Capt. E
Established
With B/W film, the size of the negative is important. Ansel didn't use 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 for nothing. Prior to the 1960's, 35mm was considered an amateur film. Professionals used 120 and larger.
How would I do this with a digital camera?
- Thread starter kshapero
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 35
- Views 6K
JohnWolf
Well-known
.... I don't have any images handy that approximate your benchmark subject here, but in small cameras, the resolution of the DP Merrills might come closest out of the box.
This is an f2.8 1/500 snap jpg at iso 800 in overcast:
That's really beautiful rendering.
John
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
»It just an illusion, aha »
Jane Bown ditched 120. HCB did so much earlier.
Magnum has contact prints book.
Adams is boring and was weak photographer of people.
Sonnar Brian
Established
That is not true. Many of the greatest photographers of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s used 35mm as their preferred format.
If you limit to "Studio/Still Life/Scenic" photography, will find more use of larger format.
Dogman
Veteran
Agreed. I also find Adams photos kinda boring today although they impressed me early on. And he only made one good photo of people--the one of Georgia O'Keefe flirting with the cowboy.
And, to get to the original question, today digital cameras are more than capable of producing better results than film even though film still has a lot to offer as far as the look of the photo. The original post is from 2014. It's a dated question. Better sensors, better processors and better software today. But even in 2014 it was possible to get outstanding results with material on hand. Work and study. The basics.
jsrockit
Moderator
It is kind of easy to crap on Ansel Adams, but his contributions to the medium cannot be denied, wether you like it or not. The popular large format B&W landscapes are just a very small part of his overall portfolio in which he also used 35mm, polaroid, medium format, etc and also used color extensively. He worked for high end clients (Life, IBM, Kodak, etc) doing commercial work. He certainly wasn't a weak people photographer if you dig deep into his archives (Life did not hire weak people photographers). It just was not the type of photography he wanted to do. The latest Zone Eleven book, while not my thing, shows some of his other types of photos he had done. There are also books of his color work. He was very versatile, but his style and ideas about photography just are not the current styles that are popular today. That's ok, he died 38 years ago.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Always wondered how I might get a result like this with a digital camera? Any thoughts?
It's not clear to me what characteristics of this photograph you are trying to achieve. Digital capture, particularly raw capture, with nearly any modern digital camera has much more dynamic range than most any film does ... the difference is that the response curves are very different. The way to get what you want from a digital capture is
- Learn proper exposure techniques suited to the digital sensor.
- Learn how to render the capture with image processing software.
To render a monochrome image from an RGB digital capture, there are many different approaches ... most of which boil down to something effectively very similar: Do a shaped desaturation of the color image in such a way as to mimic the spectral signature of your favorite monochrome recording film, expose properly to get the dynamic range and contrast you want, etc. Whether you use an automated package like Silver FX Pro, or work in more manual tools like Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom, it all comes down to the same thing when it comes to how you are manipulating the numbers that constitute your image.
I use Lightroom Classic with no add-ons. I've rendered thousands of different digital captures into a wide variety of monochrome photographs with many different styles ... some achievable with film, some reminiscent of particular films, others not. Since I don't know what specific characteristics of the same you provided is the effect you are trying to achieve, I can't really say what out of my on-line catalog of 2000+ photographs is a good example that achieves what you want. But I like this one:
Chains - San Jose 2018
Leica CL + Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8 v1
Good luck!
G
mapgraphs
Established
When I printed for a regional studio back in the early 70s, all weddings were 120, portraits on sheet (four shots per 4x5) and 35mm was relegated to high school yearbook work (sports, dances etc). Photography shows, that I recall going to at the time, were heavily weighted towards medium and large format.
Sonnar Brian
Established
Most of the Photographs in Life Magazine were taken with 35mm film, going back a very long time.
Pick up a copy of "The Great Life Photographers". The beginning of each section starts with a portrait of the Photographer holding their preferred camera. Contax, Leica, Nikon F, Nikon SP, and others are well represented. TLR and Large format are also present. But most- used 35mm.
Pick up a copy of "The Great Life Photographers". The beginning of each section starts with a portrait of the Photographer holding their preferred camera. Contax, Leica, Nikon F, Nikon SP, and others are well represented. TLR and Large format are also present. But most- used 35mm.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
(nice photo I had questions about is gone)
Kostya, you're absolutely right—Bown did indeed go from shooting 120 to Pentax (briefly) before settling on 35mm Olympus SLRs, however I'm not entirely sure it was of her own volition, or due to personal dissatisfaction with the 2 1/4" format. After switching to 35mm, she famously rarely ever used more than 1 1/2–2 rolls of 135 per assignment, anyway. And there was a moment for her during her studies under Ifor Thomas when seeing the subject through a TLR finder was absolutely pivotal, that helped hook her into photography. Luke Dodd, who worked with her closely during the latter part of her career wrote in her obituary in The Guardian that:
"With some reluctance, she abandoned her beloved Rolliflex [sic] in the early 60s, first migrating to a 35mm Pentax before settling on the OIympus OM1..."
Not that the above should be construed against the point that 35mm was well established as a professional medium long before the 1960s. But Bown adored her Rolleiflex—in her own words, she thought it was "...a wonderful camera...". I think she might have stayed with it for longer, given the choice.
leicapixie
Well-known
I am bone lazy! Digital is easier than film. Immediate result. Adjust as you go along. I use old very small Digital cameras. They all posses CCD sensors, so BW is perfect. I bought a Kodak Easy Share (for the case) $5.My best BW from a Minolta G-600. Film is not better simply different. It is not difficult. The advantages are enormous. Never forget a modern phone-camera.. 
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I was reading about her and have her book where she explains how portraits were taken. To me it is clear what keeping Roliiflex was nothing, but sentimental. Since, comparing to Americans with press cameras, she was at photography school with TLR. But once 135 format SLR came on the market this is what was made for her. If you read her book it describes how she was photographing. Quick framing and focusing under different angles. While walking around of seater and waiting for opening. We all know Rolliflex can't do it. Plus, she was comfy with 85mm fast lens. Which is none with Rolliflex. You have to haul heavy Mamiya with its heavy tele lenses for it. And it was most awkward framing system I ever used on close up portraits. And so is Rolleiflex it sucks on closeups even more.
This is hers with 135 triumphing over TLRs:
https://www.fubiz.net/wp-content/upl...n0-900x635.jpg
https://www.fubiz.net/wp-content/upl.../janebown5.jpg
https://www.fubiz.net/en/2015/11/02/...her-jane-bown/
retinax
Well-known
Very much this. If you can be more specific, you may get something more concrete than the old film vs. digital tropes.
What I notice in the photo is interesting contrast that comes from the subject itself: these metal thingies have (blocked, the horror!) shadows painted on, and are shiny. The contrast of the actual shadows in the scene is low due to diffuse lighting. This makes the metal thingies pop very much, while you probably don't feel like you cranked the contest up a crazy amount. So nothing related to he media.
Capt. E
Established
I do agree that many of the greatest photographers used 35mm from the time it emerged with the first Leica. Indeed, that photo of Georgia O'Keefe was made with a Contax II (Ansel Adams did use 35mm). But in general, prior to the 1950's, 35mm was not used for commercial... so called "professional" purposes. Even most press photographers used 120 and 4x5.
markjwyatt
Well-known
Some anecdotes re 35mm, LF, etc.:
In the 30s-50s, Exaktas and Contaxes were not affordable to amateurs, but they all got bought. Unlike the Japanese wave starting with the Nikon F, these were not made in the millions, but maybe 10s of thousands per year, and mainly used by professionals.
My dad attended Clarence A Bach's vocational photography program from 1946-1949. From what my dad told me students were required to have a Speed Graphic outfit. I have some pictures that showed that ( and this was of the girls in the program, and there were quite a lot of them). The more famous graduates went to work for Life magazine (e.g. "Bob Landry, John Florea, Mark Kauffman, George Strock, Hank Walker, John Dominis, Peter Stackpole, Harold Trudeau, John Wilkes"), and ironically many probably used 35mm professionally!
For photojournalism, if you have 4x5 negative you can get back to the office, have it developed and contact printed in less than 2 hours and in the editor's hand. A 35mm contact print works, but a 4x5 gives the scale of the size that will be used in print.
For high end commercial work, use the largest format that is practical. The ratio of largest visible grain artifact to smallest detail in the subject gets better (for any given film type) with larger negatives. Of course with a super-fine grain 35mm film (e.g., Techpan, PanX, etc.), the right developer, a very sharp lens, etc. you can achieve good results, but why struggle for it?
In the 30s-50s, Exaktas and Contaxes were not affordable to amateurs, but they all got bought. Unlike the Japanese wave starting with the Nikon F, these were not made in the millions, but maybe 10s of thousands per year, and mainly used by professionals.
My dad attended Clarence A Bach's vocational photography program from 1946-1949. From what my dad told me students were required to have a Speed Graphic outfit. I have some pictures that showed that ( and this was of the girls in the program, and there were quite a lot of them). The more famous graduates went to work for Life magazine (e.g. "Bob Landry, John Florea, Mark Kauffman, George Strock, Hank Walker, John Dominis, Peter Stackpole, Harold Trudeau, John Wilkes"), and ironically many probably used 35mm professionally!
For photojournalism, if you have 4x5 negative you can get back to the office, have it developed and contact printed in less than 2 hours and in the editor's hand. A 35mm contact print works, but a 4x5 gives the scale of the size that will be used in print.
For high end commercial work, use the largest format that is practical. The ratio of largest visible grain artifact to smallest detail in the subject gets better (for any given film type) with larger negatives. Of course with a super-fine grain 35mm film (e.g., Techpan, PanX, etc.), the right developer, a very sharp lens, etc. you can achieve good results, but why struggle for it?
Similar threads
