willie_901
Veteran
Here's another vote for this conclusion.
I don't understand how a film-digital hybrid workflow has any benefit except that it enables one to use the camera(s) and. or a process they enjoy using. Enjoyment is important.
The inherent problem with digital imaging is present whether the digitization occurs in the original media or a scan of analog media . And non-analog printing is not exempt either.
Converting continuous information to discontinuous information requires a mathematical model. The models happen to be very good. At the same time the models are inherently flawed. The information on the analog side can not map perfectly onto the model.
In practice the flaws in digitization do not necessarily impede the creative intent of the photographer. However this assumes the entire process is optimized from beginning to end. The optimization requires understanding and and attention to detail. While the issues are quite different from those required for excellence in a pure analog process, both processes are demanding to achieve the very best result.
Jan Pedersen
Well-known
Starting around 1k for a decent used camera but then comes the lenses and a large tripod, film holders and film and all the other stuff.
A quality sheet of 8x10 film will set you back at least 7$ today.
mdarnton
Well-known
If that's a serious question, I decided what I wanted and lurked Ebay several times a day, eventually landing an Agfa-Ansco 8x10 for $120, then a lens for $200. Film holders can be had for $25 each. I already had a tripod that worked for it. I bought some developing hangers in a batch for about $50, and a set of tanks for $150. So I was in for about the cost of a new Voigtlander lens for my Leicas. As I mentioned, I'm shooting xray film--$40 per 100 sheets.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Good topic, Bill.
I *very much* want an affordable 8x10 camera that has decent quality.
I don't even need the fancy tilt, shift, yaw, roll, skate, dance, hip-hop... capabilities.
Just give me a basic view camera that takes 8x10 film holder.
Does anyone know why with today's manufacturing technology, we still have to pay thousands of dollars for an decent 8x10 camera?
I *very much* want an affordable 8x10 camera that has decent quality.
I don't even need the fancy tilt, shift, yaw, roll, skate, dance, hip-hop... capabilities.
Just give me a basic view camera that takes 8x10 film holder.
Does anyone know why with today's manufacturing technology, we still have to pay thousands of dollars for an decent 8x10 camera?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I did that, and I ended up with a grey B&J with red bellows. Very pretty and a good showpiece at home. But it's too heavy and bulky for me to bring on trips where there could be scenes worth shooting. Not a problem really if I'm traveling by myself, but with family in tow, it gets complicated
aizan
Veteran
yeah, i've noticed the same thing. a few years ago, before the x100, e-m1, etc. came out, people on this forum were talking like film die hards, but they are now much more catholic in their attitudes. 35mm film is not quite as worth the "extra trouble for the image quality you get," while medium format breaks even, and large format is still a good deal compared to medium format digital. nevertheless, i still shoot 35mm because nobody has made the 1" sensor camera that i want, and imo it doesn't have satisfying dynamic range and exposure latitude yet.
Ilford Titan 8x10
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I still use large format, but I now use only in the studio and almost only for my own fun. I also like digital. In fact I think I enjoy all the techniques I know. Yeah, I have been a film, LF, RF, whatever you want to mention extremist, but one eventually moves on and just takes pictures: "Some (of the pictures) are bad some are good some are just the best I could...", it is never the fault of the camera.
GLF
GLF
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
The pinhole camera?
With apology to those who love pinholes, I personally prefer the ability to focus when I take pictures
aoresteen
Well-known
I use both digital and film. I do not shoot 35mm color anymore. I cleaned out my freezer 3 months ago and sent all my 35mm color film to my brother who still shoots 35mm color, mostly C-41. I only shoot B&W film in my 35mm RF & SLR cameras.
In place of 35mm color I use digital, most a Four Thirds DSLR & a small Lumix 7mp that does a great job for web photos.
10 years ago I got rid of my LF camera, a 5x7 view. I still use a Cambo 23SF 6x9 view for B&W and color. I use mostly 120/220 film with it but I do use some 2.25" x 3.25" sheet film in it. To do so I had to have SK Grimes adapt a Crown Graphic SFB to it as the Cambo only took roll film holders.
My main focus is MF - 645, 6x6, & 6x9. I even have a Pentax 6x7 being overhauled right now and I have the 45mm and the 135mm macro lenses for it. My 35mm RF & SLRs do get a good bit of B&W film run through them.
I considered a digital back for my Hasselblad but passed. Too expensive for a crop sensor. When they make a full frame 6x6 back I might get one so for now it's develop and scan the 120/220 color film. Wide angle lenses are still wide angle.
Digital is quick & cheap & good for 4x6 or 8x10 prints. B&W film is more rewarding to me so I use them both.
In place of 35mm color I use digital, most a Four Thirds DSLR & a small Lumix 7mp that does a great job for web photos.
10 years ago I got rid of my LF camera, a 5x7 view. I still use a Cambo 23SF 6x9 view for B&W and color. I use mostly 120/220 film with it but I do use some 2.25" x 3.25" sheet film in it. To do so I had to have SK Grimes adapt a Crown Graphic SFB to it as the Cambo only took roll film holders.
My main focus is MF - 645, 6x6, & 6x9. I even have a Pentax 6x7 being overhauled right now and I have the 45mm and the 135mm macro lenses for it. My 35mm RF & SLRs do get a good bit of B&W film run through them.
I considered a digital back for my Hasselblad but passed. Too expensive for a crop sensor. When they make a full frame 6x6 back I might get one so for now it's develop and scan the 120/220 color film. Wide angle lenses are still wide angle.
Digital is quick & cheap & good for 4x6 or 8x10 prints. B&W film is more rewarding to me so I use them both.
NY_Dan
Well-known
I agree with the OP, BP. I think it all depends upon what you're shooting and even more on the mood you're in. I've spent the last 5 years shooting, processing scanning close to 2,000 rolls of film. I'm feeling a bit spent. I plan on shooting digital for a while. I do love sheet film - but it doesn't suit what I'm shooting. However, sheet film and a flat bed scanner is a very workable combo.
JChrome
Street Worker
Big Film
Well, considering the size, they typically need to be overbuilt especially if you want precision. But I think more than that, the folks willing to spend an hour (plus or minus) on one image are also willing to spend a pretty penny to make sure the equipment they are using doesn't waste their time.
www.stillthrill.com
Well, considering the size, they typically need to be overbuilt especially if you want precision. But I think more than that, the folks willing to spend an hour (plus or minus) on one image are also willing to spend a pretty penny to make sure the equipment they are using doesn't waste their time.
www.stillthrill.com
Emile de Leon
Well-known
8x10 is a good size..small trays for contacts..nice viewing size..
Get a nice Pinkham/Smith or fast Dallmeyer or other SF..for the front end..and you are in business..
Get a nice Pinkham/Smith or fast Dallmeyer or other SF..for the front end..and you are in business..
mfogiel
Veteran
It is still going to be several years before any commercially available digital camera can outresolve sharp film shot with a sharp lens on LF - Ralf Sanger has been making these tests with Adox CHS20.
The point is another one: the rendering. You simply get a very different look on your pictures.
Personally, I prefer the middle way, with high quality MF film cameras, where I get sufficient resolution for my enlarging needs, and great rendering of film and lenses.
The point is another one: the rendering. You simply get a very different look on your pictures.
Personally, I prefer the middle way, with high quality MF film cameras, where I get sufficient resolution for my enlarging needs, and great rendering of film and lenses.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I think you're wrong on this point. For architectural photography, hybrid workflows (like film-digital-digital RC prints) have huge advantages. You can
- take a 6x9 negative shot with a good lens,
- scan it up to 100+ MP,
- correct the perspective in ways that you simply can't in a darkroom (due to edge degradation and diffraction),
- manipulate tone curves outside the constraints of contrast grade and development adjustments,
- throw away most of the resulting data by down-sampling,
and still have a superior result to tilt-shift cameras or pure digital workflows. You also get way more range with TMY than with pretty much any digital camera. These advantages may diminish as mainstream digital cameras start to top 50mp or the dynamic range starts exceeding a real-world 11 stops, but right now that's not the case. I would agree that the 35mm hybrid workflow is getting to be a little challenged in light of the high iso performance of small-format digital (and things like the Leica M 246).
Your point about mathematical modeling may or may not be true at a theoretical level, but variable-contrast papers tend to cut down the number of discrete tones as the grade rises above zero (as I recall, it's almost like the old posterization function on Photoshop - 32 values discrete values are what is generally necessary to look like continuous tone). So no matter how "continuous" your negative, arguably it's still getting mathematically crushed at the end.
Dante
aoresteen
Well-known
I agree! Precisely why I use my Cambo 23SF 6x9 view camera and film.
Capt. E
Established
My favorite 4x5 has been an old metal bodied Toyo Field with Fuji 125W and a 250W lenses. I have had the camera blown over by a big gust while photographing in Big Bend with no damage. A wooden bodied camera would not have survived. There is a whole kit for sale on Ebay right now...just search Toyo field. Cameras alone sell for less than $300. The older models (gray metal) take Graphic lens boards.
Nokton48
Veteran
goamules
Well-known
I love large format, and shoot 16x18 (wetplate), 8x10, Wholeplate, 5x7, and occasionally 4x5. After shooting 35mm in the Navy, I slowly adapted digitals for family shots. In the late 90s we no longer shot film. I got back into film in a reverse historically chronological order. I started shooting wetplate, and learned about the cameras and holders. Then I started shooting paper negatives in them, then film. Finally after shooting only LF for several years, I went back to 35mm cameras, rangefinders only.
I really like shooting LF because it's so different than a handheld, no movements camera. Once you contact print a 8x10 black and white negative , or hold up a 5x7 sheet of color Velvia, you'll wonder why people ever wanted to shoot a postage stamp negative. But each has it's advantages.
Here is one of my cameras, and a color transparency shot with it. Kodak 5x7 2D, with Golden Dagor.
I really like shooting LF because it's so different than a handheld, no movements camera. Once you contact print a 8x10 black and white negative , or hold up a 5x7 sheet of color Velvia, you'll wonder why people ever wanted to shoot a postage stamp negative. But each has it's advantages.
Here is one of my cameras, and a color transparency shot with it. Kodak 5x7 2D, with Golden Dagor.
Spanik
Well-known
Don't know. It attracts me like a light does moths but then I look at the size of those things and the issues I have lugging medium format around.