The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Goodbye digital back, Hello analog film (for now)

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Ray, I couldn't agree more. I'm not coming from MF digital and I'm not doing landscapes, but for most of my portrait work, film is where I'm going. When I need digital, the Panasonic GH3/4 do everything that I'll need for now and possibly forever. When I need passion, there are so many nice, affordable cameras and so many nice kinds of film, not to speak about formats, available to cater for that. Most of the photos that have made a deep impression on me were made with film. Actually, I can't remember a single digital photo of which I can say that the artistic value touched the deep of my soul. Not because they don't exist, because they probably do, but it does seem like the process around film photography helps photographers give more, express more.

The infamous Erwin Puts posted a consumerism rant on his FB page a couple of weeks ago. Although I don't always follow his reasoning, I do agree with many of his statements. Digital photography is consumerism by nature. The never ending upgrades and new cameras possibly aren't much worse than the consumption of film and chemicals for traditional photography, at least not from an environmental point of view, but the cultural consumerism is. The ability to take millions of photographs for free doesn't help express whatever message the photographer is trying to convey. I would rather take one photo that tells a story than a million that don't, even if that one photo is technically inferior with more grain and less "realistic" colour.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Jorgen,

Um, how you use your digital camera is up to you. Just because you buy one doesn't mean you have to take a bazillion photos every time you pick it up. And just because everyone else might doesn't mean you have to as well.

I shoot with my digital camera very similarly to how I shoot with my film cameras (except Polaroids, where I shoot a lot less than with anything else). A morning walk usually nets between 15 and 35 exposures, 35mm film or digital.

I've heard so many of these "film is superior", "film is more emotive", "film is the way to go for real photography" things over the years it's become an annoying old myth. For myth it is.

I enjoy working with film and I enjoy with digital capture. The end result is as expressive and wonderful from either as I care to make it.

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Godfrey,
No, I don't need to take a bazillion photos with digital cameras, but on the other hand, if I'm only going to take 12 or 36, film is such a beautiful medium and the slow pace and wait for the films to be processed make the experience larger to me. Also, I do shoot a lot of wasted frames with digital that I would never consider wasting film on. Maybe I lack discipline, but in that regard, I'm not alone.

When that is said, I'm also rather fed-up with the never ending hunt for more and better technology. For me, it's a distraction, and it brings little new to the table from a creative point of view. As mentioned above, I'm in no way dumping digital, but with m4/3 and the best bodies of that system, I see little reason to strive for more in that area, at least not until something really exiting is brought to the table.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Jorgen,

Um, how you use your digital camera is up to you. Just because you buy one doesn't mean you have to take a bazillion photos every time you pick it up. And just because everyone else might doesn't mean you have to as well.

I shoot with my digital camera very similarly to how I shoot with my film cameras (except Polaroids, where I shoot a lot less than with anything else). A morning walk usually nets between 15 and 35 exposures, 35mm film or digital.

I've heard so many of these "film is superior", "film is more emotive", "film is the way to go for real photography" things over the years it's become an annoying old myth. For myth it is.

I enjoy working with film and I enjoy with digital capture. The end result is as expressive and wonderful from either as I care to make it.

G
I'd just add that film is just ... film. Just another artistic medium. Not better, not inferior, just different and equally valid today.

:thumbup:

(I'm a slut and enjoy them all, be it iPhonography, film, digital, big digital, big film, even bigger film etc)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Godfrey,
No, I don't need to take a bazillion photos with digital cameras, but on the other hand, if I'm only going to take 12 or 36, film is such a beautiful medium and the slow pace and wait for the films to be processed make the experience larger to me. Also, I do shoot a lot of wasted frames with digital that I would never consider wasting film on. Maybe I lack discipline, but in that regard, I'm not alone.

When that is said, I'm also rather fed-up with the never ending hunt for more and better technology. For me, it's a distraction, and it brings little new to the table from a creative point of view. As mentioned above, I'm in no way dumping digital, but with m4/3 and the best bodies of that system, I see little reason to strive for more in that area, at least not until something really exiting is brought to the table.
They're different. Sometimes I want a film camera for that 12 or 36, sometimes a digital camera. Nothing takes a photo that looks like a Polaroid other than a Polaroid, same for an SWC, and I can't take the pinhole photos I've been enjoying lately with anything other than a Sony A7. I also can't see what I wanted out of my Leica R lenses on anything other than a Leicaflex/Leica R or Sony A7/r.

I agree with you about the never-ending-hunt for "more and better." It's been a long time since I went for more and better ... My ancient 2003 E-1 is still a wonderful camera. I've bought lots of new things looking for something, but "more and better" wasn't really it. The current top of the line in mFT is indeed wonderful. I think the times are well past the tipping point where simple "more and better" notions of resolution and sensitivity are a diminishing part of why I might get the urge to buy more gear.

G
 

Grayhand

Well-known member
As Godfrey said "They're different."

That what is all about for me!
Digital has been extremely important for me in my work.
It has allowed me to really go overboard regarding the number of photos I take to test and understand what can be done in a certain photographic situation.
Yes, I could have done that also with film, but to a much higher cost and a much longer time ( and No, I do not want to discuss the cost of all my digital equipment compared to film cost :eek: ))

But now I am at a different place and I do ned another discipline and another aesthetics. But I will always be grateful to digital for what it given me.
Jorgen stand by his m4/3 and I do understand him, I say the same about my Fuji system. I will keep this system for my "snap shot" need.
It is for my large lanscape photos that I will go 100% analogue.

I really do not need any new digital system, Honestly (except the Fuji X-Pro2 and the... :) )
And I really do not need any new analog sytem, I just need to stand more in the light!

I have been working with vocational training for more than 20 years in my own company.
And I am a total sucker for that level of professionalism that is beyond explanation, the tacit knowledge.
So grab a glas of red or a Talisker/Oban and enjoy a dans of a professional.
Of what was before photoshop.

The magic of analog photography - By: Nathalie Lopparelli - YouTube

It is worth 15 minutes of your life!

Ray
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Yup... me to :)

Nice video. I wish there was a lab like that around here. Unfortunately not.
I used to work for a lab like that ... early 1980s. Most are long gone.

Personally, I never found much magic in being in the dark swishing chemicals around. It was an "ooh-aaah" experience for me once when I was 7 years old, and after that it was just 'that pain in the butt I have to do to see my photographs'. I mostly shoot film these days for scanning, and then have great fun playing with the images that film records. I'm *much* happier editing photos in the light ...

Whatever turns you on!

G
 

alajuela

Active member
As Godfrey said "They're different."

That what is all about for me!
Digital has been extremely important for me in my work.
It has allowed me to really go overboard regarding the number of photos I take to test and understand what can be done in a certain photographic situation.
Yes, I could have done that also with film, but to a much higher cost and a much longer time ( and No, I do not want to discuss the cost of all my digital equipment compared to film cost :eek: ))

But now I am at a different place and I do ned another discipline and another aesthetics. But I will always be grateful to digital for what it given me.
Jorgen stand by his m4/3 and I do understand him, I say the same about my Fuji system. I will keep this system for my "snap shot" need.
It is for my large lanscape photos that I will go 100% analogue.

I really do not need any new digital system, Honestly (except the Fuji X-Pro2 and the... :) )
And I really do not need any new analog sytem, I just need to stand more in the light!

I have been working with vocational training for more than 20 years in my own company.
And I am a total sucker for that level of professionalism that is beyond explanation, the tacit knowledge.
So grab a glas of red or a Talisker/Oban and enjoy a dans of a professional.
Of what was before photoshop.

The magic of analog photography - By: Nathalie Lopparelli - YouTube

It is worth 15 minutes of your life!

Ray
Hi Ray

Nice video - Thank you :cool:

I think its great you will have a functional and operational darkroom.

Darkroom is a great place to wander and get lost.

Wish I could see what you put on your wall

All the best

Phil
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I used to work for a lab like that ... early 1980s. Most are long gone.

Personally, I never found much magic in being in the dark swishing chemicals around. It was an "ooh-aaah" experience for me once when I was 7 years old, and after that it was just 'that pain in the butt I have to do to see my photographs'. I mostly shoot film these days for scanning, and then have great fun playing with the images that film records. I'm *much* happier editing photos in the light ...

Whatever turns you on!

G
If comfort was my first priority when taking photos, I would use the Nokia for photography, sell my other gear and spend the rest of the money on Laphroaig... and possibly a bottle or two of Talisker :chug:

The chances are rather slim that I will do wet printing, now or in the future. I have neither the space nor the time, and the largest bathroom of my apartment is being inhabited by a female who isn't to eager to share the space with smelly chemicals and other stuff (although the number of bottles in that room can compete with most laboratories :rolleyes: ). Scanning and digital printing mostly give me the results I'm after anyway, and working on those skills will most probably bear more fruit :)
 

tsjanik

Well-known member
Ray,

Interesting video, it takes me back to my first B&W printing in the photo labs at UCLA. Later, because I loved the color photos of Ernst Haas, I printed Cibachrome in my basement. No glamor in color printing, no image appearing before your eyes; everything in the dark or sealed processors. I still love a Cibachrome print and if I could produce one on an inkjet I would. I stopped using my 67II when I purchased the 645D. Do I take better pictures ? - Maybe, I take more for sure, but I certainly miss the processed film arriving in the mail. I won't go back to film, but I understand why you might.

Tom
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I actually ran a color darkroom for a very long time. When I returned to the States, the cost of chemistry and its disposal made it prohibitive to run. So I went from medium-format film to medium-format digital. What I miss most are the film formats like the square of the 6x12. I know I can crop, but that is not the way I work--I just am so used to frame in the camera.

And then there are those funky film cameras like the Widelux swing lens panoramic camera. Or the Fujifilm 16-lens "golf" camera.

If anyone is looking for a medium-format or 4x5 color enlargers, let me know...
 

danlindberg

Well-known member
Ray, that is a brave decision, considering you produce wonderful imagery with what you have and at the same time the cost of entrance to medium/large format film photography is low, why not do both? Although, I can understand that a full commitment to a specific media is not a bad thing, especially when it comes to art.
I would not stand a chance in my commercial work to go back to film, but I might brush off my old trusty Linhof SuperTechnica 4x5 for old times sake....and load it with velvia sheetfilm. There is no doubt that a 9x12cm transparency is beyond big DBs in terms of 'feel'. I have never shot B&W sheet film (how could I miss that..?)
Yeah, why not....I think this thread kicked my behind and....
Guys, any recomendations on 4x5 sheets...???:D:D:D
 

Grayhand

Well-known member
Thanks Dan for your kind words!

Yea, why not keep both?
Well it is one part as you guessed, a question about full commitment.
And I can completely submerge myself into this because there is no commercial considerations for me to take.

:lecture:

If there is no digital back to lean on when that ”special” light arrives, then I HAVE to step in and think on a more focused level.
If I am shooting a grand sunset at the beach, I can no longer take 500 shoots, I will maximum have 10 sheets of 4x5 with me.

A interesting thing I really learned last augusti during my annual 4-weeks stay at the island, Öland,
was that I got the best photos when I went to the beach and decided on the best location for the evening shot.
Then I put up my camera, adjusted everything as I wanted it and then sat on my little 3-legged camping chair and waited.
And the rest was up to nature, what kind of sunset I would get. And no matter of me running around on the beach al the time,
testing new compositions could change the outcome of the sunset!

So I did stay with the selected spot! And I actually selected ONE photo from each evening, no matter how many I did take.
It was really simple, I just had to pick the best photo! All the other photos was for nothing.
I could as well just leave my camera in position and put a timer to take photo every 30 seconds and then collect the camera and afterwards try to do some kind of "artistic selection".

So when you sit and wait maybe around two hours each evening at the beach for one month, you do have some time to think about what you do...
And I really started to question why I took the absolute majority of the photos I took. And the sad answer is: Just because I could and as a kind of guarantee, and it was just a complete waste of photons. :loco:
So I realized that I just have to wait until the scene in front of me is what I want and then take the photo. And if the scene does not light up in the right way, then I do not take any photo.
It is as simple as that.

So I decided to take back the initiative but also the responsibility for my ”Art”. That I had to stay there and be responsible for a choice here and now.
Suddenly it was a trill ones more to make that choice out of the infinte amount of possibilities.
To really SEE again.

And of course it is possible to limit our self to come back with maximum 10 photos on the memory card of the digital camera.
But the question is if we really do that?
I dont..

End of rant

In a post above I said that I really did not need any more analog camera. But because this is GetDPI, I suspect not one soul here believed me.
And of course you are right, as always, I do need just ONE more camera.

I do love square photos, and I also have a soft spot for 6x12. But due to the fact that I do more and more panoramas like 1:3 or 1:4, I was thinking of a 6x17.

So my question to those of you who have used a 6x17 camera, is it wort the extra size of the camera compared to a dedicated 6x12?
And the issue with center filter for the lenses, is it really a issue?
And all the other questions I have forgotten to ask about 6x17???

Ray
 

GregMO

Member
Grayhand; said:
And I really started to question why I took the absolute majority of the photos I took. And the sad answer is: Just because I could and as a kind of guarantee, and it was just a complete waste of photons. :loco:
So I realized that I just have to wait until the scene in front of me is what I want and then take the photo. And if the scene does not light up in the right way, then I do not take any photo.
It is as simple as that.

So I decided to take back the initiative but also the responsibility for my ”Art”. That I had to stay there and be responsible for a choice here and now.
Suddenly it was a trill ones more to make that choice out of the infinte amount of possibilities.
To really SEE again.

And of course it is possible to limit our self to come back with maximum 10 photos on the memory card of the digital camera.
But the question is if we really do that?
I dont..

End of rant

In a post above I said that I really did not need any more analog camera. But because this is GetDPI, I suspect not one soul here believed me.
And of course you are right, as always, I do need just ONE more camera.

I do love square photos, and I also have a soft spot for 6x12. But due to the fact that I do more and more panoramas like 1:3 or 1:4, I was thinking of a 6x17.

So my question to those of you who have used a 6x17 camera, is it wort the extra size of the camera compared to a dedicated 6x12?
And the issue with center filter for the lenses, is it really a issue?
And all the other questions I have forgotten to ask about 6x17???

Ray
Ray, you will look back and be glad how much simpler this will make your life to just wait patiently for the 1 shot & not come home with so many unneeded extra images.
Regarding the 617, I have a Gaoersi 617. It comes with masks to shoot 617, 615 or 612 along with shift function. You might want to look into it. I use that camera the most, then my 4x5 & 5x7 cameras are running 2nd. Given the fact you will be shooting landscapes, the camera is useful in weather/wind conditions that a bellows camera wouldnt manage.
Center filter- if using 90mm or wider on 617 it's useful. Definitely with slide film, not a requirement if shooting color/B&W negative film. I would use it unless you really need the extra 2 stops.
If you would like more info on lenses & stuff..shoot me a PM.
 

Grayhand

Well-known member
Well Sergei, we all know that you are not a Real Artist if you dont suffer constantly for your art :D

Thanks for the info Greg. I will send you a PM with some technical questions.
I was hoping someone would said that is was just a waste of time, 6x17, and that 6x12 was all I needed...
The 6X17 cameras are big, they must be as long as a 5x7 camera on the long side i think.
But that of course takes care of the suffering part...

I am glad you seems to use your Gaoersi 617. That's confirms my experience with the Chinese made cameras. I are looking at 6x12 or 6x17 cameras by Dayi.
I have their "technical" 4x5 camera that I am very pleased with. And I choose it exactly because of the problem with bellow on 4x5 field cameras on a windy beach.

Ray
 

SergeiR

New member
Ray, if you want to shoot 6x17cm, just have a look at the 8x10 and stick horizontal splitter in there (so basically you get two 4x10 from single sheet). I used it and its awesome. All the good things of being able to use large view camera without having to deal with highly specialized equipment. 8x10 film is easier to scan(or contact print) than medium format too. Also that gives you ability to shoot landscapes with telephoto lens, which is how they were intended to be shot back in the days, till everyone decided that wide angle is only way to go (which is what you getting with typical 6x17 helical mounts). Just saying.
 

Grayhand

Well-known member
I do have a Sinar P 8x10 and a "cut up" dark slide for 4x10.
And I do agree with you about the possibility of using different lenses.
I was originally a telephoto person, but I have widen my horizons slightly today :)

But stormy beaches and such places is the problem.

Ray
 
Top