Price/Qality point for MF film to digital

[martin]

Not sure whether to start a new enquiry or continue this thread but since it holds many thought provoking responses for which I am grateful I thought no harm would come from carrying on…I sold all my camera goodies for greater financial needs some time ago but would now like to get a Contax 645 again, initially using film and later perhaps a modest db…I really liked using it as well as its fabulous image quality but am a little undecided whether to just towel the whole mf idea and follow the crowd into the high end dslr arena. I like mf’s seductive IQ and prefer the deliberate tripod approach, though with something I can also shoot candidly slr-style. Recently I came across some inspiring words summed up thus: just find a good tool to use, flog it till you use it intuitively and take your time photographing what you like. Since I can’t afford both systems, as would immediately come to the pro folks’ minds (horses for courses), I’m weighing this against the convenience of smaller size/portability, low light ability of 24x36 sensors and faster lenses…yet I have some doubts that the dslr convenience and “now” factor will be any more helpful for me.
I would like to hear what others think about this, as it’s not really a straightforward request for a “do this, forget that” reply.

 

[Jack]

MFDB's in Contax mount have come down pretty significantly. There is currently a Leaf 22 back (VG back even by today's standards!) in C mount for under $5K on eBay right now.

 

[tetsrfun]

Excellent point. Anybody interested in buying my Nikon 9000? It comes with the optional glass Anti-Newton film holder --- $2600 for the whole shebang, in the boxes.
********
There seems to be an influx of "new" 9000ED scanners coming on the market. Now listed as in-stock again at B&H. I bought a new one last week from another Nikon dealer, new with 1 year warranty. Maybe Nikon is emptying a warehouse somewhere???

Steve

 

[Texsport]

Thanks to all who posted on this subject. The information and wisdom expressed is most helpful to amateurs like myself.

This is the best discussion of this subject I've ever read.:thumbup:

Texsport

 

[Texsport]

I found this to be quite informative on this subject.

http://toyotadesigner.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/resolution-resolving-power-of-film/

Texsport

 

[dick]

If you can get it right first time, every time, with film, without the instant feedback to confirm that you got it right, you may not be a better photographer with digital.

If you are doing complex interiors with many light sources in combination with window light, and including the view out of a window, and you have not had the experience of filtering the different light sources and putting a day's work on one sheet of 5 * 4 film, and consistently getting it right...

...with this logic I expect the instant feedback of digital, and the ability to layer-merge different light sources, will make me a better photographer.

There are thinks you cannot (practicably) do with analog, like auto-stacking 100 images for macro DOF merge.

 

[Bill_Green]

I found this to be quite informative on this subject.

http://toyotadesigner.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/resolution-resolving-power-of-film/

Texsport

I found that to be a complete and impressive load of crap. It is total mathematical theory and bears no resemblance to reality. Don't get me wrong, I wish it were true, but those numbers just don't hold up. If you actually believe him, go shoot a scene with a Canon 1v with the color film of your choice and a 1DsIII using the same lens and same tripod. That is about as apples to apples as you will get, and let me know if the print from film has more detail than the print from digital. I can promise it won't. That's not to say that the film shot won't be aesthetically pleasing (personally I prefer the look of film to the look of digital), just that the math in that article is crap. The big difference between film and digital is that film is a sloppy process and digital is a very precise process. With film, there are so many places to add error and messiness into the imaging chain, the errors are cumulative and you generally don't know about them until the final product.

I once sold a bunch of 20x30" prints to a homebuilder for a gallery display in their lobby from a Canon 10D. Further, the shots were not as sharp as I would have liked (hand held, 70-200, f4, 1/125, ISO 100). On the final print, there was not a lot of detail, but they looked great anyway. I don't think 35mm film would have looked nearly as good. By contrast, I have some prints from a Fuji 6x9 I used to have. Even with a low res drum scan, on a 20x30 print you can put a loop on the print and see more detail.

I stumbled on this thread because I have a trip coming up that begs to be shot with large format film. I haven't shot a sheet of 4x5 in ten years, and that was with quickloads in a studio. I have always eschewed MF digital because of the costs. However, buying LF gear, film, processing and scanning for about 50 final images, plus the time involved is making MF digital seem much more reasonable.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

For me this is so simple. If I wanted to shoot film than I better consider getting out of being a commercial photographer. I will go out of business by the time it takes to process a roll of film. I kid you not. NO ONE wants me to deliver film anymore.

 

[tetsrfun]

Out of curiousity, which scanners are much better than the Nikon 9000? I have an Epson V750 and find the step up to the Nikon too small, and have heard mixed reports of it anyway.
********
I have both; just recently acquiring a Nikon 9000. So far I would say that the 9000 produces better scans but it is incremental. I prefer using the 9000 especially with the MF "glass" film holder. I modified the original 9000 MF holder for wet mounting. The 9000 it is also much less a dust "magnet" than the 750.

I think that the next, practical, step up is the big leap to Imacon/Hasselblad. I guess a used drum scanner is an option but I have no desire to be a scanning tech or work with unsupported legacy gear.

Steve

 

[GrahamWelland]

I stumbled on this thread because I have a trip coming up that begs to be shot with large format film. I haven't shot a sheet of 4x5 in ten years, and that was with quickloads in a studio. I have always eschewed MF digital because of the costs. However, buying LF gear, film, processing and scanning for about 50 final images, plus the time involved is making MF digital seem much more reasonable.

I would totally agree with this. When I compare what MF digital (and 35mm digital) cost and compare it to how much I used to spend on 4x5 colour film, processing and any subsequent printing, especially considering not every shot was a winner, then digital certainly feels more cost effective. The big difference for me is that the equipment is a large capital cost with low on going overheads whilst shooting film was almost the opposite. (I'm not a pro so revex of the equipment via lease etc isn't an option for me).

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The one big thing folks do not take into account here is time involved. For the hobbyist not a big deal but the working guy it is a issue. Film takes longer and your still involved in the process even though you may not be developing the film

 

[Bill_Green]

The one big thing folks do not take into account here is time involved. For the hobbyist not a big deal but the working guy it is a issue. Film takes longer and your still involved in the process even though you may not be developing the film

Yeah, that is part of my concern. The part of the shoot that requires a fast turnaround will be digital. However, there is a significant opportunity cost to shooting film, even if I will have a couple months to turn that part around.

I think the cost of equipment is something that has to be considered too. I will subject film cameras to conditions to which I would not subject a MFDB system. Also I worry less about theft or someone getting excited about MF digital at a border crossing with old looking film gear. Maybe it's just me.

 

[SCHWARZZEIT]

I just found this very interesting review of Kodak's new Portra 400. This is a much more down to earth read with real world samples.

-Dominique

 

[tetsrfun]

I just found this very interesting review of Kodak's new Portra 400. This is a much more down to earth read with real world samples.

-Dominique

Interesting, Porta 400 also come in 220. I thought 220 was long dead or am I missing something?

Steve

 

[Texsport]

I found that to be a complete and impressive load of crap. It is total mathematical theory and bears no resemblance to reality. Don't get me wrong, I wish it were true, but those numbers just don't hold up. If you actually believe him, go shoot a scene with a Canon 1v with the color film of your choice and a 1DsIII using the same lens and same tripod. That is about as apples to apples as you will get, and let me know if the print from film has more detail than the print from digital. I can promise it won't. That's not to say that the film shot won't be aesthetically pleasing (personally I prefer the look of film to the look of digital), just that the math in that article is crap. The big difference between film and digital is that film is a sloppy process and digital is a very precise process. With film, there are so many places to add error and messiness into the imaging chain, the errors are cumulative and you generally don't know about them until the final product.

I once sold a bunch of 20x30" prints to a homebuilder for a gallery display in their lobby from a Canon 10D. Further, the shots were not as sharp as I would have liked (hand held, 70-200, f4, 1/125, ISO 100). On the final print, there was not a lot of detail, but they looked great anyway. I don't think 35mm film would have looked nearly as good. By contrast, I have some prints from a Fuji 6x9 I used to have. Even with a low res drum scan, on a 20x30 print you can put a loop on the print and see more detail.

I stumbled on this thread because I have a trip coming up that begs to be shot with large format film. I haven't shot a sheet of 4x5 in ten years, and that was with quickloads in a studio. I have always eschewed MF digital because of the costs. However, buying LF gear, film, processing and scanning for about 50 final images, plus the time involved is making MF digital seem much more reasonable.

Though you criticize the article, you seem to have bought into the value of large film negatives resolution qualities being greater because of smaller enlargement requirements.....I certainly have.

I shoot 6x9,6x12, and 6x17 MF for anything to be enlarged for printing. Thanks for the approving opinion.

I'm not a professional photographer, and even though I digitize 6x9 images, I don't really believe manipulation of digital images is where I want to go....not enough equipment, time, or need for my collection and pleasure....and digitally perfected images look manipulated and fake to me, way too much of the time. Absolute perfection doesn't exist in nature...anywhere.

Texsport

 

[jsparks]

Interesting, Porta 400 also come in 220. I thought 220 was long dead or am I missing something?

Steve

Black and white 220 died when Kodak discontinued TXP (or Tri-x 320 or whatever they were calling it at the time) a while back. There are still several choices in 220 color films.

John

 

[tetsrfun]

Black and white 220 died when Kodak discontinued TXP (or Tri-x 320 or whatever they were calling it at the time) a while back. There are still several choices in 220 color films.

John

Thanks...I just got some 220 E100 and Porta 400 today. Too bad about the 320; just when I was getting back into film. A few rolls of Tri-X 320 show up on e-bay and seem to go for a premium.

Steve

 

[jsparks]

I shot a lot of Ilford HP5 220 for a while. I was shocked and a bit angry when it was discontinued. I always wanted Tmax 400 in 220, but I don't think Kodak ever made it. I did shoot a lot of TXP around 1980, but it was never my favorite film. I did get some to try as it was the last 220 B&W standing, but never really got around to using it before it was discontinued. I decided I could live with 120 in a film I liked more than 220 in a film I didn't.

Especially after using digital for a while with hundreds of shots on a single card, only getting 10 shots on 6x7 is hard to deal with not to mention twice as much work in the darkroom with twice as many rolls of film to develop. Just one more reason why I don't shoot as much film as I used to.

John

 

[ggriswold]

Having films and papers being discontinued at ever increasing rates was one of the big reasons I went to MF digital. I want to make pictures, not rotate film in a freezer. Being a Portriga Rapid refugee I just did not want to wake up and have yet another favorite material poof! gone. Or have Kodak jack around with Tri-X AGAIN.
I can wake up and take one photograph or 10,000 any day I want. I come back review, sort and on a good day make a print that I can enjoy. I keep a few metal frames that I rotate work in/ out of. All this is heaven to anyone who loves photography.
Digital has also allowed me to grow into color without hassles. Certainly not easier, but more direct and personal to print your own work.
I always like to make the argument if we had digital first and then film came along nobody would use it...what? I have to soak plastic strips that can scratch in 3 different chemicals and dry them out. Then I have to project that in a dark room and soak them in chemicals? Not on your life. I loved silver gelatin technology and deeply satisfying results... I have printed literally tens of thousands of black and white prints, but getting good materials is going to become a frustrating and costly affair.
At this point with careful technique the ugliness of digital can be avoided... don't clip the whites, don't over sharpen, etc. Make the jump, move on and enjoy what the new tools have to offer.