120 slide film

[michael_radika]

<p>I new to the forum,i have been out of photography for alot of years and am now getting back into it. Im wondering what kind of 120 film is still avaiable. I want to shoot slide film, what is still available in this day and age, i know velvia was the best thing made back when i was into photography, and help would be great thanks.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Take an internet journey to two locations and your question about film availablility will be answered: B&H and Freestyle.</p>

<p>Aside the nostolgia of slide film, there is no good reason to use it anymore. E6 processing is getting very hard to find, and R-type prints are long gone.</p>

<p>It is much better to use C-41 neg film, which have better latitude and scanning characteristics. Get some Portra 160 or 400 and get back into it!</p>

[michael_radika]

<p>seems like not alot available. My other question is will i get better 16x20 prints from a 6x7 format camera and film, or from a good 35 mm digital camera, like a 24 mega pixel camera.</p>

<p>How does medium format 6x7 stack up to 35mm digital, i want to shoot landscapes, and some portaits. I have been out of photograpy for 15 years so.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>In Europe there's Velvia 50 everywhere. There's Provia and there's Agfa CT Precisa. Processing is expensive as it always was.</p>

<p>Film and digital are different. They will look different in most occasions. Film IQ degrades much more gracefully, in my opinion, whereas digital is much more convenient and cheap. Film has much better dynamic range. Digital will be superior in low light A high end 35mm *film* has about 20mp in it, it's easy to see that 6x7 will have much more than that. But it may not make a difference, and film is unfortunately prone to physical damage. It's entirely up to what you like. I don't see film and digital as competitors, any more than I see painting and photography as competitors. The problem is that for the general public film is as niche as painting. People don't 'like' digital, not do they find it 'better' - they simply find it delivers what they're looking for, so they use it over other alternatives. The only problem is that, unlike with painting, shooting film requires products which need a moderately large demand to remain in production. That leaves us luddites worried.</p>

<p>I wouldn't trade my film for digital versions of what it is. But that's just me.</p>

[david_henderson]

<blockquote>

<p>Better 16" x 20" prints</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A long and difficult question, which depends not only on film choice but also how and how well you ( or a lab)scan and post process, and how contrasty your scene is. A very rough answer is that other things unchanged you could possibly get a bit more sharpness and detail from the transparency, though sharpness isn't the be-all and end-all.</p>

<p>But how relevant is this going to be? You can make a great print that size from either camera. If you wanted a print twice that size you could maybe become a bit concerned about your choice because a great slide, drum scanned is likely to give you a bigger option. At your size I'd be pretty tempted by a route that didn't require me to either scan or pay for scans,buy film and pay for processing, and offers a better dynamic range and so easier picture-taking than slides; instant feedback ( so you know whether you should take it again) and so on.</p>

<p>OTOH if film photography happens to be your thing ( and bear in mind that a majority of people using digital once had film photography as their thing), and you understand and are prepared to accept the implications of that route, then who I am to persuade you away from a route that can certainly work. </p>

[AlanKlein]

I still shoot Velvia 50 120. But I had the equipment

already.

[donbright]

<p>What other method of color capture exceeds image impact in a large print using, 120 Velvia 50 properly exposed, drum scanned with a Heidelberg Tango Scanner printed on Fuji Super GLoss Crystal Archive, via a Lightjet Printer? </p>

[donbright]

<p>Well I guess I walked into that one, as 4x5 to be the obvious answer, but we can tell where this is going, as my question edited should refer to full frame sensors.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Don, understand your point though it is possible to use LightJet printers and Fujiflex/Fuji Super Gloss to print files from a digital camera too. </p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>6x7, Portra or Ektar or Ektar film, tripod, and cable release!</p>

[donbright]

<p>True, is not a file size from a 120 frame, scanned to 600MB proportions providing more information to the printer for better fidelity? </p>

[michael_radika]

<p>Im now thinking a full frame Nikon or Cannon 35mm digital camera is going to be very close to what im going to get and i dont have to spend a wadd of money of film and processing and scanning. I will have to put up more money up front to get the full frame camera though.<br>

I just bought a bronica gs1 with 5 lens, grip, lens filters, 2 6x7 backs, flash all in mint condition for 700 dollars off eBay, but im not sure now it was the right choice. I think the film, scanning, and that will end up costing me alot more in the long run.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Michael. So much depends on how many frames you shoot , and what you do with the output. For me the transition from film to full frame digital was fairly easy, despite the fact that I was happy with my Bronicas and Velvia/Provia. I shot maybe 500-600 rolls of 120 a year. Even several years ago it was costing me the equivalent of $5 000 pa in film and processing, Maybe $500 pa in servicing/repairing the Bronicas, and about $2500 in scanning work for printing or (mostly) providing scanned files to stock agencies. At that level - and there's a lot of people that shoot more than I do- I could buy a new FF digital system every year and still be on the plus side, even though the digital system cost more than my Bronicas. In reality of course I replace a digital body about every 3 years , and get at least double that from the lenses, and I've literally just spent the first money on non warranty repairs in 6 years of dslr ownership. You can substitute your numbers and todays prices to see whether the same directional conclusion is true for you, though it would be for most people shooting a few rolls a month or more. </p>

<p>Of course as I said before there are some people that just believe film is better- and for them it isn't an economic thing and a cost comparison won't be persuasive.</p>

<p>It should be possible to recover a large proportion of the money you spent on your GS1.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

A drum scan of a good 6x7 will yield more than 100 sharp megapixels. That's not to be scoffed at. DSLRs have a long

way to go before they get there. And that's resolution alone. But as I said earlier, it all depends on many factors.

[Brad Cloven]

<p>Velvia 50 is still the richest slide color film I know of. And Provia 100 is quite accurate for color reproduction of people, in my opinion. </p>

<p>I buy lots of it from Adorama. I shoot it through my Rolleiflex and Mamiya, and love every slow, rare minute of it. If I get through a roll in a day, it's a big day.</p>

<p>Then, I send it out to North Coast Photographic Service down by San Diego. They process and scan it into huge files. The results are stellar. I get back the slides in a sleeve and the files on a disc. Great stuff. Kind of expensive on a per-shot basis, but I take so few shots, who cares! It's my hobby, and I don't want another *)(*&&*^%$^&*!!! piece of technology as part of my hobby.</p>

<p>Speaking of expense, how else can you take (effectively) 100 MP shots in a <$500 camera? You can buy several dozen (hundred?) rolls of film and processing before your cost is up there with expensive digital gear. And your 50 year old Rollei will not depreciate.</p>

<p>So, if you like slow, beautiful, fun results, come back to film. It's a style, a hobby, a way of life! ;-)</p>

<p>< / film bigot ></p>

[c_watson1]

<p>And yet E-6 materials are more endangered than ever thanks to sliding sales--all the "advantages" listed above notwithstanding. Processing gets harder to find. Ed Burtynsky's Toronto Image Works cooled off their E-6 Refrema for keeps last week--the last pro lab in N. America's fourth largest city that offered quality transparency processing. Why? You fill in the blank.</p>

[john_cooper9]

<p>I have found that Fuji 64T to be accurate at recording color, particularly that of a watercolor painting. I use it primarily in 4x5 but also have several rolls in 120. Once frozen it appears to remain "fresh" for years. I prefer it to Velvia when used with proper correction for non-tungsten light source. The other film I like is Provia, both in 400 speed and 100 speed in a 6x7 camera.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

Because people think a 6000x4000 8 bit jpeg is good enough for most shots and when *that* special one comes by that

they'd like to have in a better format it's too late to do anything?

E6 is a niche inside a niche. There are no more special reasons needed.

[michael_radika]

<p>Well thanks for all your answers, im getting a good idea how this scanning and digital stuff works. I think for me i love film, but the cost of devolping film and then scanning the good shots sounds exspensive. I dont have the cash for a good full frame 35mm dslr, so i think for now i m going to have to go with film.<br>

Can somebody ballpark me how much it would cost to get into a budget full fram 35mm, just a simple basic setup for the start, remember i want to do landscape, portraits. I have already purchased my bronica,, but if i had to i would resell it, i think i could get back what i paid, but that dépends on the cost of a full frame 35mm.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

There are no budget full frame digital cameras. Full frame is still a premium feature.

[ant_nio_marques]

BTW, with 5 lenses, you can sell your Bronica at a profit. Finder, lenses, backs sold separately will fetch high prices.

What lenses are those? (obs: I am into the ETR system rather than yours.)

[john_cooper9]

<p>You can pick up a Sony A850 for around $1000 if you are willing to gamble a little. Let me know if you are going to sell/auction your GS-1 outfit because I am looking for the 65mm lens.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>The only way to get a Full Frame camera cheaply is to buy used, and possibly a version that has been superseded. The problem is that the further back you go in search of a bargain. the fewer MP you'll get. For example the Canon 5D is now a quite cheap camera, but its 12mp/36mb. You can still get a 20" x 16" out of that, but its not as comfortable as one of the later models with 21/24mp. In any case probably the bigger expense is in the lenses. </p>

<p>Its pretty clear that if you want to minimise the expenditure you make now, then the Bronica is your answer. But if you want to minimise your total expenditure over a small number of years its cheaper to spend more money now on a digital system but much less in future on film, processing, scanning etc.. Choose your poison- you can minimise your cost today, or achieve a long term minimal cost solution. Sadly they are in conflict and you can't have both, except if you are a very low or very high volume shooter. Very low means that you won't spend enough on film and processing to make your MF film more expensive than a digital system overall. Very high volume means that you'll recover the extra capital cost of a digital system really fast through not spending on film and processing.</p>

[michael_radika]

<p>I have the GS1, i have the 50mm 65mm 100mm 150mm and 250mm lenses. I also have 2 6x7 backs, the grip that mounts to the body, flash, filters, all the lens caps.<br>

Yeah i see that full frame 35mm is not cheap, and i would want a pretty good one, i just dont have that much cash right now.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Each of us has his own solution. As mentioned, shooting a lot of E-6 slide film is very expensive when you tally film and processing costs. If your landscape and portrait photography is low to moderate volume (which for me is under say 25 to 50 rolls per year) it may make sense to stay with your camera, a good tripod and low ISO high resolution slide film. A full frame digital like the A7 or A7r Sony (a bit less or more than 2000$ with about the same outlay for two or three Zeiss optics for the camera) is not far off what you would pay for the Nikon D800e or the highest resolution Canon DSLR and a good lens, any of which would be good alternative investments if you foresee shooting more film than 25 to 50 rolls per year.</p>

<p>If you shoot even less than this your present camera and optics, purchased at an advantageous price compared to new, may be best for you. I now shoot landscapes with medium format using B&W film only and save on downstream developing and printing costs by doing that myself. The quality of output at 16 x 20 or greater, and the pleasure of the process, keep me happily with MF.</p>

<p>I changed my colour photography approach about 5 or 6 years ago to digital and now full frame, as I saw little reason to stay with film in that medium, not having a top notch scanner (or ability to pay for a high volume of high quality scanning) and also wishing a bit more control of the exposure and an ability to do slight post processing. Occasionally I use digital for B&W prints, although I have yet to obtain the same print quality as per traditional processing. I only do a very limited number of 16 x 20 colour prints </p>

<p>Each process from exposure to print has its advantages and costs, but if you do not foresee a large number of 16 x 20 colour prints as your goal your present route may be the best for you. I'm not sure that my comments help you very much to decide on the alternatives, but whatever you do best wishes for rewarding results! <br>

</p>