What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Back to the Future

F

fotografz

Active Member
Dear friends,

I have gone back to film only for my V system. No more digital capture on a V ... only film.

I applaud Hasselblad for continued digital support of the V system with their latest CFV/39 at a relatively reasonable price ... which has breathed new live into the V systems and seems to be bringing back many to the franchise.

But I was hoping for a 9 micron, larger square sensor. I already have the H3D-II/39 on which I can mount any 500 series Leaf Shutter lens. So this new back was just to redundant for me.

More importantly, digital had a corrosive effect as I tended to indulge my impatience every time I picked up the 203FE ... and opted for the siren's song of CFV-II digital capture and immediate need gratification. But always I longed for the look of film ... especially B&W film ... which with a V camera is sublime and elegant in use and results.

So the only answer for my weaknesses is to discipline myself and eliminate the digital option when it comes to my 203FE system.

Okay, I admit I have a bit of an advantage ... I own an Imacon 949 Scanner ... so it's not a totally analog transition backwards ... LOL!

Your thoughts?

-Marc
 
Hello Marc,


Good thinking considering all the options you have.
I like the way you have gone back with the V series to what these cameras are meant for: shooting film.

The CFV39 is a challenging option for those that do not have your options like a CF 39 MP and the Imacon scanner.

How about a nice B/W image to show what film is capable of scanned with Imacon?


Gr,
Paul
 
This is interesting, and I really hear what you're saying.

I'm not (yet?) in a position to purchase a digital back for my 500 series cameras, and frankly after my experiences with full frame 35mm digital, I really appreciate being 'obliged' to take more time composing etc.

In an ideal world we'd learn to be patient even with digital devices, but it's much easier 'slowing down' when there are only 12 shots on the roll...
 
Hi Marc,

I see your point, interesting thoughts, still too early for me to agree.

I'm too new in MF digital to start going back to film again.

And then, I believe it largely depends on the subject matter. If i go out with the Mamiya 7II to shoot street kind of reportage I return with many more
images exposed than lets say doing architecture or landscape work with the
H3DII or CFV

I do expose more images with the H3 or CFV when compared
to V & film though. But that is because I'm still exploring how to
minimize post-processing using different histograms at exposure time etc.,

As far as B&W is concerned, I must admit I don't achieve the same results using digital (yet). I do hope that some day I'll get there.

Anyway, good to re-evaluate all the options from time to time and not get
pig-headed in one technique.

Just my 2 cents.

Ralf.
 
Interesting.
It's not complete "Back to the future" as you keep the H3-39Mpix....and perhaps the CF-16 II.
Perhaps you only wait a bigger gap in digital evolution to jump... once more.

One question:
If you could sell et get the cash you spent for the H3 gears to buy new toys, what should you buy ?
 
It was specifically "Back to the Future" for the V system. I sold the CFV-II/16 and even my H3D-II/31. For medium format digital I only have a H3D-II/39 now.

Actually only two film cameras left in the toy box... the 203FE and a Nikon F6. I will use them for personal photography when the mood strikes me.

My focus now is on M9 photography and the new fast optics, for which I have more use for in business these days.

Commercial photography that funded all the MFD gear fell off a cliff after the economy went south. In contrast to that, paid wedding work is up over 50% over last year, and 2010 is looking good also.

-Marc
 
fotografz,

You have seen the light! Welcome back to the darkside! You are a truly wise man to see the truth in all the glitz and bling.

May the length of your film grow ever longer.

Steve
 
stever said:
fotografz,

You have seen the light! Welcome back to the darkside! You are a truly wise man to see the truth in all the glitz and bling.

May the length of your film grow ever longer.

Steve
Click to expand...

Steve
You drive tears into my eyes and I do not know , when I will be able to recover from this state .

Fact is , film will not die as well as digital will not .
Which media you use , all depends on what the requirements are .

So your view of things should be less emotional but more realistic .

Let me put up a question here to all members .

Why do you shoot digital ? ? ?
Why do you shoot on film ? ? ?
If you shoot on film and digital , let us know when and why .

Jürgen
 
jotloob said:
Let me put up a question here to all members .

Why do you shoot digital ? ? ?
Why do you shoot on film ? ? ?
If you shoot on film and digital , let us know when and why .
Click to expand...

Digital never.

Film:
* Latitude of light - large range of f stops. I do not have to take four photographs of the same thing and then merge the files.
* Color - full range of the color gamut is available
* Resolution - far beyond digital and without aliasing
* Archival - both prints and film. Slides are somewhat archival. Digital is only as good as your equipment and back up system. When computer systems are upgraded or the format standards change or when you are no longer alive or able to regularly refresh the memory, your images will become memory. Negatives can live in lousy conditions and still be printed after 50, 75, 100, or 150 years. Refer to the loss of NASA photographs and data from the Apollo era.
* Money - the cost of a digitial back, new computer, additional memory, software costs... versus setting up and using a darkroom. I agree that a darkroom is an expensive use of space, but the equivalent digital space in not all that much smaller although it does not require plumbing.
* Chemical prints look and feel better than ink jet prints.
* Black & white film prints have soul, they have life. Digital black & white look like extruded plastic and are dull and lifeless.

There are listed six non-emotional and rational reasons to put off the use of digital.

Digital users:
Do you really need to send your images to your customer two days before the image was made?
Do you really lack the confidence in your work that you now require the ability to do chimpin'?

Steve
 
The three reasons I don't shoot digital:
1. Digital backs are too expensive.
2. Digital backs are too expensive.
3. Digital backs are too expensive.

PLUS the learning curve and expensive computers, hardware and software to process.

Terry
 
terrydent said:
The three reasons I don't shoot digital:
1. Digital backs are too expensive.
2. Digital backs are too expensive.
3. Digital backs are too expensive.

PLUS the learning curve and expensive computers, hardware and software to process.

Terry
Click to expand...

Finally someone else is can see the light!!

Now we have three wise men! Can the revelation be coming soon?

Steve
 
I shoot film and digital and see no reason to choose one to the exclusion of the other.

Hasselblad 553ELX, 501CM, Pentax 67, Mamiya TLR, Leica R8, Nikon F3HP, Canon EOS 1V, Sinar P, Ebony 45SU...all with a full complement of lenses. Why would I not want to enjoy shooting film with these terrific cameras? For me, the fact that they use film is almost besides the point. Yes, film has it's own look and appeal, but frankly, I just really enjoy using this fine equipment.....which I can finally afford to own.

On the other side of the aisle I have a wonderful Hasselblad 503CWD-II and a perfectly acceptable Canon 5D and 40D...again, with a full complement of lenses. Of course I would love to have the CFV-39 back, but alas, I will have to make do with the CFV-16 for now. Once again....fine cameras that produce excellent results and while the look is different from film, in my own view, they are equally good.

With Nikon 5000ED and Epson V750 Pro scanners, I'm able to get scanned image files of the film which aren't half bad (although I would sure love to have an Imacon like Marc's). In the end, whether the original capture is film or digital, it all ends up in Photoshop and output to an Epson inkjet printer.....no more wet darkroom for this lad. If you haven't seen color or BW inkjet prints that rival prints made in a wet darkroom.....then IMHO, you simply haven't seen top quality inkjet prints.

So, on any given morning.....what shall it be, film or digital? In my case, I usually take both, so the real question is Leica, Canon or Nikon (film), Pentax, Mamiya or Hasselbald (film) and Canon or Hasselblad (digital) etc? And yes, once in awhile, I'll even haul out the big guns....4x5 film, but it's got to be a REALLY good day to haul that gear over hill and dale.

Whatever combination I choose on any particular day......it's all good folks, it's ALL good. :)

Gary
 
I shoot film, digital doesn't appeal to me.
Some prefer scotch others prefer bourbon.

I might perhaps eventually who knows consider a digital back, if the sensor was 56x56mm and it didn't cost more than 3-4 times the price of a film back.

Another thing is that I actually like to be in a wet darkroom. Even the smells! :)

Jacques.
 
There are many merits and disadvantages to both film and digital. I think it boils down to which will serve you better. For instance, the CFV back yields a 47 mb file, while a film scan will yield 200+ mb's with my Nikon LS9000ED scanner (the best "affordable" scanner in my opinion, but certainly no match for the Imacon). I certainly can get more detail out of a film scan than I ever can with the CFV, and note that a 24x24" print is about the maximum size for an image with fine detail with the CFV. Images with less detail always look better. Chalk up one for film here.

Dynamic range is also an important issue for me, and while I thought that Fuji Velvia was king of the hill a decade ago, I now look at those contrasty images with the solid black shadows, and shudder in disgust. The dynamic range of color negative film (Reala being my choice) is much better. However, it is so convenient with digital to shoot several exposures, and blend in post processing. Something one cannot do very easily with scanned film, since it is virtually impossible (at least with my LS9000) to align two pieces of film the same. Hence, in post processing, they never align properly, and it is hit or miss as to whether or not PS can align them. Ailgnment is no problem with digital images. Since most of my subject matter is still (other than running water), it is often easy to fire off several exposures, and then simply choose which areas from each one I want to include. It becomes even easier using luminosity masks. I'm not a fan of Photomatix, but do own it. Chalk up one for digital.

Another point to consider is the lens factor involved in digital sensors. This is becoming less of an issue nowadays, but not for square shooters. And it doesn't seem like anything is lurking on the horizon either. I always bring a film back loaded with Reala, but rarely ever use it. My 40CF FLE gets used more than all my other lenses, and once in a while, when the dynamic range is low enough (checked by my trusty Pentax digital spot meter - Zone VI modified), and the 40/CFV combo is not wide enough, the film back is again my choice.

I think Marc's choice is admirable for him, but please note that he is not giving up on digital as some of you film addicts might tout, but only with the V system. He now has the best of both worlds - film with a 203, and digital with the H3D.

I too think though that my digital experience with the CFV is limited, by both pixel quantity and lens factor. But I will never give up digital for film either. There is a place and time for both, and both co-exist within my camera bag.
 
michaelhcothran said:
Dynamic range is also an important issue for me, and while I thought that Fuji Velvia was king of the hill a decade ago, I now look at those contrasty images with the solid black shadows, and shudder in disgust. The dynamic range of color negative film (Reala being my choice) is much better. However, it is so convenient with digital to shoot several exposures, and blend in post processing. Something one cannot do very easily with scanned film, since it is virtually impossible (at least with my LS9000) to align two pieces of film the same.
Click to expand...

Ahhh ..., but there is not need to put four film negatives together because the dynamic range is already there! If your car got 10km/liter [~25mpg] would you drive the same stretch of road for times in a row just to cover the same ground? You already got there the first time with the car or with film. One has to put four images together because digital can't hack it yet.

As posted earlier, get digital to 56cc x 56cm and close to the cost of a film back and then talk to me about taking up digital. Until then I will leave digital for remote sensing and professional photographers.

Ask yourself, if all your friends decided to become celibate, would you become celibate?

Steve
 
jotloob said:
Steve
You drive tears into my eyes and I do not know , when I will be able to recover from this state .

Fact is , film will not die as well as digital will not .
Which media you use , all depends on what the requirements are .

So your view of things should be less emotional but more realistic .

Let me put up a question here to all members .

Why do you shoot digital ? ? ?
Why do you shoot on film ? ? ?
If you shoot on film and digital , let us know when and why .

Jürgen
Click to expand...

This was not meant to be yet another "film verses digital" debate.

If forced to choose, I would choose digital any day of the week. Digital cameras make me money. Film cameras cost me money. Of my photographic income from the past 5 years, 100% of it was from digital capture. 0% was from film capture. If I told clients I shot film only, I would have 0 income.

Commercial digital capture fees, and tax write offs paid for all of my digital gear some time ago.

I shoot digital because the are no reshoots. No film and processing charges. No waiting and sweating while the film is at the lab. No scanning time or fees.

I shoot film because I like it. I especially like it from a V camera. Especially B&W.

-Marc
 
Film or digital....from my perspective it's not an either/or proposition, but I also think it's a matter of personal preference and needs, as Marc has stated so well.

So, from my own PERSONAL perspective, if I was offered, free of charge, one of the following three options to use EXLUSIVELY for the next 5 years:

1) 503CW, two A12 backs, a state of the art darkroom
2) 503CW, two A12 backs, a Flextight scanner
3) 503CW and a CFV39

I would pick the 503CW and CFV39. Why? It will meet all my needs...with less hassle than the other two options.

So I suppose that when push comes to shove....I would choose digital capture vs film. Thankfully, for the moment at least, I can enjoy living in both worlds.

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top