DB_Gallery

<p>I'm happy to say that I am pretty sure that my D750 and D810 are the end of the Nikon digital line for me for quite awhile if not for good. They are really solid performers and I know I can use them or low shutter count replacements for a number of years yet and satisfy my needs and client needs. The main reason is I am using Adobe CS6, specific computer hardware and don't really want to change any of it and would have to if I got new digital bodies due to both Adobe and Apple OS making things not compatible, so I am passing on what ever is announced as a replacement for sure.<br /> For other digital cameras I have my Hasselblad CFV50c back for my V system and my Leica M240 for that system, all really solid performers too, just need to maintain them is all so man...I am really set and can keep investing where the real money is in my future and that is film and darkroom work.<br /> <br /> It's a nice feeling, no more chasing gear, just building a spectacular darkroom and finishing my career and life as a photographer that way. Digital tools have been great but I always knew they were just temporary.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I process Tmax 400 in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 in Xtol 1:1 and love it, best black and white film I have ever used. </p>

<p>There have been a few articles here and there regarding a steady uptick in B&W film / silver gel use but most of what I am seeing is first hand among peers, galleries, etc. <br> A lot more people talk about it too, I see more film cameras out and about than I did ten years ago for example. A number of my peers shoot high end weddings and more than half of them now employ some kind of color neg film use in medium format. <br> Ten to fifteen years ago on this site was a pretty miserable time to be taking about film, calls of for it's "death" were rampant and unending. Now things have mellowed out and film is still here presenting photographers and photo enthusiasts with a great option. It's all good in my opinion.</p>

<p><strong>Dieter Schaefer</strong> wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>I don't have to guess, I know the answer precisely. Given the title of this thread, I don't think I should provide that answer though ;-) Just that my 100% film days are a dozen years in the past by now.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Interesting you still felt compelled to comment even though having nothing of value to contribute.<br /> <br /> Back on topic, I am not sure of the real metrics as I don't really feel the need to keep track but here goes...<br /> Digital RAW about 70,000<br />B/W film in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 is about 440 rolls and 300 sheets, down from last year by about 20% due to other projects and what not.<br /><br />I dont shoot color because I wet print and since I am about to buy a home with 500 square feet of basement darkroom space, I suspect film will go up a bit but printing, mounting & framing a lot. I steadily see my trend as being away from digital and much more to black and white film and silver printing. <br /> I'd say on the whole, black and white with silver printing is the strongest it has been in 20 years, evidence of this is popping up near daily. For example, some fine new work from this photographer:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.hasselblad.com/our-world/feature/rafael-rojas-timeless">Rafael Rojas</a><br /><br /></p>

<p>I love cats...Purr-toe-rico was great for cats...</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>"..who shoots almost exclusively Tri-X..." - well, if you're that indiscriminating of image quality.</p> </blockquote> <p>If I understand you correctly, you are trying to be entirely scientific about what you opine as "image quality". But you do realize that casts a blanket of insult upon the thousands who choose to use this particular medium in 35mm format for a desired outcome and or experience, right? It also shows a blatant disregard for those art directors, photo editors and gallery curators who otherwise find well seen and executed works in 35mm film to be held in high regard and worth their time. <br /> <br /> Is that your goal here, to assert that only science matters in photography and not the passion or art behind it as well? Because with no work to show, a stage name on this site and this type of statement....what value does anything you have to say even have?</p>

<p>C Watson wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>Just<em> curious, Daniel, about what % of your money shots posted to your site are film?</em></p> </blockquote> <p>That was a good question so I checked. On my publicly visible page bearing my namesake ( 90% of my work is PW protected ) it is 27 images on film out of the 60 on the slideshow loop. I expect that to increase a fair bit in the coming years.<br> <br /> Rodeo Joe wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>I<em> disagree that 35mm film has any place in the world today.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Oh, better not tell my editors that or better yet, Danny Wilcox Frazier of the agency Seven who shoots almost exclusively Tri-X in his M6......Pretty amazing what kind of blinders people insist on wearing...</p>

<p>Most amateur types assume that digital is the only way forward and really put the screws to film. And it is not uncommon for them to make blanket statements about pros like Steve Parrott (irony?) did in saying "All previous PRO photographers who spent half their life shooting film in the past have grasped digital with joy and glee."<br /> <br /> So here is the reality of it from this full time pro, me....<br /> <br /> I did not grasp digital with joy and glee, it took decades of use of it for me to feel it was even up to par with the entire cradle to grave creative vision of using film. I happen to own and use a great CFV50c back for my Hasselblad system and a dozen film backs, both sets are equally important. Furthermore, there has been a steady niche resurgence in the use of film among pros, some color neg but mostly black and white. I don't shoot a lot of color film but do have several projects going on it and use a Nikon 9000ED to scan it.<br /> I like digital a fair bit, but it does not nor will ever hold a candle to the full experience, the freedom and the creative credit line of my making of fine silver prints in a darkroom. This is why I have invested around $75K into it thus far and my wife and I have taken over a year to find the right home to purchase so that I will have the room to fully realize this next chapter of my career. The home we are about to go under contract on is costing us at least $200K more than average because of the expansive work areas it will allow me in doing darkroom work in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 formats making prints up to 40x50 in size, that is how important this is to both of us.<br /> <br /> So shoot film if you want, shoot digital if you want. But please don't go down the pointless rabbit hole of which is better because all that matters is passion, vision and talent...not what it was done on.<br /> <br /> My passion, vision and talent is best realized in using black and white film and printing it in my darkroom, no digital technology will ever change that.</p>

<p>Oh...the irony of where I was at when I first read the title.</p>

<p>Even though I own and use a very comprehensive Hasselblad V film and digital system, I took a week long trip with my wife to Chicago last week and only took a Leica M240 with a 35mm 1.4 and a Rolleiflex 2.8D. Both fit in a super small bag and honestly, I had a blast and know there are some banger shots in there. <br> I did not find the 80mm 2.8 all that limiting either, just put more thought into the compositions and when I needed to be fast....man is a Rolleiflex fast.</p>

<p>My take:<br> Leica 35mm 1.4 Asph non-FLE version is gorgeous and equaled by the Nikon 35mm 1.4G, focus shift is real and was present though with my M240 and even slightly noticeable with my M6.<br> My 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE however is about as perfect an optic as I have ever used, no shift and significantly better at closer distances than the pre-FLE. <br> I just took a week long trip to Chicago with my wife and all I brought was the M240 / 35mm 1.4 FLE and my Rolleiflex 2.8D, a fantastic combo.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You mention that you can use the PME-90 with the back. I agree that it fits. But how do you access the slide at the top of the back when the PME-90 is fitted? You can't get your finger in there to do it. The gap between the bottom of the PME-90 and the top of the digital back is only a few mm.</p> </blockquote> <p>That issue is solved by the same way it is solved with any back in use, the locked slider on the left hand side of the PME90. </p>

<p>I use my 17-35 on my D810 all the time, I find the corners at 17mm are a bit soft due to some field curvature but other than that, in real world pro use it is actually great.</p> <p>I had a 14-24 and got sick of having to repair it every year because the zoom helicoid is a crap design, a very expensive fix. I sold it and replaced it with the new 20mm 1.8G which is fantastic. </p>

<p>I guess I don't at all fit into this "How did we ever manage?" nostalgia umbrella.</p> <p>For example, I have been using digital for so long it feels like it has always been here, I honestly can hardly remember what it was like without it because I also use film as if it will always be here. I never left it and use it just like I did when I first started my career in this photo thing going on 30 years ago. </p> <p>So sorry, I can not at all relate, I have been using both side by side for decades. I have been in the process of doing some upgrading in both digital and film though. On the digital side I just bought 64TB in 8TB hard drives for a new server and am in the process of finalizing some commercial real estate for a fine art darkroom. </p> <p>All good, just like it has always been, digital and film, film and digital. </p>

<p>I subscribed from 2013 until death, some months being better than others. Looking Glass blows it away.</p>

<p>Ian, you might want to read the review I did on B&H, I actually own and use the back a lot in my commercial work. As posted to B&H:</p> <p>I am a full time professional photographer who specializes in commercial, editorial and fine art, I use both film and digital in 35mm, 120mm medium format and 4x5 in film only. I have been using the Hasselblad V system since 1988, some 28 years in my career so when Hasselblad introduced this back at the non-discounted price point, I asked Hasselblad Bron for a demo to try out, I use it with a pair of 501CM bodies. I had it for about a week and used it on several paid shoots, got to know the limits of it and strengths as well. The primary factor for me to buy it was if it would at least equal my Nikon D810 in using the best glass I have in either system, if it did that then it would be worth it because I could then just use the V system on shoots that I really wanted to produce my black and white fine art with but needed to have a digital back for color. <br /><br />Well it worked, in most cases it equaled or improved upon the image quality of my Nikon D810 and in the case of tonal range and color, exceeded it by quite a margin. So I purchased it directly from Hasselblad in the Fall of last year when the price promotion went into effect. <br /><br />So here are the pros:<br /><br />The back is compact, only a little bigger than a standard A12 or A24 back and gets a tad taller with the battery connected. The battery life is very good and spare batteries are fairly inexpensive so I have 5 batteries, have never needed more than two on a heavy shoot day with average use of live view. The integration into the system is flawless, I swap between film to digital to film and back again all day long and it is a breeze and I don't find the crop lines in the dedicated screen to confuse me at all. The fact that the sensor is so exposed may seem spooky at first but it is actually a blessing because it is by far the easiest sensor to keep clean, easy to get to, usually one swipe of an anti static brush or cloth is all that is needed. The image quality is excellent even at high ISO's and as mentioned before, even though on paper the dynamic range is less than a Nikon D810, in actual use it is considerably better with fantastic color quality right out of camera. The back also is great for really long exposures and the fact that the status light blinks during the exposure is a boon for knowing when to close the shutter without needing an external timer, if you set the back for 30" seconds, the sensor simply stops recording the image after that time even if you have left the shutter open longer. This makes for super consistent "B" setting times in post. The fact it is a cropped sensor might actually be a blessing as it really puts lenses to the test and for my commercial clients, they would not be using the images I give them in square anyway. I feel like I have two camera systems in one because of that. The menu and layout is pretty simple, there is a learning curve but it takes no time at all. I feel the RAW files do equally as well in LR5, ACR as they do in Phocus so one is not locked into proprietary software if they choose not to be. <br /><br />The cons:<br /><br />Using live view can be clunky and the refresh rate makes it to where if using it in daylight, you either have to stop down or do what I do and put on a polarizing or ND filter to not have the image wash out. Waiting a few seconds for the image to materialize can help in some cases, but most often it is washed out if no filter is used. Also, I am not sure why it does it but when using mirror pre-release, sometimes the back gets confused and does not detect the shutter going off and you get blank frames. I had it do this 4 times in a row during a magazine shoot and it really got on my nerves, I hope there is a firmware fix down the road. Speaking of mirror lockup, you will have to use it in a lot of cases with lenses longer than 100mm as mirror slap is a very real and potent threat to getting a sharp image on a lot of Hasselblad V cameras, it simply shows more at this crop factor and resolution. In addition to that, using a tripod or at least a monopod with lenses longer than 100mm is strongly recommended even at the top shutter speed of 1/500th. The CF card slot should be reversed from where it is now as the lip of the CF card is not easy to get to being closest to the hinge for the access door. I had to put a piece of tape on the non-lipped side of the card to create a false lip to grab it by when ejecting it. The back is not at all weather sealed at the CF card door so one has to be extra considerate of this fact when using the back in inclement weather or a dusty location, it is my only area of concern for this however as the rest seems to be fairly tight. As the back does not rotate, you will simply have to employ the use of a 90 degree prism in order to comfortably compose vertical images. This adds bulk and weight but it is the only option as using any other angle of view is simply far too counterintuitive to be of any real use in a vertical orientation. I strongly suggest a PME-90 as it has both a great meter and a built in diopter adjustment. And finally, focus is *critical* with this back so as clunky as live view can be to use, it really helps to confirm if your screen mounts are in spec and if your camera body is too. You pay thousands for a back like this, don't sell your self short in *thinking* it looks in focus, make 100% sure it is. <br /><br />All this said, I simply love this back. It has made my 3 camera body, 9 lenses Hasselblad V system the most powerful and versatile I have and is a great thing, because that is why a lot of us chose the V system decades ago in the first place.</p><div></div>

<p>Glenn, thanks for the effort on 2.0 on a holiday weekend, just shut the computer down and take the rest of the weekend to relax. <br /> That aside, I have to confess that I did not beta test 2.0 although some private conversations have revealed that the input as to the bugs and features lost were not taken seriously enough? I will now however make sure that I will make lists of features to keep and things to improve.<br> <br /> And finally, I just exported my gear list to PDF so all my 15 years of gear history is now safely tucked away incase this is a feature we will lose when 2.0 is ready for prime time.<br> <br /> 1.0 is indeed super smooth and easy to figure out. Yes, it can be improved, but we should not lose the incredible archive of information or the ability to access it in the name of flashiness.<br> <br /> Thanks again, hopefully the next go live will be much smoother and reflect the changes that the community actually wants.</p>

<p>Paul K wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>"<br /> The image rendering of film dramatically differs from a DSLR/digital, you'll (fortunately, a picture's main feature IMO should not in the first place be the fact that it's sharp. Based on that criteria many icons pictures from the past would have to be disqualified) ) simply never get the corner to corner sharpness of a DSLR<br />A film will always have some kind of curve due to the material acetate - it's made off, and e.g. 35mm being spooled up in a canister, and will therefor never be as flat as a sensor (which always will be completely 'flat')<br />That means the 'flat' focal plane of a lens will inevitably at some point hit an area of the film that lies flat on the film pressure plate,a and other areas which due to the curving of the material are not (the reason why in the film area some large format camera manufacturers - like e.g. Schneider - offered vacuum film backs to assure the film would like as flas as possible)<br /> So when shooting film you really won't see a difference in sharpness (not talking about flare or CA correction) between eg an old (pre D) AF lens and the latest G lens as dramatic compared to when using those two lenses on a high resolution DSLR"</p> </blockquote> <p>Yeah, sorry, I just don't agree with this Paul.</p> <p>I in fact do see a pretty significant difference in going from some older AIS, D lenses to G lenses on my F100, just like I saw a difference between the Leica 35mm 1.4 Asph to the FLE on my M6. This is with Tmax 100 & 400, even pushed a stop to 800. It looks cleaner in the corners with the latest glass, sharper and more contrast. The difference between a 35mm 1.4 AIS compared to a 35mm 1.4G with film in my F100 just floored me, big time night and day. My Zeiss 50mm F2 Milvus compared to my otherwise excellent 50mm 1.8 AIS, big, big difference on film.<br /> <br /> I'm not sure where this myth of film being so imprecise of a medium that you won't see a difference in modern glass came from but it is in my direct and professional experience, not at all true. I'm not saying one can not get enjoyment out of older glass like the insanely good 105mm 2.5 on an F100 but the real point is that modern lenses designed to work well with my D810 show almost as much improvement on film as they do on that 36MP sensor in my experience.</p>

<p>I have a Zeiss 50 Planar that I love, nice and light, super sharp and great flare free color. Earlier this year I rented both the regular Summicron and the Apo Summicron to see how they would fare against my Zeiss. Aside from things like the zeiss being more like a 46mm lens and having more contrast, neither the regular Summicron or the asph really pulled me in their directions to "upgrade".<br /> <br /> The bokeh was a bit nicer on both the Leica lenses but I just did not see mind blowing better photos out of either of them when it came right down to it. I think the Summicrons did have a bit more of a balanced look but if I went for one ( and boy are they cheap right now ) I would just go for the regular Summicron. For the extra weight, size and dramatic extra expense of the 50 Apo, I think I would just another 50 1.4 Asph again, a lens I have had three versions of and think is stellar. I only replaced my very heavy silver one with the Zeiss because the front section started coming off the darn thing.<br> <br /> And just so one does not think I am anti-Leica glass, I do own a 28mm Elmarit Asph, 35mm Summicron version 4 & 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE. <br /> <br /> Either way, it is a buyer's market out there in Leica land so do it up!</p>

<blockquote> <p>You can certainly use Nikon E lenses with Nikon film SLRs. The primary limitation is that the lens will remain wide open. In this case you are stuck with f1.4. While that is not ideal, if you are stuck at one particular aperture, it might as well be the widest one.<br> If you mount a G lens onto a manual-focus film SLR, the aperture would be stuck at the minimum. In that case the lens isn't going to be very useful in that set up.</p> </blockquote> <p>Absolutely, my 200-500 VR works fine wide open with my F100, FM3A, etc. It's just not a practical scenario for me to amass too many E type lenses when I can deploy the use of other fantastic lenses that do not have this limitation. </p>

<p>I'm not sure I am in the market for it since it is an "E" lens ( can't shoot film with it ) but I think it is great Nikon is still pushing out great gear like this. I love my 105mm 2.5 AIS, it's a super combo of compact and super sharp with just the right reach and darn near Leica-like rendering. <br> I bet a 105/1.4 would be fantastic in many situations with a very unique look.</p>

<p>I'd return it for a refund. In my experience, it is just not worth it to try to have things like this "fixed" when there are plenty of great lenses out there for good prices that won't need this kind of service.</p>

<p>I mostly shoot to make significant enough work that it has purpose in my community and to those who count on me to do that. A lot of the time photos fall easily into the vein of an ongoing project or type of narrative so I stay fluent in that particular dialect & having the photos I make have a purpose seems to often bring about the best work.</p> <p>Otherwise it would be idle snapping of eye candy and I think I would get rather bored of that in short order...</p><div></div>

<p>You could rent the 35mm F2 Zeiss ZM from Lensrentals, that is what I do when I really want to get down to the nitty gritty. <br> Because I also favor the 35mm focal length for Leica, I actually have two of them. I have the 35mm V4 'Cron that you refer to and the insanely good 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE. I love the super small size of the 35mm F2 for most work but the 1.4 FLE is simply in another league, so sharp and transmissive of light, just a phenomenal lens. But it is big and obviously much more expensive. <br> The Zeiss is likely a good bit sharper overall than the V4 'Cron but the latter is very sharp in the center. The Zeiss is also about the same size as your 50mm Summicron which is twice the size of the V4 35mm. </p> <p>That's all I got sir, I like having both Leica 35's for sure.</p>

<blockquote> <p>For me, I love the cameras that I use, not based on price, but based on..... something else I can't put my finger on at the moment.</p> </blockquote> <p>I think it is called a shutter button...:-)</p>