Why not start with Med. format?

[FatBear]

Well maybe it's time to sell off the contents of my "photo closet" and apply the funds to a new DSLR. My wife will be happy, the room I was going to finish out to be my photo lab can be made into another bedroom and bath. I've no idea what we need another BR & bath for, but there are a lot of things I don't understand. Anyone want to buy an RZ-67 system with a bunch of lenses, extension tubes, cable releases, backpack, the whole 9 yards?

 

[Soocom1]

Well maybe it's time to sell off the contents of my "photo closet" and apply the funds to a new DSLR. My wife will be happy, the room I was going to finish out to be my photo lab can be made into another bedroom and bath. I've no idea what we need another BR & bath for, but there are a lot of things I don't understand. Anyone want to buy an RZ-67 system with a bunch of lenses, extension tubes, cable releases, backpack, the whole 9 yards?

If for a song and dance, maybe.

 

[Derrel]

FatBear,
You will likely be astounded by how GOOD the technical image quality is, even with a mid-entry-level Canon or Nikon d-slr using an APS-C sensor from 20 to 24 megapixels. Choose wisely, and you may not want or need another camera for close to a decade. Gone will be the RZ-67 issues, replaced by a new world of issues.

 

[Ysarex]

Another aspect that I point out here is this:
The application of new technology is in all honesty astounding.
No argument.
Fire off a kodak Ektalite 600 110 against a 2019 Canon Sureshot and there is no comparison.

But if your comparing that Samsung against a RB67 useing Kodacolor 200, the Samsung is going to be very much ahead in many respects except DoF

How do you get ahead or behind in DOF? What are you trying to say? DOF is valueless -- different DOF isn't better or worse than other DOF.

With that Samsung I just made the point that lens types that are available on one format aren't available on another (all else is not equal).

but the RB67 will still take total quality while the Samsung will win in certain criteria only because of the new technology.

Total quality today goes to digital and for the very reason that FatBear noted as a concern. There are different technical characteristics of a photograph that weigh toward total quality. The most important of those characteristics is tone response in which digital now has the advantage.

Joe

Its like comparing a 1980 Corolla to a 2018 Nissan Cube.

Apply the same technology of that Samsung into a new Med. Format and the MF will still take the prize.

 

[Ysarex]

Well maybe it's time to sell off the contents of my "photo closet" and apply the funds to a new DSLR. My wife will be happy, the room I was going to finish out to be my photo lab can be made into another bedroom and bath. I've no idea what we need another BR & bath for, but there are a lot of things I don't understand. Anyone want to buy an RZ-67 system with a bunch of lenses, extension tubes, cable releases, backpack, the whole 9 yards?

Put it on display somewhere in the house -- your wife will love that. Then start looking for that new digital camera. Derrel's suggestion of an APS class camera is a good one. Unless you want to make wall mural size prints it'll outperform your old RZ and be a whole lot more fun. You noted a concern about DR. You could load up the RZ with Tri-X and Zone System hoop jump yourself into a knot and maybe scrape 8 to 9 stops of scene DR onto a darkroom print with skillful burning and dodging. Or scan the neg and you'll get less. I can pick up my little compact Canon G7 (1 inch sensor) and capture 9.5 stops of DR no problem and then use that data with ease.

Joe

 

[FatBear]

Anyone want to buy an RZ-67 system with a bunch of lenses, extension tubes, cable releases, backpack, the whole 9 yards?

Just kidding, of course. Even I could write a better ad than that.

Put it on display somewhere in the house -- your wife will love that.

No way. She swims and works out at the Y. She'd probably club me with it.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I don't know why you need another bedroom and bath, send the relatives to Motel 6, they'll leave the light on!

Derrel you guys are breakin' my heart... okay, not really, but if someone likes shooting film or likes darkroom work, why keep trying to talk them out of it?? It's not like you can't do both or whichever you prefer, but let us darkroom rats enjoy the glow of a safe light.

 

[Ysarex]

I don't know why you need another bedroom and bath, send the relatives to Motel 6, they'll leave the light on!

Derrel you guys are breakin' my heart... okay, not really, but if someone likes shooting film or likes darkroom work, why keep trying to talk them out of it?? It's not like you can't do both or whichever you prefer, but let us darkroom rats enjoy the glow of a safe light.

The guy with the RZ asked a very specific question: "I've started reading about modern DSLRs with ISO equivalents in the hundred thousand range (!) and MF like resolution. I need to learn if their dynamic range has caught up with film yet. The thing I hated most about DSLRs was their very poor dynamic range." My responses address that question. He's trying to decide which way to go and he needs that information to make a decision. I understand the concern as it matters a lot to me as well. If you enjoy the darkroom work by all means carry on.

Joe

 

[FatBear]

Dynamic range of modern Nikons is around 12.7-13.7 stops.. AMAZING!
Digital cameras have made remarkable strides in the last 7,8 years.

As of a few years ago when I last made this comparison Kodak was publishing 13 stops dynamic range for most of their consumer films. This would, of course, be with conventional processing. I've read claims that it is possible to get up to 20 stops with some color negative films. I have never had that experience myself, preferring B&W, but it would be handy sometimes. B&W can exceed 13 stops, but it takes planning from the time you put the film in the camera. I tried the zone system but found it to be to constraining for my more intuitive style. I mostly just gave an extra stop of exposure and slightly shorter development if I thought the light was too contrasty. Then fussed with problem areas in the darkroom.

Still, 12.7 to 13.7 stops is right on par with Kodak's claim for color film and far better than with my older DSLR - and you are talking image sizes much larger. If you could actually get 13 stops on a 25 Mpx sensor that would certainly compete with a 6x4.5 camera. (I spent a couple of months in Italy in 1992 with nothing but a Fuji GS-645 and was rarely disappointed. But then I like details and intimacy - you can usually buy a better tourist shot at a postcard booth than you can take yourself on any particular day.)

 

[FatBear]

Derrel you guys are breakin' my heart... okay, not really, but if someone likes shooting film or likes darkroom work, why keep trying to talk them out of it?? It's not like you can't do both or whichever you prefer, but let us darkroom rats enjoy the glow of a safe light.

It's OK, I did ask. I have learned something that will factor into my own thinking. But don't worry, I'll make my own decision. I really do miss the ability to close that door and close out the world. I cannot do that sitting in front of a digital darkroom and that will certainly also factor into my decision. I do not do this for a living. It has to be enjoyable and rewarding or I have other things I can do.

 

[Derrel]

Digital processing software advances have made it extremely easy to recover both highlight details and details in the shadows, with the slider easethat we used only dream about. My first digital SLR,the Nikon D1,blew out highlights pretty easily. Today's digital cameras offer much better performance.
In my opinion, the performance of 645 is easily bettered by today's FF digital cameras.

 

[Ysarex]

Dynamic range of modern Nikons is around 12.7-13.7 stops.. AMAZING!
Digital cameras have made remarkable strides in the last 7,8 years.

As of a few years ago when I last made this comparison Kodak was publishing 13 stops dynamic range for most of their consumer films.

No. Kodak makes that claim for this film: StackPath

You won't be putting it in your camera. And even if you did Kodak will tell you that to realize that capacity you'll have to digitize the film and software process it. NOTE: When Kodak says digitize the film they of course mean by using your $80,000.00 Hell scanner. The films you may use in your camera have less DR and that's DR not usable DR.

This would, of course, be with conventional processing. I've read claims that it is possible to get up to 20 stops with some color negative films.

You've been reading the Internet. The various claims on the Internet about DR in film and digital are the guide documents Trump uses for inspiration before he talks to reporters about how much of The Wall he's completed.

I have never had that experience myself, preferring B&W, but it would be handy sometimes. B&W can exceed 13 stops, but it takes planning from the time you put the film in the camera. I tried the zone system but found it to be to constraining for my more intuitive style. I mostly just gave an extra stop of exposure and slightly shorter development if I thought the light was too contrasty. Then fussed with problem areas in the darkroom.

Still, 12.7 to 13.7 stops is right on par with Kodak's claim for color film and far better than with my older DSLR - and you are talking image sizes much larger. If you could actually get 13 stops on a 25 Mpx sensor that would certainly compete with a 6x4.5 camera. (I spent a couple of months in Italy in 1992 with nothing but a Fuji GS-645 and was rarely disappointed. But then I like details and intimacy - you can usually buy a better tourist shot at a postcard booth than you can take yourself on any particular day.)

So there's lab-tested DR, ax-grinding tested DR and usable DR. You really want to skip the first two of those that comprise nearly everything you'll see on the Internet and focus on the third because usable is what matters. Here's the best source for usable DR info with digital cameras: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Film is a very complicated topic in this regard because usable DR with film is so dependent on how you're taking the image through processing to an end result. Are you going to scan it? Do you have that Hell scanner? You're going to scan it with some other scanner right? You get the DR the scanner is capable of delivering and that ain't not 20 stops -- ain't no 13 stops either. Are you going to print it in the darkroom? How good are you at burning and dodging? You're going to have to perform a burning/dodging dance that's jaw dropping amazing to get over 8 stops onto a piece of printing paper.

When it comes to usable DR today's APS class digital sensor is hands down superior to film.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

It is now 2019, and digital photography has been the norm, worldwide, since about the year 2005. It is now fairly rare to encounter people who have no background in digital imaging, and I understand the reluctance to move away from film-based and liquid chemical-based (wet darkroom ) processes, but time moves on. I personally feel that digital imaging is different from photography, which is what I call the earlier craft, photography. Some years ago Popular Photography magazine renamed itself Popular Photography & Imaging,and in less than a decade, went out of business.

Magazines were the predecessor of the web-based photography sites like dPreview, Luminous Landscape, Sport Shooter.com, PetaPixel, etc.

I have no idea where you got the idea of _any_ FILM with 12.7 to 13.7 stops' worth of scene dynamic range capability, since I personally find modern digital far in excess of _any_ film I have ever seen or shot. I shot my biggest amount of film since 2000 i the summer of 2014, in 120 rollfilm in &W and color negative. I was struck by how much _work_ was involved, not to mention money, shooting a 1938 baby Speed Graphic with a 1950's Linhof rollfim back, a 1960's Yashica 635 with 120 B&W film, and a Bronica SQ-A and 50/65/80/150 lens set. I had a lot of FUN, yes, and perhaps that was worth it all.

I made very few photos with the TLR Yashica, and few with the Speed Graphic...and I remember MAKING the photos, and have fond memories of my outings and developing sessions. And that is the main difference between film and digital to me..with film, each click of the shutter is...an experience to be treasured... with a Nikon d-slr, it is just taking pictures...an entirely different experience.


Film is fine, and many great photos were captured on film, and film gives up its gifts to the diligent, and persistent, and the lucky. There were some gorgeous cameras made that took film, over parts of three different centuries. i have a lot of respect for film,and film cameras, and photos shot on film.But I realize now, 4 about 47 years (1972?) that I've left film behind me for the vast, vast majority of my future of my picture-making. I prefer the digitized image and storage/retrieval/sharing methodology. I'm not saying I will never shoot another frame of film, but 99.999% of my future photos will most likely be recorded on a memory card and not on a product from Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford.

 

[Derrel]

I've spent a lot of time in The darkroom, and I know it's a thrill to watch print come up in the developing tray, and all I can say is that I don't miss it much, when editing digitally is so much more efficient and easy and I can create images so easily now that I have experience in digital editing.
It is now 2019, and digital photography has been the norm since about the year 2002. Is this fairly rare to encounter people who have no background in digital imaging, and I understand the reluctance to move away from film m-based and liquid chemical-based (wet darkroom ) processes, but time moves on. I personally feel that digital imaging is different from photography, which is what I call the earlier craft, photography. Some years ago Popular Photograpgy magazine renamed itself Popular Photography & Imaging,and in less than a decade, went out of business.
These days, I have less time for photography than I used to, so I prefer the speed and ease of digital. I want to see my results quicker, and I want to share photos more easily. I detest spending five minutes per image scanning film frames, what with the pre-scan,negative clean, and post-scan adjustments, five minutes is actually quicker than it really takes.

 

[FatBear]

I am far from a novice at film photography. I do have a 20 step calibrated test strip (for which I am probably not using the officially correct name.) No, I've never had a photo with that anywhere near that spread, but I've had photos where I needed quite a few of those steps to figure where to print straight and where to burn/dodge and how much.

Nor am I totally stuck in the past. You can see a few of my early experiments with digital here: Fat.Bear (I was in a mushroom phase.) For some reason they all look a little dark on my current monitor.

While I like most of those photos at screen size, I never got a decent print from any of them. Yeah, technology has improved and it sounds like I would be happy with a more modern DSLR. But I have no desire to spend what little is probably left of my life fussing with the technology.

I have time yet to decide. It will be a few months before I get past current projects and have time to build out that room. But this discussion has been very helpful and I think I'll probably stick to hacking on marble and slate for my creative outlet.