MAubrey wrote:
It relates because it's film. And it's what I'm shooting, so it's pertinent.
Haman Direct Positive Film has an ISO of 3. The signal to noise ratio is through the roof and you basically can't see the grain. Isn't that the whole topic:
Could you go back to film?
"Yes, and this is the film that I've gone back to."
I don't understand what the problem is.
I mean, I can add that if we talk about negative film: then an good ISO100 B&W film for 4x5 scanned at 6400dpi will provide 0.8 gigapixels. Will there be grain/noise at 100% viewing? Sure. But the moment you downsample that to, say, 50 or 100MP, then that noise/grain is basically gone. Add a one stop improvement for 5x7, another stop for 8x10, a stop for 11x14, etc. ...Show more →
OK, so DPP is pertinent to you. I'm glad that you found something that suits your needs.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Rob the whole point is that you are only considering 35mm film and you are not considering large format film or at least acknowledging it benefits. You are talking as if all film has lots of grain when you scan it and that isn't true for large format film and you don't seem to ever acknowledge that. My point is simple with large format film you can get more resolution without a lot of noise or grain and get a much better signal to noise ration that FF 35mm digital or even miniMF digital. So when you talk about the SNR being an advantage for digital you should acknowledge that only applies to 35mm film and that large format film has a SNR advantage over digital. And yes it is relevant to people going back to film because for some who might like to go back to film--like me--might choose to go back because large format film still has some imaging advantages over digital including a higher SNR, which you seem to think is only an advantage of digital....Show more →
Actually, it's not that I failed to acknowledge the benefits of larger format films, but rather that I pointed out how smaller format digital sensors are capable of matching them in terms of perceived detail due to the their higher SNR. Certainly, this is true with regard to medium format film. Whether large format film still retains an edge, I will take your word for it, but before long, even that may cease to be the case.
I still have a few clients that request film for certain projects. It is how I started and I rather enjoy the process. I am more deliberate and precise. I mainly use two and a quarter and back it up on 135.
gdanmitchell wrote:
It may be best to simply not respond to certain inflammatory post and posters. Consider it.
Dan
That was my feeling, and the reason why I didn't bother responding to the troll's assertion that my one post in this thread was contemptuous is simply because he is not only wrong, but it became clear he is a rabble-rouser with the intent to simply fire people up.
There are many of these types in the blogging universe. What usually pisses them off most is when you don't respond to them directly. They seem to go away all on their own.
Let's say you buy the latest high end digital camera, then go on a trip and take a once in a lifetime photo. Fast forward 15 years and now technology has progressed. How will you feel about that 15 year old photo compared to what is possible today? If you shoot medium or large format film, you are working with a mature technology. You can feel very good about capturing each photo because you know you've captured the best photo possible regardless of changing technology. The images I shot on large format film in 2009 can be scanned at hundreds of megapixels, and the film I shoot in 2017 can be scanned at the same resolution.
It is very liberating to have that sort of piece of mind. I know that large format isn't for everyone, but there are some major benefits that many people wouldn't understand unless they have done it. I owe a lot to shooting large format. It has given me a sense of discipline, and has helped to shape me as a photographer. I will go on a backpacking trip with a weeks worth of food, and only 8 sheets of film, yet I will walk away from the trip with 3 or 4 portfolio images.
I know this is a gear forum and discussions are very technical minded and people are quick to dismiss something regarded as obsolete, or that they don't fully understand, but if you ever stand in front of a big print made from large format film, don't be surprised if you start rethinking everything. That is what happened to me.
Well, shooting LF is a whole different beast all together. Is a whole new different work flow. You get massive shallow DOF and wonderful tonality transition. Can't say even if your 60mp digital hasselblad can match....
Comparing to the other film medium, LF photography is just really different, even back in the film days. Is the way the camera is constructed and how shots are taken. Unless you are shooting with a 4x5 press camera, you aren't going to use it for candid street photography....
Danpbphoto wrote:
I am digital ATW! Because of my inexperience with the basics, then experience with the basics, while shooting film, I could have bought the top of the top in DSLR's for the price paid for film processing.
And the cost of computer, program, printer, inks, papers, upgrades and every few years do it all again?
A nice large format View Camera or decent medium format, shoot carefully, process it and print it in your own darkroom without having to upgrade every few years.
Use whatever works and quit wasting time trying to justify it.
Ummm...maybe because this was cross posted into the Alt forum where film is discussed.
The bigger question is why do you care Dan...if you don't want to discuss the merits of film...well then don't. I'm sure you can find other posts that interest you and leave this post to people interested in film.
Dec 27, 2016 at 12:50 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
gdanmitchell wrote:
Ben, I think you know that I have a great deal of respect for you and for your photography, and for the work you do to produce it.
But I'm wondering how it is that a discussion of the merits of large format 8 x 10 film photography is taking place in a forum focused on Canon brand DSLR equipment.
Dan
Dan, this is listed in multiple forums including the Alt forum, so it seems perfectly appropriate to discuss 8 X 10 film on this thread.
Edit: I was writing while chez was posting obviously we were thinking the same thing.
Have chemicals and film gotten less expensive since the late 90s? That was the last time I kept a dark room alive. Just got a 400/4.5 for my F1New and picked up some film and was looking at getting some chemicals to develop it. I haven't printed since the mid 90 because of scanning, but that might be a hoot. Especially with the kids who have known nothing but digital.
Film is art, well actually art for the chemically inclined, with a lot of gadgets thrown in. I would only look at doing fim for street shots and telephoto. Even my 5DII rocks anything I ever did with 35mm and wide-angles for things like landscape. I still think my best portrait set up my my F1 and an 85/1.8. Medium format would be interesting and would hold up detail for landscapes and give better contrast/grain control than 35mm.
Casually shot a wedding in 2007 with a Leica CL with B/W. Definitely gives a different look.
Overall an interesting statistics so far - members who use film either on a regular basis or only for important or fun stuff, make 30% compared to the remaining 70% doing photography digitally only. I wouldn't have expected 30% here for still using film since this website is more focused on digital photography. Confirms that film is still alive and not such small niche as some want to believe.
Paul Mo wrote:
I wonder how many film advocates - promoting film's merits - are actively using film and not just talking retrospectively?
Not sure if you read my second post on page 6 of this thread where I mentioned my film usage this year so far - 33 B&W films and 8 color films (all 35 mm format). I am just finishing another color negative film - I used this for fun in parallel with my digital A7R. Sort of addictive when I put a film in any of my Leica M's and go out shooting.....it is different! As I pointed out earlier, both film and digital photography have their place in my photography.
Paul Mo wrote:
I wonder how many film advocates - promoting film's merits - are actively using film and not just talking retrospectively?
How many who hates films actually went beyond their lab to process their films 20 years ago+, you have no choice but to shoot films. And generally people would have labs to process and print the negative for them. How many actually develop the films themselves at home Or working with the Zone System? If their experiences are only restricted to lab processing, they really don't understand films at all.....
gdanmitchell wrote:
Ben, I think you know that I have a great deal of respect for you and for your photography, and for the work you do to produce it.
But I'm wondering how it is that a discussion of the merits of large format 8 x 10 film photography is taking place in a forum focused on Canon brand DSLR equipment.
Dan
This thread is in the alternative forum and thus is entirely on topic.
If this thread bothers you so much, why do you keep reading it?
anselwannab wrote:
Have chemicals and film gotten less expensive since the late 90s? That was the last time I kept a dark room alive. Just got a 400/4.5 for my F1New and picked up some film and was looking at getting some chemicals to develop it. I haven't printed since the mid 90 because of scanning, but that might be a hoot. Especially with the kids who have known nothing but digital.
Film is art, well actually art for the chemically inclined, with a lot of gadgets thrown in. I would only look at doing fim for street shots and telephoto. Even my 5DII rocks anything I ever did with 35mm and wide-angles for things like landscape. I still think my best portrait set up my my F1 and an 85/1.8. Medium format would be interesting and would hold up detail for landscapes and give better contrast/grain control than 35mm.
Casually shot a wedding in 2007 with a Leica CL with B/W. Definitely gives a different look....Show more →
Chemicals are dirt cheap. A bottle of Kodak HC-110 is $30. That can process hundreds of rolls. Fixer is under $20.
retrofocus wrote:
Overall an interesting statistics so far - members who use film either on a regular basis or only for important or fun stuff, make 30% compared to the remaining 70% doing photography digitally only. I wouldn't have expected 30% here for still using film since this website is more focused on digital photography. Confirms that film is still alive and not such small niche as some want to believe.
Why some people want to believe that film is dying remains unanswered.
Was out shooting in unseasonably warm weather yesterday. I had a nice walk and was able to fire off 7 rolls of film: 4 rolls of Ilford Delta 100, 1 roll of Kodak TMAX 400, and 2 rolls of Kodak Ektar.
TooManyShots wrote:
How many who hates films actually went beyond their lab to process their films 20 years ago+, you have no choice but to shoot films. And generally people would have labs to process and print the negative for them. How many actually develop the films themselves at home Or working with the Zone System? If their experiences are only restricted to lab processing, they really don't understand films at all.....
The Zone System is not suitable for anything but sheet film. The reason for this is that under the Zone system, development of each image is custom tailored. You can't do that with rolls of film. They all get developed together.
I'm wondering how many people responding here as being a convert actually shot film? The digital boom has created many new photographers without any experience prior to the digital camera.
. 
20 years ago+, you have no choice but to shoot films. And generally people would have labs to process and print the negative for them. How many actually develop the films themselves at home