adrian_mctiernan

My feelings about the film vs digital report on the Forward Five TV link above are not polite, but boiled down are:

as a practising photographer using a studio, I would never use 35mm film at anything above 180 iso, as the grain is a nusiance, sorry, spelling, and unless I WANTED grain, would never use 400iso film unless I specifically intended to produce grain. If this chap is a professional, I would never use him, as to do what he has done would have to be to put the film in a bad light, so to speak.

 

The make of film was never mentioned - or shown - if you used say, Jessops film, even at 100 iso, you would get some grain - I used to work there, and the film was made behind the iron curtain, and was known to be a 'cheap' alternative. So, wrong choice of film, and make unknown. Some Kodak films are very fine grain, even at 400, but to get better colour and fine detail every pro knows that you have to choose film very carefully.

 

Then, as Ken Kryda says, the scanner used to scan the neg needs to be of very high quality – I have a flatbed epson perfection scanner, an old one, and even scanning 645 size negs, I would not think of printing above about A4 size – it is just too soft – no mention was made of the scanner used, and personally I would not accept for commercial printing any scan which gave green in the blacks – that can be adjusted in scan/preparation for printing.

 

The digital camera used was a Nikon D700, with 12.1 megapixels, and a 35mm size sensor, which has huge low-noise pixel sites, and anyone who knows the Nikon line is aware that recently, they have improved performance, to the point that their noise reduction over iso 800 is better than almost all their competition. One of the key points of sale of the digital camera is this smoothing of noise – their competition smooths noise AND details more than the Nikons. The Forward Five chose this camera because they know it will appear smoother, and keep more detail. They chose the 400 iso film as they knew it would show grain, and the bigger the shot, the bigger the grain, the more obvious it is. Viewing the film on my 17 inch monitor, I could see the grain on the left image, but I saw no sharper lines on the right - the girl was also wearing a glossy cat-suit, so again, grain would not show on the digital. I would love to see the image taken again, on 100 iso finegrain film, preferably transparency, and again the identical shots on the Nikon D700. I should like to have fine details also in the subject, perhaps a shirt or fine leaves or grass, or sand, so that we would be able to see fine detail blown up, and see where each ran out of definition. The smaller number of pixels vs larger number of grains would be in my book, a fairer test – If anyone wants me to run one, I can do it myself, and make the negs and transparencies available for someone with a GOOD scanner to make the assessments. Personally, I think that the TV company making this test spent all that money as they knew it would influence the general buying public to buy more digital gear, so they have a vested interest in ‘proving’ that digi is best. Personally, I would expect this, as they knew, or should have known before the test, what the results would be.

 

In reality, the test of a good film, negative or transparency, is likely to be how good, fine, and rich a PRINT it will produce, and this is dependent on many things – development conditions, correct times, temperatures, film freshness, chemical condition, (right mix, freshness/exhaution of solutions), complete washing, good drying, and the type of illimination in the enlarger, the paper freshness, and repeat all the other items for development of paper, plus the type and saturation of the paper, and contrast levels, to say nothing of the right exposure, both of film exposing and paper exposing. However, when all these are correct, then I feel absolutely sure that at this time, film has more to offer than the same sized digital sensor.

 

I have used a film Konica 180, 35mm, which gives lovely portrait quality, don’t know if you can get it now, and then had a transparency made from it for one customer, and literally gasped when I saw the quality and richness of the slide from it – and I used Colab at Coventry – (If this is advertising, and not really permitted, my apologies, it’s just I want to share my enthusiasm – edit as you need), and I personally feel that for ease, and up to A4, I would used digital, take in Raw, adjust to taste, and print on my Epson R300, to get lovely quality, and for brilliant prints first time, use my Canon T90, and then for 16x20 or bigger, medium format film – I can perhaps get a digi back for it later, if I can afford one, which gives me the ease to produce a lovely big nice image immediately. However, film still has a big appeal to me, being a lot cheaper, and of very excellent quality.

 

I live in England - film is trembling because most people use digi.

Good news for film fans - out local Aldi store (German company) sells 2x35mm rolls of Kodak 200 or 400 iso film

for about 80pence FOR THE TWO. Madness, but I like it. If you want me to buy some and send it, let me know! But

now is the time for buying 35mm cameras. I got a Canon T90 for about £200, with lens and dedicated spot metering

TTL flash included, off ebay. It is without doubt, the best metering camera I have ever bought - noisy and a bit

heavy, but wow! the beautiful exposure - and the lenses are cheap and easy to buy, again I used ebay. A nice 24mm

canon lens was about £25, I think, and gives very nice quality too, and all for less than a cheap digital SLR.

And for even better image quality, a nice ETRSi with standard lens, but the later PE lenses, made by Tamron,

gives superb shots, and again for about £250. The pictures can be biggish, 20x30 with good detail - that's my tip

for a 120 roll film camera, and add Fuji films new Velvia 100, and you have lovely rich shots too. Love film,

(and digital) - though the current debate is a bit daft on film vs digital - amazing how some academics like to

go to any length to prove they are right and the other person's absolute understanding is not precisely correct.

My slant is that digital seems to clean up all the noise, but seems to remove fine detail in the process - which

seems to be like polishing the silverware until you polish the details in the silver, and smooth the texture away

with the dirt. I hear the latest Kodak film is the finest grain film in existence - I buy my films from

7dayshop.com, as they are cheapest, and if you are in Britain, you don't pay VAT - whoopee says I.

 

Good shooting friends!

The film is sold by 7dayshop.com who are in Guernsey - I buy all my slide films from them - cheap and good quality. I live in Europe, and they are outside it, so I save 17.5% tax too - so will you.

 

This posting is old, so I guess it is available anywhere now - hopefully you are happily using it at this time

Dear Mary

 

The short answer is NO! the camera WILL BE LOCKED UNTIL YOU REMOVE THE DARKSLIDE. You need to know also that ON A

BACK MADE FOR THE ETRSi, (GRAY plastic finger grip on slide) AND NOT JUST ONE FOR AN ETRS (that's BLACK), the

darkslide cannot be withdrawn from the back while it is separated from the camera, so you cannot even fog the

film if you were to try, with the back off.

 

HOWEVER, BOTH THESE STATEMENTS ASSUME THAT THE GRAY DARKSLIDE IS FULLY PUSHED HOME INTO THE FILMBACK - IF

SLIGHTLY OUT, THEN THE INTERLOCK NO LONGER WORKS PROPERLY, AND ACCIDENTAL EXPOSURE IS POSSIBLE WITH THE DARKSLIDE

ALMOST COMPLETELY PUSHED HOME.... EVEN ABOUT 1/8th OF AN INCH OUT WILL ALLOW THE SHUTTER TO BE RELEASED, and you

will get an upright slice of photo taken, the rest being dark

 

THE RULE OF THUMB IS "ALWAYS EITHER PUSH THE DARKSLIDE COMPLETELY IN, OR TAKE IT OUT COMPLETELY" - you won't have

any problems then - UNLESS the camera has broken - sorry, "developed a fault"

 

I used the ETRS for weddings, and often I would push the shutter button, and nothing happened. This is either

that the darkslide is fully in, so it won't take a shot, or more usually, you have locked the shutter button,

(remembering there are two lock positions, and only one firing position). The important thing to do is NOT to

panic, even in a stressful situation - the camera is quite reliable, the photographer usually hasn't gone through

quality control so carefully. You need also to CHECK THE BATTERY before starting photographing - the red indicator

light at the edge of the viewfinder will light if there is enough power to operate the camera at the chosen

shutter speed. If the battery is drained, the shutter will still work, but only at 1/500 of a second. SO, KEEP

AN EYE ON THE BATTERY - it is

designed so that even in an emergency, the camera should work. Clever, but you need to be aware of it. IF YOU

HAVE LOST THE INSTRUCTIONS, let me know, and I can send you a scan of the whole manual, also the metered prism

instructions; (this applies to anyone who needs the instructions) Hoping this is of help, Regards, Adrian

Well you have my sympathy! That is a small space. However, don't get stressed or anything daft. I wondered if you have thought of just simply pointing the flash heads at the 12foot high ceiling, and using the natural spread of the light to create a big 6 foot x 6 foot softbox out of the actual ceiling itself!!. You will need some of that foamboard from any builders merchant, about 8 foot by 4 foot, and about 4 inches deep, which is basically polystyrene, to cover the whole of the ceiling, it is perfectly white with no color cast, and I am sure you will find it will work well. Any softbox will have internal baffles to diffuse the light, and they will somewhat reduce the light. If you take my idea, all the light will reach the ceiling, and you should end up with about the same exposure as if you had used the softbox. You can light the walls too for modelling in the same way. The savings on the boom arm, softbox, stand etc, will buy you another flash head. You may be able to mount the flasheads on the wall, directed to the ceiling, and so ALL the floorspace or tabletop is free! Your boss will love it too - hope you get promoted! I assume you are using a digital camera, so if you need, you could probably adjust the film speed if necessary. I can send a photo using this idea if you would like - I am not sure how though, but if you can tell me, I will send you one. (Oh, I have just found out how - it comes up when you click send). Here is one showing sandisk real and fake cards, taken just so.<div></div>

As I understand it, Chelsea, you have a 35mm Film camera here, and not a digital. So, I think you probably are referring to the fact that if you turn the sunpak flash to shine behind you onto a white wall or surface, you will get a less intense and therefore harsh shadows effect on the photo in front of the camera. The light has to bounce off the wall or perhaps the ceiling behind you, and then back again to the person or scene you are photographing. In the process, you end up getting a much more even light on the subject, and a smoother light. You also need to think of the lights in the room if it indoors, as they will likely be either fluorescent bulbs or tubes, or hot tungsten lights. Either way, you will need to put a filter over your flash head to match the color. If you go to somewhere like Lee Filters, they will be able to supply sheets of clear color correction filter which will make your flash light the same as the room you are photographing. Most people will not think of this, and you will get the better photo. Theirs will have yellowish room lights, and blue flash from their cameras, while yours will be color-balanced and show detail in the shadow areas, and more pleasing color all over. Try it - you will be glad you did.(ex-pro photographer tip)

Oops, Sorry! I said "so I wondered why you are using the on-camera flash to trigger, when the digital radio-flash is now so cheap" It should of course read "when the digital radio flash trigger is now so cheap".

 

My apologies for confusion!

I guess you are American from the XT designation of your camera - I had a 350D here in England, which is the same camera - you have the strobes, so I wondered why you are using the on-camera flash to trigger, when the digital radio-flash is now so cheap. I bought a 16-channel Chinese one on ebay for $36, which has a small transmitter for the camera, and a plug-in trigger/reciever for your strobe. Nothing else is needed, apart from the batteries, which are the small pen-cell type (AAA here) and a 9volt small battery for the transmitter. They supply all the batteries, and give a spare transmitter battery as a present. I have only praise for the idea - I have always wanted one, but they used to be only available here for over 100 English Pounds or so. Now, I hope never to use anything else for triggering. There are many advantages - you can set up the lights at a wedding, or party, or whatever, and only your camera will trigger them, so you get the shot, and no-one else, and you can move around without being out of light range with on-camera strobe, as the radio signal is not so dependent on line of sight to trigger. I don't want to advertise, so will just say the type I bought can be seen on ebay number 200202584768. I love the fact that you can used multiple triggers, all tuned in to the same channel, to trigger as many strobes as you have. You have obviously gone digital for the camera and the strobes, now why not follow on with the flash trigger! Neat and Professional at an amateur price - with the real use of the word amateur - done for love of the thing!

Vivek Iyer asks about which cameras have CCD's worth $1500 to repair.

 

I suppose it is the 645 format ones, which cost in England about 12,000 pounds to buy, and I bet they would cost a packet to replace the CCD if it gets scratched. Hasselblad do nice 39mp cameras, but I wouldnt dare clean the sensor even if I could afford the camera, (which I can,t) Maybe in about five years, when the pixel count goes up to about 200mp for your average quality camera, then I might buy a second hand old one for ?1000 or so. Cant wait - lovely machines

The new cameras do it for you; Canon, Olympus, Sony, etc. all have it now, and Canon scans the picture resulting from photographing a white background or board, and looks for shadows of dust from the filter which is in front of the actuall CCD, or CMOS sensor, and subtracts it from the final picture, so even any dust it can't physically shake off gets electronically sorted after the pix are taken

 

If you already have one, I would feel happier taking the camera into my local camera shop, who will clean the sensor in all the right ways, and never leave a mark, with a guarantee that if they scratch it, they will compensate you for the damage, for 5 pounds - (England)