is the gx680 really an alternative to a gf670? more like an alternative to large format, lol.
have you consider the GW690 and GW670 cameras? theyre nice, although I wasn't super thrilled with the RF patch on the gw690iii. your budget would allow for a Rolleiflex, btw. that would be my personal recommendation, well that or a Mamiya 7
redisburning wrote:
is the gx680 really an alternative to a gf670? more like an alternative to large format, lol.
have you consider the GW690 and GW670 cameras? theyre nice, although I wasn't super thrilled with the RF patch on the gw690iii. your budget would allow for a Rolleiflex, btw. that would be my personal recommendation, well that or a Mamiya 7
No, the GX680 is NOT an alternative. Not in any meaningful sense anyway.
I used to own a GSW690 so I am well aware of what these cameras can offer. I really dont want a camera without a meter though. Also, the folding nature of the GF670 has a lot of appeal to me since I travel a lot.
On another note, what is it like trying to get film past the xray machines at the airport? Last time I shot film was before 9/11 so security was a whole different game then. Is it still easy to get film past the x-ray machines?
rattymouse wrote:
A question I forgot to ask...How do you find the GX680 IIIs? Is it substantially easier to travel with? If you are not interested in movements, this camera seems like the way to go.
It's not substantially smaller, but the 187 vs. 213mm height means that it fits more easily in most large camera backpacks. The IIIs with the 180mm f/3.2 is a real killer combo for portrait work, and if there's enough light for fast shutter speeds, one can do pretty well with just a monopod with just a quick release attached directly to the pod. The film holders rotate, so there isn't really a need for an expensive head when using a monopod (There's even a spirit level on the camera body).
IIIs with the waist level finder and 125 or 135mm f/5.6 is actually less than 3 kilograms, which is less than my D2Xs with 80-200 AF-S attached.
On another note, what is it like trying to get film past the xray machines at the airport? Last time I shot film was before 9/11 so security was a whole different game then. Is it still easy to get film past the x-ray machines?
yes, they will hand inspect film of any speed at Logan, Jacksonville and DFW; I believe it's TSA policy.
Sorry. I didn't read all six pages of threads but, the OP is correct. To digitize film is completely stupid. If you want that "look" (and I have no idea what that is) then buy a plug in for photoshop.
People that buy film and scan end up with a half-ass process. It's an analog to digital conversion. If you are going to end up with digital you might as well start with digital. If you want to do analog (and by the way, that's inaccurate) stick with it all the way through the darkroom.
Who the hell records an analog vinyl LP to an MP3 file because the like the sound of analog but want the convenience of listening to it on an ipod...STUPID!
pawlowski6132 wrote:
Sorry. I didn't read all six pages of threads but, the OP is correct. To digitize film is completely stupid. If you want that "look" (and I have no idea what that is) then buy a plug in for photoshop.
People that buy film and scan end up with a half-ass process. It's an analog to digital conversion. If you are going to end up with digital you might as well start with digital. If you want to do analog (and by the way, that's inaccurate) stick with it all the way through the darkroom.
Who the hell records an analog vinyl LP to an MP3 file because the like the sound of analog but want the convenience of listening to it on an ipod...STUPID!
Are you being facetious? It's hard to tell. A better analogy is who records drums instead of using a drum machine or even who uses a vintage mic (plenty of people do)?
Shooting film might be inherently stupid or charmingly and curiously old-fashioned (depending on who you ask), but digital scans are much better than analogue prints for the most part, especially with slide film, and you might argue that shooting film and processing in a darkroom are both unnecessary eccentricities, but just because you're into one doesn't mean you have to like the other. And 4x5 is still the cheapest way to get good quality and flexible lens movements; tech cameras and digital view cameras are prohibitively expensive for most casual photographers.
Take movies--most DPs held out on shooting digital for a very long time (and some still have), but many of those same DPs have heralded digital intermediates since the beginning. Every process results in a specific look; totally ignoring economy and technical quality and purely focusing on aesthetics and enjoying the process (the only two things that really matter), virtually any process is justifiable. And medium format and large format are competitive with digital in terms of image quality but offer unique and inimitable aesthetics that can be improved through digital manipulation as easily as a file that started digital. And certain film stocks offer better or at least more perceptibly vibrant color information (Velvia, due to its sharp sensitivity spikes) and others offer more highlight detail (C41 and B&W negative) than digital. Look at Gregory Crewdson's work for an example of an effective merger of 8x10 and digital post.
If I could afford it I'd shoot 4x5 slides and process in Photoshop because I like the flexibility of view cameras in the field and photoshop in post. I don't see what's wrong with that, except the cost per shot. If you've figured out how to replicate or better the experience of using a view camera with a dSLR please let me know, because I'll buy whatever that is immediately.
No, not being facetious. I mean it. I think it's silly to split a process up like that. I like the music analogy I made because it's very similar.
FWIW, these days, I only shoot film. I sold my D700 and super expensive glass and now capture everything on film and take it all the way to the frame and wall using traditional darkroom processes in my basement.
But, I think digital rocks and I am jealous of all the folks that can use photoshop, figure out printer profiles, calibrate their monitors, etc. I was always just too stupid to figure that all out (subscribed to Kelby and Lynda for years) and too broke to keep up with all the new versions of everything (software, cameras, printers, etc.)
I like things simple.
I also listen to music on a pure analog, mechanical system: Just vinly, tubes, electricity. No circuit boards, LEDs, etc.
Policar wrote:
Are you being facetious? It's hard to tell. A better analogy is who records drums instead of using a drum machine or even who uses a vintage mic (plenty of people do)?
Shooting film might be inherently stupid or charmingly and curiously old-fashioned (depending on who you ask), but digital scans are much better than analogue prints for the most part, especially with slide film, and you might argue that shooting film and processing in a darkroom are both unnecessary eccentricities, but just because you're into one doesn't mean you have to like the other. And 4x5 is still the cheapest way to get good quality and flexible lens movements; tech cameras and digital view cameras are prohibitively expensive for most casual photographers.
Take movies--most DPs held out on shooting digital for a very long time (and some still have), but many of those same DPs have heralded digital intermediates since the beginning. Every process results in a specific look; totally ignoring economy and technical quality and purely focusing on aesthetics and enjoying the process (the only two things that really matter) and process is justifiable.
If I could afford it I'd shoot 4x5 slides and process in Photoshop because I like the flexibility of view cameras in the field and photoshop in post....Show more →
pawlowski6132 wrote:
Sorry. I didn't read all six pages of threads but, the OP is correct. To digitize film is completely stupid. If you want that "look" (and I have no idea what that is) then buy a plug in for photoshop.
People that buy film and scan end up with a half-ass process. It's an analog to digital conversion. If you are going to end up with digital you might as well start with digital. If you want to do analog (and by the way, that's inaccurate) stick with it all the way through the darkroom.
Who the hell records an analog vinyl LP to an MP3 file because the like the sound of analog but want the convenience of listening to it on an ipod...STUPID!
pawlowski6132 wrote:
Who the hell records an analog vinyl LP to an MP3 file because the like the sound of analog but want the convenience of listening to it on an ipod...STUPID!
Recording a Vinyl LP to MP3 would be the equivalent of scanning film to jpeg. Neither will maintain much of the original qualities. But with audio as well as photo, there are formats available that will keep more, not all, of the original characteristics of the analog media. While I too prefer the traditional ways, listening to vinyl and doing darkroom enlargements, that isn't always practical in our world of 2012. Still, I find proper scans from film vastly different from files that are digital from the outset, even when filtered through "film look" software. There's no easy way to emulate film grain digitally, but it is possible to scan real grain down to the tiniest imperfection.
It's not a great metaphor, though--vinyl is the delivery medium and so are mp3s... Your metaphor would be more analogous to taking an analogue print and then scanning it (which plenty of people do, maybe just for convenience). Some producers still record to tape (Steve Albini, etc.) even for music distributed primarily digitally. And the aesthetic difference between digital and analogue recording is way less significant than the difference between film and digital, which is really the difference between photochemical and analogue converted immediately to digital. No metaphor is going to hit this right because it's two totally different worlds and some of us aren't synaesthetic.
As a fan of vinyl and darkroom work (who can't stand hdr and current mastering techniques, fwiw) but with no patience for either, I've got to respect your dedication to the process. That said, a lot of really great photographers and cinematographers have done tremendously innovative and just amazing work shooting on film and then processing digitally, and to deny the value of their work by worshiping the purity of a process kind of puts the value of art in the medium rather than the artist, which is not a mindset I'm comfortable with. But on the flip side, a lot of excellent artists are obsessed with the process, so the two are intertwined and there's no winning this argument. Do your thing; all you're really missing is hdr, instagram, photoshop filters and pixel-peeping. Really it's 98% garbage on this side, but the flexibility is pretty alluring.
And yes Dustin, the forest picture is beautiful. Did you really need to go through the trouble of capturing it on film, sending it out for developing and then scanning into photoshop for further processing? Wouldn't it make more sense to just capture it digitally??
Policar wrote:
It's not a great metaphor, though--vinyl is the delivery medium and so are mp3s... Your metaphor would be more analogous to taking an analogue print and then scanning it (which plenty of people do, maybe just for convenience). Some producers still record to tape (Steve Albini, etc.) even for music distributed primarily digitally. And the aesthetic difference between digital and analogue recording is way less significant than the difference between film and digital, which is really the difference between photochemical and analogue converted immediately to digital. No metaphor is going to hit this right because it's two totally different worlds and some of us aren't synaesthetic.
As a fan of vinyl and darkroom work (who can't stand hdr and current mastering techniques, fwiw) but with no patience for either, I've got to respect your dedication to the process. That said, a lot of really great photographers and cinematographers have done tremendously innovative and just amazing work shooting on film and then processing digitally, and to deny the value of their work by worshiping the purity of a process kind of puts the value of art in the medium rather than the artist, which is not a mindset I'm comfortable with. But on the flip side, a lot of excellent artists are obsessed with the process, so the two are intertwined and there's no winning this argument. Do your thing; all you're really missing is hdr, instagram, photoshop filters and pixel-peeping. Really it's 98% garbage on this side, but the flexibility is pretty alluring....Show more →
it would, but I went to film to grow as a photographer - as weird as that sounds. With results I am getting, I am pretty happy. I will get back into digital soon, but until then, I am enjoying film
rattymouse wrote:
Mamiya 7 is looking mighty interesting...except it seems to have a very substandard meter, almost requiring a hand held meter. Shockingly poor design.
What makes you say that? There's no need to use a meter outside of the one in the camera, unless you are going to use strobes.
Dustin Gent wrote:
it would, but I went to film to grow as a photographer - as weird as that sounds. With results I am getting, I am pretty happy. I will get back into digital soon, but until then, I am enjoying film
If you like shooting film, u should consider developing our own and wet printing!
pawlowski6132 wrote:
And yes Dustin, the forest picture is beautiful. Did you really need to go through the trouble of capturing it on film, sending it out for developing and then scanning into photoshop for further processing? Wouldn't it make more sense to just capture it digitally??
8x10 film exposed and developed well, scanned on a good drum scanner by a great operator offers tremendous opportunities above and beyond even an expensive DSLR system, for me. Photoshops non-destructive nature and precision means my editing and resulting image are infinitely better. A hybrid workflow, as mentioned many times now, is extremely beneficial to those who know how to extract the most out of it.
The systems are also completely different and offer different positives and negatives. Some large format systems offer an incredible amount of movements when compared to a digital system. There are a ton of vintage and unique lenses that a digital system does not offer. Capturing it digitally, in these instances, would not achieve the desired result or anything close to it. What is the digital equivalent of a Petzval lens? A Dallmeyer? It certainly isn't a lensbaby, for me.
Furthermore, just because you turn your film into a digital file does not mean it all of sudden obliterates any 'film quality' that the image had. There is nothing wrong with a digital file, at exposure or after. Film scanned does not all of a sudden stop becoming 'film' in its essence. A proper scan gets more out of the film and more accurately than a decentl darkroom operator ever will, especially with color. If you shoot a given scene on both mediums the images will look different. Whether you can always pick them out in an 800px online comparison is quite irrelevant. There is always a difference and there always be a difference.
After having worked with scanned 8x10 files I went back to work on some of my D300s images. I literally thought I had cropped them all way down because they were so small. The difference is incredible. That difference also shows through in more ways than one.
If you don't want to deal with printer profiles send the image to a print-house that has a Lightjet equivalent printer. There, you have your 'real' photographic print on 'real' photographic paper processed in 'real' chemicals.
A hybrid workflow can offer the best of both worlds depending on what you value. I value the quality of a large negative over my DSLR systems but I also value the insanely great power of Photoshop. Scanning large format film does not degrade the quality of the image when done right. In fact, when compared to what most can get out of an enlarger, scanning will do better. What I end up with is something that would be beyond impossible in the darkroom, in my opinion.
Try doing this in a darkroom:
Scan:
Final:
Also try getting that quality out of a DSLR, not happening without stitching. And then of course the file will still be different due to the inherent qualities of each system. Take your pick, doesn't matter to me. Not sure I'd want to deal with stitching a file at that perspective though.
On the topic of editing, some might say the example above is the antithesis of what photography should be about. It's no longer a photo, it's.....digital art or whatever term they want to come up with. Fine, great. Call it whatever you want. Doesn't change the end result. And to me that is all that matters - the end result. Do I like it? Do I enjoy the process? What works for me and gets me what I want? Clearly, my answers are different than most. But I cannot understand how there are those who believe a hybrid workflow is not somehow capable or worthwhile. I think the results of others would speak for themselves.
It is not a simple case of shooting digital instead. The results are different. For some there are huge benefits and, for a lot of others, many disadvantages.
??
