• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Returning to film! Who uses what film and how do you scan it?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
We have not totally left film behind. I'm returning to film because I don't want to spend every increasing sums of money for high resolution digital cameras which will be outdated in 18 months or so.

My old scanners were pretty good for making digital files for my Canon Dgital Projector. For printing I need a new scanner. Some people swear by the ~$700 Epson flatbed scanners. There's a new Microtek coming out, the M1 but I know nothing about it.

Of course one could go with a used high end scanner but that's between $2000-$3000 or else $4500 upwards.

So what film size do you use, what scanner and then what size prints max do you scan for?

Thanks,

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
An admission!

I'm returning to film for detail rich subjects to be printed large.

I cannot afford to go chasing after expensive digital backs that will be devalued in 18 months by the next and latest offering then.

With film and scanning at 1800 to 5000 ppi, one leaps over digital and can be in a stable position to do the very best work for many years to come.

I plan to use my 5D as a light meter and composing tool!

Anyway, that explains my interest in scanners so I'm wondering what orther DSLR users are doinf with film these days?

Asher
 

Bev Sampson

New member
An admission!
I cannot afford to go chasing after expensive digital backs that will be devalued in 18 months by the next and latest offering then.

With film and scanning at 1800 to 5000 ppi, one leaps over digital and can be in a stable position to do the very best work for many years to come.

Asher

Isn't that the truth. Did you do much scanning in the past? It's not a picnic either and almost impossible to remove all dust from negatives. After scanning, I spent a lot of time removing dust from my images in PS. I sort of chuckle when I read about folks maticulously cleaning their digital sensors that at the worst don't even come close to the dust that is apparent in scanning. Anyway, at the time I used a Hassablad and a Minolta top of the line film camera (I think 5900) and a Nikon Coolscan 8000. I wouldn't mind selling the Coolscan as I no longer use it. Since I now only do digital, I am not familiar with current best scanners. I do, however, think the quality of film exceeds digital in smoothness and skintone.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Isn't that the truth. Did you do much scanning in the past? It's not a picnic either and almost impossible to remove all dust from negatives. After scanning, I spent a lot of time removing dust from my images in PS.

The larger one makes the negative, the least spotting is needed. I'm thinking of getting a HEPA air filter for loading film and filtering the water in the developer.

Still, the number of pictures taken with LF is going to be 1/50th at least of what I'll be taking with my digital cameras. So all in all, the LF pictures will be more carefully planned and should be worth the extra effort.

My idea is to use film in places where I'd need to stitch since stitching is not fast. Also film is better for landscape where the trees, birds, clouds and grass move! Also for photographing an entire orchestra, I can get detail in all the faces at a very low cost!

Anyway, at the time I used a Hassablad and a Minolta top of the line film camera (I think 5900) and a Nikon Coolscan 8000. I wouldn't mind selling the Coolscan as I no longer use it. Since I now only do digital, I am not familiar with current best scanners. I do, however, think the quality of film exceeds digital in smoothness and skintone.

Why do we hang on to so many things?

Asher
 

Bev Sampson

New member
The larger one makes the negative, the least spotting is needed. Why do we hang on to so many things?

Asher

Asher, I don't know. I do know that I hold on to cameras and camera equipment thinking that I might need it and only decide that I don't when it is almost obsolete. I have a closet full of outdated photographic equipment. Perhaps I will donate a lot of it to charity. But maybe they don't want it either. Lessons learned.

Bev
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well Bev,

I gave away my wet darkroom to a school. Now I don't dare ask what happened to it all now that digital is so popular! Here's soming about keeping gear. I have been toying with selling my Bronica SQ 6x6 camera. Nothing mechanical but exceedingly sharp lenses. Now that I'm getting set up for LF again, this camera will again see a life! After all, once I have great film processing and scanning capability, 6x6 rollfilm is just an easy extra low cost step.

I will not cut down on digital. Far from it. For events there is nothing to match digital and immediacy. However, I now can see that the very nature of LF adds much more contemplative work in addition to getting unmatched resolution for dertail-rich scenes.

Do you have scenes/expensive product to photograph where LF especially with selective plane of focus, will do much better?

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Will, you should be getting a real scanner! at themoment you are limited to Polaroid prints. However you have all those LF cameras up to 11X14, almost enough for a store! Why you don't get a scanner and be liberated from expensive Polaroid, I don't know!

Asher
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
An admission!

I'm returning to film for detail rich subjects to be printed large.

Welcome back to film Asher! As you know, I love digital, but still shoot film with large format cameras. Properly captured and drum scanned at 3600 LPI, a 4x5 sheet can be printed natively at 40x50" and look SUPERB, and NOTHING beats viewing an 8x10 tranny on a light table!

My current stock of favorite emulsions are: Astia (best latitude for tranny), E100G (best overall color and saturation in tranny), Fuji 160 Pro (wonderfully smooth, rich colored negative emulsion) and good old T-Max 400 for B&W. (Though Acros is handy in Quick-Load form).


Best,
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well Jack,

Your work inspires me on my new quest! I may not fully go back to a wet darkroom, that is beyond an auto processor. I want to print mostly by injet and do some contact prints and also Platinum and stained processes.

We should all investigate the possibilites in film, especially if we a wish to render detail-rich full-toned nature. Stitching moving trees is not optimal!

This is far cheaper than digital!

Asher
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
This is far cheaper than digital!

Indeed, scanned 4x5 is far cheaper per shot than most any MF hig-resolution capture back *for the typical artist or hobbyist*. However, for the working pro, MF capture gets pretty cheap pretty quick. I once calculated the break even point for 8x10 would only be about 700 frames per year over a three year period. Fortunately it runs closer to 1800 frames per year with 4x5, and drum-scanned 4x5 can easily equal the best current MF digital capture from a resolution standpoint. But a working pro may shoot 1800 frames in a normal WEEK, so even setting all the cost issues aside, the workflow of digital MF capture makes a lot more sense for any working pro.


Cheers,
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I am saying that for many of us the DSLR is the camera for most of our work! It's no cost to take more pictures and try new possibilities. For events, the DSLR is perfect. However, for large groups film is the way to go when one does not have a very good digital back.

Even getting an old Pentax 6x7 or a Fuji 6x9 or a venerable 4x5 Crown Graphic from eBay, will trounce all DSLR's. For the photographer who cannot justify a new digital back and lenses, film is an absolute bargain. If the photographer is serious, manual settings need to be known anyway. So using film just needs a light meter. The DSLR serves as lightmenter too!

So Jack, how do you scan your images and do you do multiple scans for shadows and bright areas and combine?

Asher
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
So Jack, how do you scan your images and do you do multiple scans for shadows and bright areas and combine?

I scan them in one pass on an older Epson 4990 flatbed --- and I've printed 4x5's scanned that way to 16x20 and they look pretty darn good. However, when I get a good one and want a "real" file to work with, I pay for a professional drum scan.

Cheers,

Jack
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
I can put the old Elan 7E on the for sale forum

or not...

My old workhorse Elan 7E would be fun to play with again. But I am so spoiled by the chimping factor and the immediate gratification of digital.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Kathy,

In your portrait studio, an old wooden 4x5 camera on a stand would look great! Moreover, if you took on e or two ppictures a week you will be blown over. I first warm them up with 35 mm. Now if the mode is very good and you are on a roll, take one or two 4x5 exposures. With experience, you will be bang on and then the next wedding with 20 people, you'll use the camera horizontal and nail the whole group in one perfect shot from which you'll be able to sell lots of wonderful prints.

Besides, it's fun!

Asher
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
The REAL cost...

Asher,

I am mortgaging my first born to open the Studio with lights, furnishings and props not to mention the gear I have already acquired. Surely any other new aspect will cause my husband to send me to the Sanitarium and take away my credit cards. I convinced him that I will need another 5D (or 6d) when it comes out next or even a MkIII. If I go Large/Medium format then I will need to do only accounting and give up the Studio idea to pay for it all - leaving me no time for photography! Maybe in a few years.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Kathy,

We'll work it out! I'm sure that Will Thompson, the majot owner and repair station for LF cameras, will look after you! After all, the three of us were the first to splurge on the 50 1.2, so we must have something in common!

A used 4x5 is less than $400!

I'll be getting a scanner and developing is cheap. Remember, one group shot will easily pay for the whole camera! When I get my camara we'll have film and Polaroid days! So how's that?

Asher
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
4x5

I did some 4x5 work back in 1971 wher we did our own developing. I actually have a room that could be a darkroom in the studio. I was thinking of making it a dressing room and adding a makeup table. Enlargers and the like can be found on Craigs list for almost nothing now. But that really isn't part of the plan.

I expect to be operational at Decmeber's end. I plan on having a grand opening in February-ish
We can have a real grand opening with an OPF Playdate before hand.
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
In your portrait studio, an old wooden 4x5 camera on a stand would look great!

That would make Kathy's studio like a museum! LoL! not a very modern and contemporary decoration…

Kathy, you're right, keep on going forward!

It's amazing for me to see how the "past" can survive, I'm far from a teenager (tant pis!) but I always look for the future, it HAS to be better! even if we're wrong sometimes, progress always stays "work in progress"…
This has nothing to do with LF or MF IQ, but with the suggested decoration…
However, remember that film chemistry developping products aren't good for the planet too…
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Nicolas,

Here's the reality. Kathy can do most of her work perfectly well with a DSLR. It so happens that in weddings, the one challenge is the large family group. For this to be always done with the same DSLR as the tight wedding shots seems a limited point of view. A Fuji 6x9 or similar film camera can provide a perfect way to get above the competition for little cost. Nothing will readily match the detail and color from such a simple setup!

The 4x5 is just another option. If it looks fine, then it's great decoration too!

I did see a 4x5 with a gyro on it with your name on it too, LOL! I hate to ask how much it costs!!!

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Nicolas,

Here's the reality. Kathy can do most of her work perfectly well with a DSLR. It so happens that in weddings, the one challenge is the large family group. For this to be always done with the same DSLR as the tight wedding shots seems a limited point of view. A Fuji 6x9 or similar film camera can provide a perfect way to get above the competition for little cost. Nothing will readily match the detail and color from such a simple setup!

The 4x5 is just another option. If it looks fine, then it's great decoration too!

I did see a 4x5 with a gyro on it with your name on it too, LOL! I hate to ask how much it costs!!!

Asher

Asher
Here's another reality, digital back can achieve has film does (at least MF afaik).

Backs are :
expensive ?
If lot of photogs do buy digital backs, prices will go down…

and renewed oftenly?
getting better!

[repeat]remember that film chemistry developping products aren't good for the planet too…[/repeat]

It will happen to MF and LF backs the same as it did happen to DSLRs - just a question of time.
For the sake of photography.
Look forward!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Nicolas,

I'm not sure that film chemistry has to be bad for the planit. Chemicals can be recycled. The MFR of digital backs must give out a lot of greenhouse gases so someone will have to do the math. The film cameras are already made. My new one will be of wood which as you know is a carbon sink! The film uses silver which we can recover.

For sure Digital backs are too expensive for photographers with a small business. The DSLR does most of the work perfectly well. Using other wise unused film cameras for a small percentage of work is not retrogressive, it actually is likey to be more protective and helps slow using our resources of rare metals to make backs which will all be out of date in 18 months!

Asher
 

Ray West

New member
Hi Nicolas,

I'm affraid you're roaring for the past ;-)

But that is what photography is - all of it. I know of no camera which can today take a picture, of tomorrow. Most of our concerns are wrt storage, so that in future we can look back on today. Your sail boats - why not nuclear powered ships? The past is familiar, comfortable, and generally speaking the bugs are ironed out, or at least known.

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Huho… but who really does? maybe the large labs, but what about thousands of home black rooms?

I'm affraid you're roaring for the past ;-)
Yes Nicolas,

We need to be responsible. We drive cars that spew out Carbon Dioxide that we do not balance by each planting 200 or so trees! We use cleaners that pollute the water no doubt. All the things we purchase cause an environmental insult. So we must all change our ways, for sure!

The culture of film photographers is to have a concern for protecting the earth. Just a quick search in LF Forum gives 49 threads concerned with this issue. If you can conserve driving your car and account for the pollution caused by making your 70-200 and 500 mm lenses then I can take measures to trap and make safe chemicals from development.

Anyway, most film guys in the USA process in labs that are effectively regulated for waste disposal!

I doubt in fact, all in all if using a wooden camera or forgotten already manufactured film camera adds significant damage.

Being against film is more a religion than a necessity!

What will we do next; say we should not allow oil paintings or spray-painting cars?

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Ray:
I guess we're completely off topic.
However, I can also be a Jesuit… We're taking photography of today for tomorrow…
Anyway you know I was talking about the gear, not about photography… you're answer were beside the subject!

The past is familiar, comfortable, and generally speaking the bugs are ironed out, or at least known.

A photographer cannot feel comfortable… because photography is not an exact science!


Asher:

I'm not against film! film is the past… and as far as for my car, I don't care if it will get rusty one day… in case of spray-painting maybe banned…
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Here it is in a nutshell. Yes, most photographers will use digtal cameras forall or almost all their work. Why because it does the job so well and economically so that there is little more needed that getting the right subject in the right light from the right perspective and exposing the image correctly for your eathetic purpose. Not Sure? Well try something and look at the LCD screen or a 30" monitor.

All this has no bearing on the value of film in itself for its own qualities and for the special features for certain artistic renderings.

Polaroids (can be floated off perhaps to fine papers) Cyanotypes, Platinum or Gold Printing and much more have different looks and provide valuable choices for the creative photographer. We'd like to at least have some small representation and capability here.

Look at this picture

rosielg.jpg


Copyright © 2007 Matthew Blais. "Rosie" 9.5 x 8.5 Silver Gelatin Photograph Lith Developer

http://www.matthewblaisphotography.com/rosie.html

This picture is unique to the analog film method used here. Would you say that we should discard this medium? Of course not. Neither is it our purpose to push film as the panacea for people's work. In most cases, it will not be relevent nor worthwhile.

However, in certain cases, the photographer who has been exposed to this different way of working, adds something to their armamentorium, even when they satay totally in the digital realm.

Let's not go back to the past. None of us can re do Ansel Adam's Moonrise as good as or better than he did and there's no point.

I just ask for help in displaying film so that we will attract enough active work to enjoy another creative part of OPF. My part is to recruit a few film guys and I myself am buying a new LF camera and will try to contribute to this effort. My work with my digital cameras will not decrease in any way as I have already more shoots booked than previously and most are with my 1DII or the 5D. I hope you can give me your support on my new journey with the extra camera bag!

Asher
 
Last edited:

Ron Morse

New member
Asher, I know of a few people using the V700 epson. They all love it and say it very easy to use.

I still play with my 35mm EOS 3 and love this camera. I only have an epson 2450 scanner but get by for my modest needs.
 

Serge Berrut

New member
Safe archival system

Hi all,

I moved to digital about 6-7 years ago, and at the same time stopped shooting, once the appeal of the technology worn off. One day, by chance I came across large format pictures made by Peter Watson. I then realised that the soul of a picture was not in the camera, but behind it. I even did not know that was a world beside the expensive and heavy studio sinar large format camera. I bought a used Tachihara about 18 months ago, learnt than film was still being used, shot my first image, and my god!!! it worked... Unfortunately, the 2nd, 3rd, 4rd were all blacks or white (but not black and white), because, I forgot to close the shutter, remove the dark slide, etc. A true amateur!

Since I worked mostly in remote place, taken the View camera with me was not an option. I got a used Hasselblad with 3 lenses, 2 backs and here I go....

I am no longer losing my digital pictures in computer crashes, unfortunate deletes, etc. (thanks to Time Machine too!), but mainly because I shoot Velvia 100, Ilford FP4 and HP5, Tmax. I scan them on a V700, print with a 9500 and enjoy every step of the process..

I will go back to Switzerland soon, after 12 years abroad and I intend to develop my negatives. Next step: does someone know how to manufacture films?

I looooove fiiiiiiilm!
 
Top