CFV-39? could be better.....

[sperera]

I shoot both digital and film very happily.....

I was into the film v digital debate till i realized there is no debate when you actually use both....so I emancipated myself from this. What I am striving for is getting the best out of both mediums.

But why do I use both? well, I use them to get a different look.....as simple as that.

Digital gives you a 'look' and 'film' gives you a look....

Film is the artistic choice for me because it opens up a vast amount of variables.....from using different films, different processing techniques and different ways to get your pictures out we enter into a world of artistic possibilities! It's also holds the 'mystery' factor of getting the negatives done and the enjoying the revelation of looking at the shots on a lightbox or out of a scanner or indeed on an enlarger! there is magic in the process....

Digital is the safe, get it outta the door to the client choice for me due to its immediacy. You look at images as you take them on the back of the camera and you leave a photoshoot knowing you have it....as long as all the electronics work!

In defence to what I said rather abruptly of the CFV-39 etc. which has annoyed people here unintentionally, I DO have a lot of experience from having worked with top pros in London late 80s and in handling images myself from top pros as I'm a designer by profession and had my in-house Repro system. I have a Scanmate 5000 drum scanner with which Ive scanned and prepped many shots for printing in my designed brochures etc......

......so i have the background to talk about the LOOK AND FEEL of images...as subjective as it is.....

So your next question would be what feel and look would you attribute to each medium? I will attempt to answer succinctly.....

......digital images, to me still have a plastic, metallicy, thin layer look to them but nonetheless clean and clinical...film seems to have more density and depth with the achilles heel or flavour.......of grain

 

[sperera]

same place, same person, same shot more or less....which do you like more.....

 

[sperera]

and again....

 

[sperera]

and another...(i posted these in a B+W thread in this site)

 

[JAT]

Dear Member: Film versus Digital

May I just remind that this is not a discussion about film or digital, or 31 versus 39 MP's. Or medium format versus full frame 35 mm.

Each camera systems has its opportunities and limits. As does digital versus film. I love what I can do with my CFV-39 versus what I can do with Portra 160VC or Ektar 100. I love as much what I can do with todays film. I don't take digital stuff Hasselblad to the beach. Portra is just fine for this. But I don't shoot on Portra in studio when I need to make commercials. I love my CFV-39 for this.
And going out traveling and stock-shooting. I love my Nikon D2x, and my Nikon F5 and coolscan 9000LS.

All great software today available, just puts an additional sauce on this. Use the gear in those situations where it is made for.

And remember: The Power of AND !!!

Good luck to all members

I shoot both digital and film very happily.....

I was into the film v digital debate till i realized there is no debate when you actually use both....so I emancipated myself from this. What I am striving for is getting the best out of both mediums.

But why do I use both? well, I use them to get a different look.....as simple as that.

Digital gives you a 'look' and 'film' gives you a look....

Film is the artistic choice for me because it opens up a vast amount of variables.....from using different films, different processing techniques and different ways to get your pictures out we enter into a world of artistic possibilities! It's also holds the 'mystery' factor of getting the negatives done and the enjoying the revelation of looking at the shots on a lightbox or out of a scanner or indeed on an enlarger! there is magic in the process....

Digital is the safe, get it outta the door to the client choice for me due to its immediacy. You look at images as you take them on the back of the camera and you leave a photoshoot knowing you have it....as long as all the electronics work!

In defence to what I said rather abruptly of the CFV-39 etc. which has annoyed people here unintentionally, I DO have a lot of experience from having worked with top pros in London late 80s and in handling images myself from top pros as I'm a designer by profession and had my in-house Repro system. I have a Scanmate 5000 drum scanner with which Ive scanned and prepped many shots for printing in my designed brochures etc......

......so i have the background to talk about the LOOK AND FEEL of images...as subjective as it is.....

So your next question would be what feel and look would you attribute to each medium? I will attempt to answer succinctly.....

......digital images, to me still have a plastic, metallicy, thin layer look to them but nonetheless clean and clinical...film seems to have more density and depth with the achilles heel or flavour.......of grain

 

[sperera]

good post...whats the power of AND though???

 

[fotografz]

One thing I mentioned before but perhaps it bears repeating in more detail.

These are relatively new technologies. Personally, I spent 30 years refining my craft in the darkroom, or hired printers that had a singular genius level of talent for analog processing and printing. Most of us that use film have a similar long term involvement with all the deep knowledge gained from years and years of analog photography, not to mention the history of it running back a century or more that we could draw upon.

What's a mere decade or so compared to that? Plus, some folks are just getting into digital at this level of capture. It takes time, effort and patience. There is a lot to learn and it doesn't come over night.

For me it was publish (in digital) or perish. Few commercial clients these days will even entertain the notion of film ... especially the cost consultants reviewing the bids. For example, with a catalog of 100 products shot on film, the film costs, processing and scanning can add a $6,000.+ line item to a bid, and add a week or more to the schedule. Plus, with digital the % of reshoots and all the attendant expenses literally dropped to zero with digital capture ... the client approves on the spot, and walks with the photos at the end. Done. Bill it.

It is this condition that has fed the MF digital products that all shooters can take advantage of these days. Just 2 or 3 years ago this CFV/39 back would have cost at least twice as much. In 2 or 3 years from now it'll be under $10K ... probably more like $7K.

Again, the joy of the modular Medium Format systems is that you can do either at will, no matter what our subjective point-of-view may be. How lucky are we?


-Marc

 

[sperera]

you have summarized what i said before perfectly....clients today are mostly less in tune with real quality but obsessed with fast results......which is why overnight photographers find work at lower prices to cut off the real pros

 

[fotografz]

you have summarized what i said before perfectly....clients today are mostly less in tune with real quality but obsessed with fast results......which is why overnight photographers find work at lower prices to cut off the real pros

Whoa! I said nothing of the sort!

I do NOT agree that quality went out the window when digital took over in the commercial world. It just requires a whole new set of skills and disciplines that many folks haven't had enough time to acquire, (read my first paragraph).

That doesn't mean there are NOT people out there who have those skills and talent working with digital. There most certainly are, and I've worked with them.

-Marc

 

[JAT]

And

good post...whats the power of AND though???

Film AND digital will live together for a long time. Good we have both

 

[bradleygibson]

I shoot both digital and film very happily.....

...

Digital gives you a 'look' and 'film' gives you a look....

Film is the artistic choice for me because it opens up a vast amount of variables.....from using different films, different processing techniques and different ways to get your pictures out we enter into a world of artistic possibilities! It's also holds the 'mystery' factor of getting the negatives done and the enjoying the revelation of looking at the shots on a lightbox or out of a scanner or indeed on an enlarger! there is magic in the process....

...

So your next question would be what feel and look would you attribute to each medium? I will attempt to answer succinctly.....

......digital images, to me still have a plastic, metallicy, thin layer look to them but nonetheless clean and clinical...film seems to have more density and depth with the achilles heel or flavour.......of grain

Based on this, yes, I can completely understand why you were "left feeling cold" when looking at the CFV-39 images. I agree that it's not giving the "look" of film or the "mystery feel" the way you describe it above...

Lovely work by the way!

Thanks for taking the time to explain (and being fearless enough to speak your mind in the first place!)

Best regards,
-Brad

 

[jotloob]

I shoot both digital and film very happily.....
......digital images, to me still have a plastic, metallicy, thin layer look to them but nonetheless clean and clinical...film seems to have more density and depth with the achilles heel or flavour.......of grain

Sperera

First of all , thanks for showing your lovely beach shots .

Looking at the B/W images , I can only agree to what you say in the quote .
But this metallic thin layer look does not come because of digital nature of the images , but because these images do not have the proper contrast .
In none of these images , you have a real white and also not a real black .
They are just grey , grey within ZONE IV to IV .
Therefore , you get the feeling , you could look through the image .

And here we come back to the non digital times .
Working in a darkroom with all the trouble you can run in , was not easier or more difficult than processing digital.
But it was just different . So many different tools (software) . And it took a lot of time to get "perfect" .
It is the same in digital processing .

Please get me right . I am not critizising . I just wanted to point out , my opinion about the "thin layer look" .

Jürgen

 

[filmcapture]

Sperera

In none of these images , you have a real white and also not a real black .
They are just grey , grey within ZONE IV to IV .

Jürgen

I'm sorry I could not agree on your points. Looks like Zone System should be rewritten, or something must be wrong with my LCD screen.

 

[sperera]

Fotografz.....yet again im misunderstood.....but its my fault for not explaining myself well.......that part i said of the clients and the quality is my experience in my part of the world only....because over here we dont have the serious pro fashion shooter scene......

.......i had just agreed with what you said then added my bit about what the deal is over these parts.....

 

[sperera]

Sperera

First of all , thanks for showing your lovely beach shots .

Looking at the B/W images , I can only agree to what you say in the quote .
But this metallic thin layer look does not come because of digital nature of the images , but because these images do not have the proper contrast .
In none of these images , you have a real white and also not a real black .
They are just grey , grey within ZONE IV to IV .
Therefore , you get the feeling , you could look through the image .

And here we come back to the non digital times .
Working in a darkroom with all the trouble you can run in , was not easier or more difficult than processing digital.
But it was just different . So many different tools (software) . And it took a lot of time to get "perfect" .
It is the same in digital processing .

Please get me right . I am not critizising . I just wanted to point out , my opinion about the "thin layer look" .

Jürgen

Hey Jurgen, i know you're not criticizing brother but i want to make clear what im saying......

i was not saying the images i posted had a metallic feel....i was saying digital images, in particular urban landscapes and cityscapes in general still have a metallic feel in my opinion....they look thin and without the density (im using this word wrongly perhaps) i saw in scanned film all these years........

the tonality of the beach images Ive posted is done on purpose....the black n white ones were shot on my 500C/M with the 80mm Zeiss CF on Fuji Acros and developed in Perceptol at stock solution. I had my wife with a hand held off-camera flash a la 'strobist movement' and i 'polaroided' with the digital camera to get the exposure i wanted for the mood i wanted.....at the end of the day these damn digital cameras are useful eh!? hahahahhaha......then shot both digital and film to get different shots

......i controlled the shots to look like that both in the digital camera (Nikon D300) and in the Hasselblad....subsequently the RAW files AND the negs had enough info in them to make a completely contrasty shot if i wanted...

the scene was of low contrast, mood, peace, serenity, nature and human beauty all coming together in the camera.....contrast was not what i wanted at all.....i wanted to balance the flash light with the ambient in order NOT to get the overpowering flash in a dark scene look......the light was going on me by the second....i was running around getting one camera and the other, leaning the Hassy on its monopod on a nearby bin, running back an forth to get it before i lost the magic of the scene i was depicting.....sure the world would have been easier if i just used the digital and RAW files to convert to black n white too but my clients LOVE the fact i shoot film as well cos they SEE the differences....and most of all they SEE im going the extra mile for my art.....

in fact, to my embarassment my wife always says....'oooooooooooooooooo hes bringing out his film camera that means he loves what he sees'

going back to the Zone system.....as the end result for me is scanning as far as client shoots go i try and produce a negative with a more linear tone curve so i can take the image one way or another.....to date most of my negatives can give me quite a few looks......i know all about the Zone system and rating film one way or the other and the developing variables but i force myself to just shoot by instinct and not lose sleep over Zone V, VI or VII.....my personal application of the Zone system is where i place Zone V....and I understand THAT as metering for the area of the image i dont want blown out as a highlight or too dark as a shadow....AS I SHOOT PEOPLE ALL THE TIME...that would be the lit part of the face......

 

[sperera]

heres another shot....and perhaps with it another chance to get blasted by people as its a Rollei shot!!! hehehehehehe i took with with an old Rollei T i bought a few months ago! anyway, the tonality, look and feel of this shot is not what i can get from my digital....this is a shot of the Rock of Gibraltar, my homeland! and em no, im not using this as a platform for my images before anyone says that!!!!!!!!!! im just trying to prove what i feel.....in fact, the shot looks like it was taken in 1930s to me....or during the war....it has that vibe about it.....so yes, i will whip out the Rollei when i want the look i get from it too.....