Can you help me rationalize buying a film RF?

[goo0h]

I'm pretty new to developing my own b/w film and it's going pretty well. I like the control of it. Just doing it in my bathroom. Currently I'm borrowing an Epson 2450 from some friends for scanning and use VueScan with it. For web stuff it's fine. Not terribly fast, but I can multitask. If I want a print of something, if it's a cheesy snapshot I might just print if via flickr/Target. If it's good enough to warrant the work, I'm learning to do prints in friends' darkroom.

What some folks do is use the C41 b/w film, either from Kodak or Ilford. In fact the local Walgreens generally carries the C41 Kodak b/w film. It's pretty nice, but I tend to like something faster and so use silver-based b/w film that I can push. Still, the C41 route is convenient and I even have a couple rolls of that stuff myself.

A while back I saw on here that some had luck with requesting only the photo CD from Walgreens and no prints. Then when looking at stuff later you can have them print what you want. I haven't tried that myself yet.

Somewhat related to this topic, a friend just forwarded me these links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/t...d1&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hd-back.shtml#Note

 

[40oz]

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.)

A better question might be "does it make sense to buy a digital camera?" Given the stability and maturity of film and the film market, I can't see any reason beyond pure convenience that a person would buy a digital camera. You're going to sacrifice quality and spend a lot more money vs. film.

I scan all the time, and it is no more time-consuming than processing a memory card full of digital pics. The fact that it is mainly an unattended process is an advantage, as is the fact that I have the negatives for actual printing, and can use the scans purely for cataloging and sharing over the internet. Best of both worlds, if you ask me.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

A better question might be "does it make sense to buy a digital camera?" Given the stability and maturity of film and the film market, I can't see any reason beyond pure convenience that a person would buy a digital camera. You're going to sacrifice qulity and spend a lot more money vs. film.

I scan all the time, and it is not more time-consuming than processing a memory card full of digital pics. The fact that it is mainly an unattended process is an advantage, as is the fact that I have the negatives for actual printing, and can use the scans purely for cataloging and sharing over the internet. Best of both wolrds, if you ask me.

I would say that if you are going to scan and print with a home printer your film than you can get higher quality from a digital camera or a digital back. Also a digital camera has the advantage of allowing you to have a look to your shots while you are working (sure there are Polaroids but these are also not so cheap and require a separate back).

If you print the film traditionally or produce slides, then I believe digital is just a complete waste of money. Not only the quality you can get from a very cheap camera (you can have now a top level film camera for less than 200 US$ and a view camera for maybe 500 US$) is better than any digital except, perhaps, the very best pro cameras or backs (which are of course much more expensive, Mamiya makes the cheapest which goes, I believe, for about 10,000 US$, ouch!), but there are things, like a beautiful projection of slides, which at the moment no digital camera can do quite as well as film. Also consider that a B/W print on barit paper can last a century or more, a platinum palladium print maybe 500 years and most sublimation prints obtained from a home printer get quite bad in just two decades...

The fact that in 5 years a digital camera will be obsolete is not really correct, in my opinion. In 5 years a digital camera will be obsolete only because probably there will be other cameras with much better specifications but if your pictures are great now at 8Mpx they will still be great in 5 years at 8Mpx even if by then you will be able to buy a camera with - say - 50Mpx!
Of course, there is the suspect that they might become obsolete because of lack of support for old standards and old computer programs, but if this is your suspect, then you should definitively stick to film!

You know what you like, you know what you need, you know what you can afford...
Is that rational enough?

Life is short, if I like something and can afford it I just go for it!

GLF

 

[tedwhite]

gs363:

I went back to your original desire, namely to photograph with an RF camera using a 75 or 90 lens in, apparently, low light. The only situation that comes to mind is that you want to do clandestine "portraits" in bars, or some similar location. Unfortunately, most 75/90 RF lenses are not as fast as you might want them to be.

If I wanted to do shoot people in low light on the cheap I'd buy a Pentax Spotmatic SLR body (one of the best, most durable cameras ever made) and a Super Takumar 50/1.4, get close to the subject, and use Fuji Neopan 1600 black and white film.

Outside of a bar, fit a Super Takumar 135/2.5 or 105/2.8 to the Spotmatic and you'll be in the right ballpark for 35mm film portraiture, and at a very cheap price.

If you really want to do high quality film portraits and not spend a fortune on equipment get an old Rolleiflex or a Yashica 124G or a Kowa 6 - all medium format - and MF negs will scan quite well in most flatbed scanners.

And, learning to develop your film at home will save a bundle.

In my opinion 35mm RF cameras excel in street shooting and almost every other type of photography, but I wouldn't say portraiture is their strong suit, but then again I am well aware of the many different sorts of 'portraiture.'

But for me, the term suggests something planned, as in a studio perhaps, or some other location deemed appropriate, where you and your subject will work together.

As for why you might want to use film? My answer would be that the quality is superb, and if you do it all yourself (developing, enlarging, scanning) it's great fun and immensely satisfying.

I use a DSLR for commercial work, of course. There's not much choice anymore.
For everything else I use film.

 

[edlake]

Go for it!

Go for it!

Does it make sense to buy a film RF (say a Bessa R3A or a MF one) in the digital age?

Probably not, but who cares. Buy what you want, as long as there are no adverse effects on the family. Just be sure to handle it first (if possible), because that can make all the difference in the world. It's the reason I use Nikon rather than Canon SLR's. My most recent buy was a Leica M6, but it doesn't replace my Nikon SP because they are very different beasts.
Best of luck what ever you do.
P.S. Don't listen to most of the posters regarding whether or not rangefinders are good for portraits. They are, but YMMV as always.

 

[thefsb]

I bought 3 RF bodies last year. Maybe I need help?

i can't imagine what kind of help you think you need. a caddy? help to shoot them? help to restore or maintain them?

i bought 7 so far this year. most were under $25 and needed some renovation. the canonet needed new beam-spliter glass.

 

[Stanton]

Makes no sense at all. The flexibility of any SLR, flim or digital, beats the rangefinder all to heck. Most of the old Minolta manual focus are as small and no heavier. A zoom lens is far more convenient. The digital lets you know where you are immediately.

But I just like them , from FSUs to Retinas to Bessas and a lot more in between.

Dave

 

[tedwhite]

Dave:

Maybe the Olympus OM-1 and OM-2 are even smaller? I put my Pentax Spotmatic body next to my Bessa R body and, really, there's not much difference in size except for the pentaprism pyramid. I believe the major advantages of an RF camera are three: It's generally quieter than an SLR - no mirror slap; secondly, if you have tired eyes and find it difficult to focus an SLR accurately, it is easier to line up the two images; and an RF camera is generally more pocketable

Having said that, there are so many obvious things you can do with an SLR that you can't do with an RF camera. Macro and Micro photography, for example. Zoom lenses (I guess Leica has one, but its cost and the cost of a Leica body are out of my range). Depth of field preview with stop-down metering, etc.

 

[jarski]

For me, I think Leica RFs are really quiet and are less obstrusive than even smaller DSLRs.

I read this often but cannot agree with it.. weddings etc perhaps yes, but at street there usually is backround noise enough to numb SLR mirror slap..