Can you help me rationalize buying a film RF?

rbiemer said:
Raid,
I disagree a little with that; I may well be fooling my self but depending on how one defines one's needs and desires about photography I think it's plenty logical to choose a film RF camera.
In my own case it went like this:
I needed a hobby. I had been a photographer in high school and liked it. I didn't have a lot of $ to spend. That led me to FSU medium format. I wanted to get back to 35mm shooting and the good experience I had/have with my Arax 60 led me to FSU 35mm RF cameras. I've wandered a bit from the FSU gear but I still like their price/feature ratio.
Of course, this all may just be my own rationalization!:)
Rob
Click to expand...

Rob,

I understand what you are saying. It also depends on how you define rational or logical. If cost is the main concern,and if B&W developing is not for you, then going basic digital saves you money. In such a hypothetical situation, it may be logical to get a basic digital P&S camera.

I don't "feel" much when I use a basic digital P&S camera, but it comes in handy at times.

Raid
 
Last edited:
raid said:
Rob,
I understand what you are saying. It also depends on how you define rational or logical. If cost is the main concern,and ig B&W developing is not for you, then going basic digital saves you money. In such a hypothetical situation, it may be logical to get a basic digital P&S camera.
I don't "feel" much when I use a basic digital P&S camera, but it comes in handy at times.
Raid
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah! And I will also add that, for me certainly, the emotional reasons I use the gear that I do are at least as compelling as any "rational" reasons are. And as important to me as well.
Rob
 
gs363 said:
I'd use the RF with a 75mm or 90mm mostly for low-light portraiture.
Click to expand...

I think a good slr or even MF would be a better choice for this type of work. I'm not to knoledged on EBL (effected base length) on RF cameras, but I have read that the bessa rf's have a short ebl and when you start using longer lenses you can get into trouble. I believe the 75mm would be fine, my R has framelines for 75, but I have read that anything over that is not so good. Maybe someone with alot more knowledge than myself can explane it to you. Then again a 90mm may work fine.
 
Can you help me rationalize buying a film RF?
•) the inability to check exposure right after it's taken (yes, sometimes a positive)
•) exposure latitude
•) exposure latitude
•) did i mention exp... oh, i did
•) ehh,.. this one , not much to loose at least, in case you find out you hate the film process...

i cannot agree with you though that a 28 is too wide for anything, portraits or else..
 
I think we get hung up on the supposed differences between film and
digital too much. Once the film is processed and scanned, all further digital interventions are the same. That's why there are pro photographers who
are adamant RF film shooters who also use digital manipulation heavily to
"finalize" their photos. See Meyers' essays on LL about this. Fuji is now making film that is designed to be scanned rather than printed. I like to have
a film backup for the M8. I'm travellling soon and will use the crop factor
to my advntage to take the smallest possible kit. M8 and M6 with
25/4 Skopar and 50 lux asph. Think about the latitude these two lenses
give me. The Skopar on the M6 is a true wide angle, the lux on the M8
becomes a short telephoto with lowlight capability.
 
gs363 said:
Does it make sense to buy a film RF (say a Bessa R3A or a MF one) in the digital age? I'd want to use a scanner and work with Photoshop. Is scanning a pain? I'd use the RF with a 75mm or 90mm mostly for low-light portraiture.

I'd get a DSLR if they weren't so ugly. (I use a Ricoh GRD, which I like, but its 28mm lens far too wide for portraits.)
Click to expand...
nope, no rational thought process involved.

I would use an slr or a MF camera with a 90-150 ish lens [depending on 35 or MF] for low light portraits on the other hand, wide angles are fun, as for film/digital are you in some sort of hurry? if not sick with film, agin more fun. Now if you like shooting film like a machine gun go digital it will be cheaper:eek:
 
There is no right or wrong to necessitate a rationalization to buy any object of desire. If you can afford to pay for it and you are in now way harming anyone or depriving anyone of sustenance then you should purchase the object. Rationalization implies some moral value to the deed. The purchase of a legal object does not have moral implications. Any deed can be rationalized. Too often individuals need rationalization to spend money on objects that they deem not necessary to their existence. Unless you are a professional photographer you do not need a camera. You want one. That is enough rationalization. An old timer once told that you never regret the purchases you make. You will only regret the ones you did not.
 
The moment you peer at your SLR ground glass, or at your digi rangefinder lcd, you're not looking at life...you're lookin' at your lens' version of life. And you'll fashion your shooting to please your lens, while true life passes by.
Aw CRAP who put the GHB in my drink again? :)
 
SteveM(PA) said:
The moment you peer at your SLR ground glass, or at your digi rangefinder lcd, you're not looking at life...you're lookin' at your lens' version of life.
Click to expand...
While when you look at the viewfinder lenses' and smi-silvered mirror's version of life, everything is so much more real and immediate! Yay, man, here's to optics! :p

Philipp
 
Any tool is valid. Get whatever fits your brain the best. Don't worry about what makes sense or not.

If you're curious about the R3A, the investment is fairly minimal. It's a relatively inexpensive yet competent camera. There are a lot of examples of the 75/F2.5 lens on here that might be of interest. I have that one, the 40/F1.4, and the 50/F2, but so far haven't gotten around to using the 75 much yet. After looking again at these threads, I've got to start pulling out that lens more often.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10346

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29022

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25895
 
Appreciative, tempted, undecided

Appreciative, tempted, undecided

Thanks everybody for your helpful responses. The only obstacle between me and a new Bessa is digitizing the negatives so that I could process them in PS and print them on my printer. For years, I settled for standard prints of my film negs, or simply stored contact sheets without printing enlargements. Custom printing was expensive and there was no time to go to a darkroom. A DSLR would resolve these problems, but it wouldn't be a rangefinder (forget the M8; I can't adfford it.) So what do you do with your negs? Scan, take them to the drugstore, develop/print on your own?
 
From lurking here I think posters cover the whole gamut, from those who process their own film and make traditional prints in the darkroom, to those who have the film processed and scanned, or scan it themselves.

I used to use film SLRs, had the film processed, then scanned the film myself. If I got a good exposure and good processing, the scanning wasn't so bad. But often I had trouble with scratches and dust. I got so sick of it that I got a digital SLR.

I got some nice results from my digital SLR, but it isn't as fun to work with as my film SLR was. I'm thinking of getting a rangefinder too, but I need to find a place that will do a good job of processing my film. I also might need to get a scanner with Digital ICE.
 
My best portraits were done with a rangefinder with a 50 mm lens in low light situations. I think it is because the smaller camera and the quiet shutter is less threatening and allows the subject or subjects to relax and lose their camera consciousness. Film or digital? I think that question has been answered. Film can be processed and scanned for very little cost making it possible to enhance the final product just like any other digital image. I found I could get away with shots at a 30th of a second and a few times got respectable shots at a 15th of a second, handheld. You can't do that with an SLR. I think GS363 is on the right track.
 
Sorry if I haven't read all 36 of the preceding post, so if this was covered, well, it's being covered again. Your digital camera will be an absolute dinosaur in 5 years, while your film camera will still give you state of the art
 
Whoops, hit a wrong button. My typing sucks. To continue... Your film camera will give you state of the art quality for the next half century, assuming you can still buy film. I'm not the only one in this forum using cameras that my father used when he was a young man.
 
What I do for this is a combination. I don't currently process my own film and I don't own a scanner. I do, however get scans done at time of processing(from a local Walgreen's: decent processing and they haven't scratched my negs, yet) and treat those scans as my "contact sheet"--they are good enough for me to decide if I want bigger prints and I also use those scans for web posting. I have a small slide viewr that will take strips of film and I use that to check the negs and if I need a better digital file, I am lucky to have a friend who will scan a few frames at a time for me in exchange for a beer or two. For bigger/better prints, I send the negs out.
Something of a hybrid approach but it works for me.
Rob
gs363 said:
Thanks everybody for your helpful responses. The only obstacle between me and a new Bessa is digitizing the negatives so that I could process them in PS and print them on my printer. For years, I settled for standard prints of my film negs, or simply stored contact sheets without printing enlargements. Custom printing was expensive and there was no time to go to a darkroom. A DSLR would resolve these problems, but it wouldn't be a rangefinder (forget the M8; I can't adfford it.) So what do you do with your negs? Scan, take them to the drugstore, develop/print on your own?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom