as to the film choice, I prefer the Fuji slide films and Kodak color print films ... fo B&W work, I guess Ilford or Kodak are good. I still have to test some of the Ilford films.</p>

<p>Fuji Provia is a great and universal slide film, also the 400iso version is great. Velvia cannot be bested for landscapes.</p>

<p>Kodak Portra line of print films is also an excelent choice. They cover almost anything you'd like to do in various saturation and speed variants.</p>

<p>My only issue in MF is that Fuji does not manufacture Sensia in 120 format :-(</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>I do much of my architectural work in medium format.<br>

I chose the Mamiya AFD because it lets me shoot both digital and, when it's called for, film.<br>

I must admit that I use the digital back about 70% of the time, but if the job calls for large prints I turn to Ektar 100 on the film back. Scanning that on a Nikon CS9000 gives me about 49 megapixels - enough for some very handsome 24" X 36" prints.</p>

 

[tony_kukulich]

<p>Regarding Pentax, I think the 645N is the autofocus version, isn't it? If you're doing a lot of macro work, I'm not sure that the autofocus version is the best choice. I'm not a macro expert by any means, but it seems to me that most use manual focus for macro work. I certainly do. You may want to consider the Pentax 645. One big benefit is that the manual focus body and lenses tend to be much less expensive than the AF. I've had a Pentax 645 for five or six years and I've never missed having auto focus functionality. </p>

[rashedahmed]

<p>I have used all formats, small,medium & Large.But the Medium Format gave me the pleasure for shooting.No point to shoot in 35mm in films. Go for Medium format .There are 7 different MF camera formats to choose from !!</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>Regarding the Pentax 645 vs N versions. The lenses are completely interchangeable with either camera. The AF function can be defeated but even if you're not actually using the AF function, the AF confirm indicator in the viewfinder and the audible beep are helpful even without AF lenses. There are so other ergonomic improvements in the N version as well. The NII version has mirror lockup which might be helpful for macro work although test after test have pretty much confirmed the mirror vibration is a non-issue with the 645s.</p>

[david_brown32]

<p><img src="http://c2.api.ning.com/files/DOlxtXUK4dlAF2Jg4d3G9odCvC1f67dzFFm4YT05ZtLagVelPOZQkUZiq-w6G7w8yYYIw7fnVZM3Ckog4OKMMRSK6uT8zg*J/OldBarnDuotoneWeb.jpg" alt="" width="872" height="600" /><br>

This is why I still use my ETRSi. SFX 200/ R72 Filter. I have tried using the DSLR for IR and the quality is just not right for the medium.</p>

[gene_aker2]

<p>An alternative to the more expensive medium format camera is the TLR (twin lens reflex). They were once very popular---but have not been made since the late 80's. People will think you're crazy to use an old camera, but the quality can be stunning. The classics: Rollei, Yashica, and many others--usually sport a tessar lens, a few have a built in meter. But you really need a handheld--since the old meters usually do not work. Of course only one "normal" lens--a 75mm or 80mm. You view on a 6x6 ground glass. Image is backwards. <strong> BUT. All of this makes you think! And puts the fun back into photography.</strong> I"m headed to the north California coast next week with my TLR's. Everything else stays home; well, maybe one 4x5. <br>

It's not hard at all to develop your own black and white film; you can load it onto a reel in a darkened room at night, then develop in the day light. Takes less than a half hour.</p>

[djphoto]

<p>David Loring wrote:<br>

"The thing that I've noticed, however, since moving to digital is that I seem to enjoy photography less. It's less of a challenge. I shoot in RAW and I know that I have some latitude to fix a shot post processing. Now I know that those that shoot film can scan and post-process as well; but I find that with digital I spend more time shooting and less time composing and thinking about the shot to get it "right." Digital is free; film is not. I have lost that excitement of shooting a roll of Velvia and eagerly waiting to see the results."</p>

<p>This is exactly what I was trying to say in this thread: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Wspo?start=40, only you said it better than I did.</p>

<p>After seven years of nothing but digital, my seeing was stale and a lot of the fun had gone out of my photography. So I dusted off my Rolleicord twin-lens reflex, got some Astia 120, and went back to my photographic roots. Looking down into that square viewfinder, I became aware of composition again in a way I hadn't thought about it in years. Even shooting transparency film, I allowed myself only two exposures per scene -- one at the meter reading, and one a half-stop under. And I spent some time walking around, evaluating different angles on the groundglass before I made those exposures. It was refreshing, and in a way, very liberating. As Picasso said, “Forcing yourself to use restricted means is the sort of restraint that liberates invention."</p>

[djphoto]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5940016">Lubos Soltes</a> wrote:</p>

 

<p>"My only issue in MF is that Fuji does not manufacture Sensia in 120 format."</p>

<p>Actually, they do. In 120 format it's called Astia, and is my favorite film.</p>