- Messages
- 1,842
- Name
- Ujjwal
- Edit My Images
- No
Films :
1. Produce real photographs
2. separates the men from the boys
3. Snobbery
1. Produce real photographs
2. separates the men from the boys
3. Snobbery
Film isn't easy!
- Thread starter alpina
- Start date
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Not if you've seen my camera collection!
Change that to: 3. A sense of superiority.
Steve.
- Messages
- 1,842
- Name
- Ujjwal
- Edit My Images
- No
steve....lol...it was a joke...I dont want to start a war on this
I had got a dslr, which I used for about 6 motnhs and then sent packing; so you know which side of the fence I sit....
I had got a dslr, which I used for about 6 motnhs and then sent packing; so you know which side of the fence I sit....
That's what I tell a couple of pals I occasionally go out shooting with - in a joking manner of course. They are both digital SLR users, and they get a good laugh watching me rewinding films and reloading the camera while they carry on shooting. My only hope is if their batteries run flat and they have no spare - my trusty mechanical cameras will carry on regardless.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
I know. so was mine!
I'm sitting on the same side of the fence as you. I bought a D100 in 2003 which I used for a while. Then I got a Rolleicord.... then an ETRS.... then an RB67..... then it got silly and I collected about 30 film cameras. I have started to give some away now to thin out the collection a bit. Today a Zenit 11 and three lenses are being posted off to someone else on this forum.
Steve.
- Messages
- 10,870
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
4. film is fun
but i do have to say FOR digital that it lets you see the results instantly which means you can push more creative technique and do wierd ****. The strobisty flash stuff that I love playing with is a fair example of this, I straight up couldn't do it on film, I mean metering you can do with a flash meter but aiming a honey comb with no modelling light perfectly (in the dark sometimes) then working out whether you like that cheekbone over exposed or whether it looks good crap
It also localises any errors, so if something looks **** you know its not a dev/print issue
but i do have to say FOR digital that it lets you see the results instantly which means you can push more creative technique and do wierd ****. The strobisty flash stuff that I love playing with is a fair example of this, I straight up couldn't do it on film, I mean metering you can do with a flash meter but aiming a honey comb with no modelling light perfectly (in the dark sometimes) then working out whether you like that cheekbone over exposed or whether it looks good crap
It also localises any errors, so if something looks **** you know its not a dev/print issue
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Of course you could. People used to do it all the time. Although some did cheat and use Polaroid first!
Actually, the only time I have found a digital camera to be useful is in setting up lighting before I change to film for the proper shots so you do have a good point. However, I don't use flash or studio lights very often. If I did, I'm sure I would get used to what was needed without having to need a camera with a confirmation LCD to look at.
Steve.
- Messages
- 2,392
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 1,842
- Name
- Ujjwal
- Edit My Images
- No
Steve
I am looking for a Jupiter 9 and Jup 11 on Contax mount. You dont happen to have them to give away, do you?:
- Messages
- 1,842
- Name
- Ujjwal
- Edit My Images
- No
Ah well; boys will be boys, you know
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 1,842
- Name
- Ujjwal
- Edit My Images
- No
just curious steve, what RF folders have you got? I wanted to use a retina for 1/2 films to see if I like it.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
The only rangefinder folder I have is an Ansco Speedex Special R which is 6x6 on 120 film.
The rangefinder is un-coupled which means you adjust it to find the distance then look at its dial and transfer the reading to the lens.
It's the American version of the Agfa Isloette III: http://www.butkus.org/chinon/ansco/ansco_speedex_special_r/ansco_2.gif
The Retina is a 35mm camera. I would like one but a suitably priced one (i.e. cheap) hasn't come my way yet!
Steve.
- Messages
- 1,842
- Name
- Ujjwal
- Edit My Images
- No
I have located 2 for around 60 £ each ( The II version). Not sure if thats a good price or not; but seems reasonable
camera .
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
I read something in Amateur Photographer a few years ago about a Kodak representative who was asked how to make digital images look like film. His response: "Have you tried film?".
Steve.
- Messages
- 5,993
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You might be biased but you're quite correct too.
I was looking through a couple of landscape photographer galleries the other other day, where one used inkjet and the other cibachromes.
Taking the content and shooting styles out of the equation, the inkjets really did fall flat compared to the wet prints. They just have an inner glow that no amount of clever lighting will get the inks to produce.
- Messages
- 1,448
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Unfortunately all this digital print bashing is a bit of a myth I'm afraid. Now it is possible to make digital prints of a quality equal to darkroom quality, you just need to be very good at it, and have your system down pat. In fact, exactly the same as with a traditionally derived print.
This comes from a film and darkroom user who absolutely loves the wet process, the fiddlyness of film use and the characteristics it gives. A few years ago you would have been merited in saying otherwise but I'm afraid the facts don't match up anymore. This is even true of mono now. By all means extoll the true virtues of film use and the wet process, but hiding behind print quality is a path detined to fail. Anyone remeber the 35mm vs digital megapixel rants that filled the internet not so long ago.
Being a young technology as such the digital process will take a while to attain the same quality, but eventually it can get there, if you strive for perfection. The only question left to my mind is the archival permanence of the prints, but that is the same with RCMG papers; they aren't yet proven, except in lab conditions. A cyanotype can unarguably last ~200 years, because there are some that have, but you just dont know with an inkjet or RC print.
Also, why are you testing lighting set ups with digital, thats what polaroid is for
This comes from a film and darkroom user who absolutely loves the wet process, the fiddlyness of film use and the characteristics it gives. A few years ago you would have been merited in saying otherwise but I'm afraid the facts don't match up anymore. This is even true of mono now. By all means extoll the true virtues of film use and the wet process, but hiding behind print quality is a path detined to fail. Anyone remeber the 35mm vs digital megapixel rants that filled the internet not so long ago.
Being a young technology as such the digital process will take a while to attain the same quality, but eventually it can get there, if you strive for perfection. The only question left to my mind is the archival permanence of the prints, but that is the same with RCMG papers; they aren't yet proven, except in lab conditions. A cyanotype can unarguably last ~200 years, because there are some that have, but you just dont know with an inkjet or RC print.
Also, why are you testing lighting set ups with digital, thats what polaroid is for