Why Film?

[Alpha]

Why not film?

 

[Battou]

Why not film?

Because people are under illutions that Digi is easier and cheaper. :lmao:

As for why I shoot film....I has a digital grudge, me no likey....J/k Actually it is just cheaper to shoot, especially at the volume I shoot. When I do get the oppertunity to put in a dark room it'll get even cheaper yet. I mean seriously, Professional level SLR body, $200, 400mm, lens $100 four rolls of film at the drug store and processing 24 exposure roll of film $16.94, getting a pair wild of Bald Eagles mid hunt ...Priceless.

 

[ThornleyGroves]

with film i use B&W, i just love how manual it is, and being able to spend my own time in the darkroom, i find that the more time you spend getting the photo, ultimately the more it can mean to you. I use digital too now (Nikon D90) however most of my projects are done on film. Also i think that the texture of your photos off the film is alot nicer!

 

[dinodan]

Please let me know how it works out quality-wise. I still have many old slides that I need to digitize.
Best regards-

I love shooting film, and I love my Nikon Coolscan V ED. This is a scan of an Ektachrome slide.

 

[8x10nomore]

Sounds like love to me!

One reason I still shoot film on occasion: Asahi Pentax!!

AH! My first camera was a Pentax SP500. Anyone remember it?

 

[8x10nomore]

Because people are under illutions that Digi is easier and cheaper. :lmao:

As for why I shoot film....I has a digital grudge, me no likey....J/k Actually it is just cheaper to shoot, especially at the volume I shoot. When I do get the oppertunity to put in a dark room it'll get even cheaper yet. I mean seriously, Professional level SLR body, $200, 400mm, lens $100 four rolls of film at the drug store and processing 24 exposure roll of film $16.94, getting a pair wild of Bald Eagles mid hunt ...Priceless.

Sounds like once you get that darkroom up, you will have total control. Nice!

 

[epatsellis]

Bruce,
I may be atypical, but for me its a mix of film and digital. There are some things that are just plain easier with film, and while I have a scan back for the 4x5, I find that most of my pack shots are still done on 4x5 C41 film and scanned. (processing done in house, scanned in house)

I don't feel that a fixed lens camera (as opposed to a view camera) gives you the versatility or control that is really needed to accurately portray most products, or the creative controls to bring my vision to fruition.

One of my clients had to replace a wrap on a trailer they use for trade shows and the like due to a product line change (they make lawn and garden tractor accessories), the file they previously used was from a 1DSmkIII.

I shot the new products on 8x10, scanned and delived a file that, in the customers words "popped out" of the trailer, and was magnitudes better than the previous one they used.

To me, it seems silly to spend several hours lighting and dressing a set (outdoors, no less) then 10 secs of capture and hope/pray that it will work as needed. I shot 10 sheets of 8x10 C41 film, as well as some TMX100, and knew that I had exactly what we needed, at a quality level that would be commensurate with "professsional" standards.

 

[8x10nomore]

Bruce,
I may be atypical, but for me its a mix of film and digital. There are some things that are just plain easier with film, and while I have a scan back for the 4x5, I find that most of my pack shots are still done on 4x5 C41 film and scanned. (processing done in house, scanned in house) I agree with you. I used to do a lot of light painting but that doesn't work dig. I hear that negative scanning is really good these days which it wasn't when I was still working with film.

I don't feel that a fixed lens camera (as opposed to a view camera) gives you the versatility or control that is really needed to accurately portray most products, or the creative controls to bring my vision to fruition. I thought that at first but then found that I can swing and tilt more accurately in PS.

One of my clients had to replace a wrap on a trailer they use for trade shows and the like due to a product line change (they make lawn and garden tractor accessories), the file they previously used was from a 1DSmkIII. You still can't beat 8x10 with digitial.

I shot the new products on 8x10, scanned and delived a file that, in the customers words "popped out" of the trailer, and was magnitudes better than the previous one they used.

To me, it seems silly to spend several hours lighting and dressing a set (outdoors, no less) then 10 secs of capture and hope/pray that it will work as needed. I shot 10 sheets of 8x10 C41 film, as well as some TMX100, and knew that I had exactly what we needed, at a quality level that would be commensurate with "professsional" standards.

I am not sure that I understand your final point, but I think it is great that you are using the best tool for the job. I sold my film processors in 2000 and don't have that luxury any more. I commend your efforts.

Best,
Bruce

 

[epatsellis]

I am not sure that I understand your final point, but I think it is great that you are using the best tool for the job. I sold my film processors in 2000 and don't have that luxury any more. I commend your efforts.

Best,
Bruce

Bruce,
The final point is specific to this project, the need for a 7'x12' image at 100 dpi. Most photographers today would either use genuine fractals or other upsampling techniques to get the final image size, which in this case would be quite visible, unless herculean efforts were taken. Were this an indoor shoot, I'd of likely used the Phase One scan back, the lack of an AA filter results in images that are eerily sharp, without post capture sharpening, and allow 4x upsampling while still maintaining image quality, though some sharpening and tweaking are still needed.

While you can correct geometry in PS, you can't determine the plane of focus, or control focus like you can in camera. I've been a long time Sinar user and the two point calculator (assymetric tilts and swings) makes movements fast and quick. My preference is still to get bluelines of the layout, reduce onto acetate on a copier and shoot to fit, something that's hard to do with a small format camera. (it usually helps to deal with designers that have been around a while, it seems that the younger ones can't fathom the concept readily)

I prefer to get it right, and exactly the image that's needed, in camera, my post typically consists of verifying levels and color (using either a Color Checker or Kodak Q13) and final resolution adjustments, that's it. I still use old Broncolor strobes (the ole 304/404 standby that was in every studio 20 years ago), as I've yet to find anything that is as consistent or color accurate, at least at a price that mere humans can afford.

My partner at the studio has a "typcial digital" workflow and can't fathom how I get color and exposure dead on consistently, I prefer to spend as little time as possible in front of the computer, there's a hundred other things I'd rather be doing, honestly.

BTW, I bought my W-L Pro 6 from a photographer getting out of film for $150, takes up hardly any room and gives me wonderful consistency and control.

 

[Orrin]

Hi Jerry. Thanks for your reponse. You make some very good points here.

I'm a little worried, but I archive on those Matsui cds that are supposed to last for hundreds of years-no marker-no printing-floating archival cases-stored in the dark-the best I can do.

This is assuming that in the future there will be equipment that can READ those
CD's. The computer industry makes things obsolete very quickly. Some new
recording tecnique will eventually replace CD/DVD technology and readers
for CD/DVD's will disappear.

I am old enough to have used 8 & 5 1/4 inch floppies, and anything that was
on them is now not readable on current equipment. I recently read that some
goverenment agency has records stored on computer tape that is now obsolete
and there is no existing equipment that can read or decode it,

Properly stored film old film and even glass plates, can still be used today.
Even if it won't 'fit' into an existing enlarger, it still can be viewed with the eye!

 

[8x10nomore]

Bruce,
The final point is specific to this project, the need for a 7'x12' image at 100 dpi. Most photographers today would either use genuine fractals or other upsampling techniques to get the final image size, which in this case would be quite visible, unless herculean efforts were taken. Were this an indoor shoot, I'd of likely used the Phase One scan back, the lack of an AA filter results in images that are eerily sharp, without post capture sharpening, and allow 4x upsampling while still maintaining image quality, though some sharpening and tweaking are still needed. Point well taken. Thanks-

While you can correct geometry in PS, you can't determine the plane of focus, or control focus like you can in camera. I've been a long time Sinar user and the two point calculator (assymetric tilts and swings) makes movements fast and quick. My preference is still to get bluelines of the layout, reduce onto acetate on a copier and shoot to fit, something that's hard to do with a small format camera. (it usually helps to deal with designers that have been around a while, it seems that the younger ones can't fathom the concept readily) I still miss my old LUCY. I even used to make them for my medium format cameras on occaision.

I prefer to get it right, and exactly the image that's needed, in camera, my post typically consists of verifying levels and color (using either a Color Checker or Kodak Q13) and final resolution adjustments, that's it. I still use old Broncolor strobes (the ole 304/404 standby that was in every studio 20 years ago), as I've yet to find anything that is as consistent or color accurate, at least at a price that mere humans can afford.

My partner at the studio has a "typcial digital" workflow and can't fathom how I get color and exposure dead on consistently, I prefer to spend as little time as possible in front of the computer, there's a hundred other things I'd rather be doing, honestly. Another point well taken-

BTW, I bought my W-L Pro 6 from a photographer getting out of film for $150, takes up hardly any room and gives me wonderful consistency and control.

-What is a W-L Pro 6?

Thanks

 

[8x10nomore]

Bruce,
The final point is specific to this project, the need for a 7'x12' image at 100 dpi. Most photographers today would either use genuine fractals or other upsampling techniques to get the final image size, which in this case would be quite visible, unless herculean efforts were taken. Were this an indoor shoot, I'd of likely used the Phase One scan back, the lack of an AA filter results in images that are eerily sharp, without post capture sharpening, and allow 4x upsampling while still maintaining image quality, though some sharpening and tweaking are still needed.

While you can correct geometry in PS, you can't determine the plane of focus, or control focus like you can in camera. I've been a long time Sinar user and the two point calculator (assymetric tilts and swings) makes movements fast and quick. My preference is still to get bluelines of the layout, reduce onto acetate on a copier and shoot to fit, something that's hard to do with a small format camera. (it usually helps to deal with designers that have been around a while, it seems that the younger ones can't fathom the concept readily)

I prefer to get it right, and exactly the image that's needed, in camera, my post typically consists of verifying levels and color (using either a Color Checker or Kodak Q13) and final resolution adjustments, that's it. I still use old Broncolor strobes (the ole 304/404 standby that was in every studio 20 years ago), as I've yet to find anything that is as consistent or color accurate, at least at a price that mere humans can afford.

My partner at the studio has a "typcial digital" workflow and can't fathom how I get color and exposure dead on consistently, I prefer to spend as little time as possible in front of the computer, there's a hundred other things I'd rather be doing, honestly.

BTW, I bought my W-L Pro 6 from a photographer getting out of film for $150, takes up hardly any room and gives me wonderful consistency and control.

This is assuming that in the future there will be equipment that can READ those
CD's. The computer industry makes things obsolete very quickly. Some new
recording tecnique will eventually replace CD/DVD technology and readers
for CD/DVD's will disappear.

I am old enough to have used 8 & 5 1/4 inch floppies, and anything that was
on them is now not readable on current equipment. I recently read that some
goverenment agency has records stored on computer tape that is now obsolete
and there is no existing equipment that can read or decode it,

Properly stored film old film and even glass plates, can still be used today.
Even if it won't 'fit' into an existing enlarger, it still can be viewed with the eye!

Good pint Orrin. As long as I can see it coming, I will transfer those disks to what ever the future holds for us.
Best regards-

 

[epatsellis]

-What is a W-L Pro 6?

Thanks

Sorry, Wing Lynch Pro 6 processor.

The Pro 6 is pretty neat, unlike the older ones with the dams and such, this one was made by Thermophot, uses canisters and can process up to 8x10.

Key features:
Self contained, no water connection needed
Pressurized Nitrogen pumping
6 1 gal chemistry tanks
1 5 gal wash tank
All tanks temp controlled to .1F
Computer controlled (with the abilty to Push/Pull as desired)
Able to run on backup battery in case of power failure
Any or all solutions can be reclaimed/repelnished if desired (C41 bleach is the biggie for me, with regen and aeration, a gal or two lasts quite a long time, raw solution cost of bleach alone is astronomical `$35/gal )
Relatively small footprint (approx 34"w x 24"d x 18"h)

Pretty much everything you need for either E6 or C41/B&W processing in one nice small unit.

 

[8x10nomore]

Sorry, Wing Lynch Pro 6 processor.

The Pro 6 is pretty neat, unlike the older ones with the dams and such, this one was made by Thermophot, uses canisters and can process up to 8x10.

Key features:
Self contained, no water connection needed
Pressurized Nitrogen pumping
6 1 gal chemistry tanks
1 5 gal wash tank
All tanks temp controlled to .1F
Computer controlled (with the abilty to Push/Pull as desired)
Able to run on backup battery in case of power failure
Any or all solutions can be reclaimed/repelnished if desired (C41 bleach is the biggie for me, with regen and aeration, a gal or two lasts quite a long time, raw solution cost of bleach alone is astronomical `$35/gal )
Relatively small footprint (approx 34"w x 24"d x 18"h)

Pretty much everything you need for either E6 or C41/B&W processing in one nice small unit.

NICE. I used to use the Jobo ATL-4 I believe-one shot-not good for the environment but beautiful quality and repeatability-

 

[svl3b]

I just like to watch the picture magically appear on the paper...lol..not to mention darkroom time is quiet time