digital Detox

[Rayt]

There was a time when taking a shot like this required pointing the camera up resulting in converging lines. With large format I would need to set it up first by finding the optimal spot for the tripod, then focus, level, apply movements, move the camera around, focus, repeat repeat and repeat. Meanwhile a small crowd has gathered and the light fading, clouds shifted, that glow on the ship gone. With digital I did all that and made the shot in 5 minutes with built in perspective correction so I didn’t need to estimate for the post processing perspective crop. The original file is in color but I didn’t do anything just desaturated for this preview. I intend to do a proper conversion with color sliders or use a paid 3rd party preset. A little dodge and burn to the foreground to bring out the metal tracks converging on the arch. I don’t think I could have caught the light in time with LF that day. And this was Pier 43 just a skip from Pier 39 the busiest tourist destination in San Francisco.

 

[wlewisiii]

There was a time when taking a shot like this required pointing the camera up resulting in converging lines. With large format I would need to set it up first by finding the optimal spot for the tripod, then focus, level, apply movements, move the camera around, focus, repeat repeat and repeat. Meanwhile a small crowd has gathered and the light fading, clouds shifted, that glow on the ship gone. With digital I did all that and made the shot in 5 minutes with built in perspective correction so I didn’t need to estimate for the post processing perspective crop. The original file is in color but I didn’t do anything just desaturated for this preview. I intend to do a proper conversion with color sliders or use a paid 3rd party preset. A little dodge and burn to the foreground to bring out the metal tracks converging on the arch. I don’t think I could have caught the light in time with LF that day. And this was Pier 42, just a skip from Pier 39 the busiest tourist destination in San Francisco.



View attachment 4863738

Absolutely marvelous! I believe that's the SS Jeremiah O'Brien? No matter, it should be a huge print on a wall somewhere 👍

 

[Rayt]

Absolutely marvelous! I believe that's the SS Jeremiah O'Brien? No matter, it should be a huge print on a wall somewhere 👍

I used to do road trips to the Southwest with 4x5 or 5x7 depending on what I was looking for. The process was half the fun. Being able to look at a huge 5x7 or 8x10 image on the ground glass and then the negatives on the light table was fantastic. That is provided I did everything right. Did I meter correctly, mix the developer correctly, temperature? Fantastic and nerve racking especially with the insane film prices. I won’t give it up but will bring digital with me and perhaps reserve something really special to be shot on film. Thank you for your encouragement.

 

[wlewisiii]

I used to do road trips to the Southwest with 4x5 or 5x7 depending on what I was looking for. The process was half the fun. Being able to look at a huge 5x7 or 8x10 image on the ground glass and then the negatives on the light table was fantastic. That is provided I did everything right. Did I meter correctly, mix the developer correctly, temperature? Fantastic and nerve racking especially with the insane film prices. I won’t give it up but will bring digital with me and perhaps reserve something really special to be shot on film. Thank you for your encouragement.

I've done 4x5 & 5x7 and LF has it's attractions but I'm not up to it much these days 😉

I enjoy my Nikon RF & my Rollei though but I do most of my landscapes with my Pentax K3 & my Leica M 240.

Speaking of insane prices, if you haven't seen it, this is a great video on a young LF shooter. 8x10 Portra in LA. A Deardorff and a 240/5.6 Nikkor 😉 $50 an exposure... 😱

I think she's _really_ good but that's the style I like.

 

[Rayt]

Shooting color in any format is insane these days. Even 120 roll film is priced sky high. If I was a paid color photographer I would go in for a Phase One back, three Apo lenses and be done with it.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Shooting color in any format is insane these days. Even 120 roll film is priced sky high. If I was a paid color photographer I would go in for a Phase One back, three Apo lenses and be done with it.

I was looking at color film at B&H the other day (I shoot mostly B&W so haven’t checked in a while) and it looks like 35mm color film is available in three-roll packs (36 exposure) rolls for around $24 to $28. This for Fuji and Kodak consumer films in 200 and 400. Not what I’d call cheap and not necessarily what a pro would want to use, but I’m glad it remains available and relatively affordable for those who just want to shoot a roll of color film through their old film cameras once in a while.

 

[wlewisiii]

I was looking at color film at B&H the other day (I shoot mostly B&W so haven’t checked in a while) and it looks like 35mm color film is available in three-roll packs (36 exposure) rolls for around $24 to $28. This for Fuji and Kodak consumer films in 200 and 400. Not what I’d call cheap and not necessarily what a pro would want to use, but I’m glad it remains available and relatively affordable for those who just want to shoot a roll of color film through their old film cameras once in a while.

I do mostly C41 because I can get it developed and scanned for about $10. XP2 isn't too bad price wise so that's mostly what I do for lack of a scanning solution.

 

[Rayt]

I was looking at color film at B&H the other day (I shoot mostly B&W so haven’t checked in a while) and it looks like 35mm color film is available in three-roll packs (36 exposure) rolls for around $24 to $28. This for Fuji and Kodak consumer films in 200 and 400. Not what I’d call cheap and not necessarily what a pro would want to use, but I’m glad it remains available and relatively affordable for those who just want to shoot a roll of color film through their old film cameras once in a while.

I bought 3 rolls a few days ago: Ektar 100, and Portra 160 and 400 for $45 total. I read the Kodak made Fuji 200 and 400 are good so I’ll try those next. I can’t process C41 at home but still have the Nikon 5000 scanner so that’s fine.

 

[Coldkennels]

Fuji FP3000b pull apart film for 4x5 film pack holders. There’s a color version FP100c. Both discontinued 2013 or so.

FP3000b was such a special film. The only "instant" photograph I took that I ever deemed worth framing was shot on that stuff.



Instax is surprisingly good if used in a decent camera or "printer" (the fixed- or zone-focus plastic Instax cameras really don't do it justice), but it still doesn't come close to what FP3000b could do.

 

[Godfrey]

the FuijiFilm Instax Wide Evo is the perfect new digital-analog dream camera. hard to imagine how it could be any better. my romance with the various new and improved Polaroid SX-70 cameras is over. Fuji Evo is the clear winner and it's not even close. a SX-70 camera is so much retro fun to use but as a reliable picture taking machine in 2025, it totally stinks in comparison. sad but true.

I dunno. I've got four SX-70 + derivatives (original SX-70, SLR670m, SLR670a, SLR670x), Instax Wide and Instax SQ cameras to work with. For InstaxSQ, that includes a MiNT TL70+, Lomo Instant Square folder, NONS Hasseblad back, and a modern Magny 35 back that I fit to my Leica M4-2. The Instax Wide camera is a MiNT RF70. I get more keepers with the Polaroid SX-70+derivatives than with any of the others.

I guess it depends on what your expectations are and what kind of results you are looking for.

Olive Tree Orchard - Santa Clara 2025
Polaroid SLR670x by MiNT + 600 B&W​

This pleases me. 🙂 But it must be said: I don't shoot with instant film for 'digital detox' ... I shoot with instant film because I like its rather different way of recording an image compared to standard process film and digital capture. They're all good, they all see the world differently.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Shooting color in any format is insane these days. Even 120 roll film is priced sky high. If I was a paid color photographer I would go in for a Phase One back, three Apo lenses and be done with it.

I haven't used color film, other than instant film formats, for something like 25 years. Digital capture does color so much more easily, inexpensively, and is so much more manipulable to my final results ... I just could not bother with film-based color since I got my first decent digital camera.

G

 

[Rayt]

Yes I agree with that. My SL2 and M10M perform beyond the limitations of 135 films with the same lenses on M film bodies. I have taken photos that would have been impossible to do without the Bruce Gilden style of flash photography.

Nevertheless aesthetics I get from the Rolleiflex are beyond ones and zeros. I’ll keep shooting roll and sheet film until I can’t. Here’s a Rolleiflex 3.5F at max aperture TMY at sunrise over Varanasi. Full resolution looks much better than this small jpeg:

 

[OmegaB600]

Shooting color in any format is insane these days. Even 120 roll film is priced sky high. If I was a paid color photographer I would go in for a Phase One back, three Apo lenses and be done with it.

actually 120 color is cheaper then 35mm color.

Kodak Professional Gold 200 Color Negative Film (120 Roll Film, 5-Pack) bhphotovide 42.95$​

Kodak GOLD 200 Color Negative Film (35mm Roll Film, 36 Exposures, 3-Pack) 24.99$​

portra 800 single roll for 18$

pro image 100 color film is still ONLY 53$ for a 5 pack. When originally released, it was a mere 25.99 for a 5 pack. I have a few in the freezer. expired 3 years ago at least.

 

[DownUnder]

Yes I've seen that prices have been creeping up for the good analog gear. 10 years ago I sold my digital gear and got a FM2 for 100, Leica M6 for 700 and a Mamyia 7ii for 1100. I remember that I thought it was quite expensive, when I compared to what my friends got their stuff for a couple of years earlier. Now it looks to be about 2 times as expensive. I should really sell my Mamiya since I don't use it much.
Actually I think i still have a digital Nikon 700 somewhere. So I'll always have that option I guess 🙂

Many thanks for writing this. I read it today for the first time, and thought, hm, it's what I could (should) have written...

How amazing that you went traveling with one film Nikon, one lens, and TWO rolls of film - in the latter case, such an extravagance, ha! And you had a wonderful two week vacation. If you can, well, why can't I?

I would add one lens hood, a filter (probably a Y), and a strong leather cord to hang the camera around my neck.

Film of course would be B&W. And maybe one roll of my precious Fuji 400, I have four left from a once upon a time stock of 50.

On second thought (always dangerous for me, those are) I would maybe add a Weston EuroMaster. The meters in my two FT2s are old, old, old. And I do enjoy using those 'mats battery-free.

The one remaining question here for me would be, which lens? I'll return to this later.

To me there is still something magical about going simple, one camera, one or two lenses. I'm now 99% digital but I've kept my beloved film cameras, all ten of them. I try to use them one time every year, but now with the mounting costs of film, color processing, darkroom basics - anything and everything to do with 'traditional' photography - I have to guard what few precious analog resources I have left.

I still think seriously about returning to revisit some of my old haunts in Asia, while I can still travel, with only one film camera. Which for me would be either a Nikkormat FT2 or a Contax G1. And two lenses. 28 and likely 85.

Oh, and my digital Fuji as a backup, either Xpro2 or XE2. Since I went mirrorless a couple of years ago my D700s and D800s see only infrequent use, and I've even thought of selling them, tho the small prices I would get make this more a passing notion than an intended act.

 

[Godfrey]

Yes I agree with that. My SL2 and M10M perform beyond the limitations of 135 films with the same lenses on M film bodies. I have taken photos that would have been impossible to do without the Bruce Gilden style of flash photography.

Nevertheless aesthetics I get from the Rolleiflex are beyond ones and zeros. I’ll keep shooting roll and sheet film until I can’t. Here’s a Rolleiflex 3.5F at max aperture TMY at sunrise over Varanasi. Full resolution looks much better than this small jpeg:


View attachment 4863780

Looking at this photo another time ... what a marvelous picture! 😀 Bravo! 😀

G

 

[bulevardi]

actually 120 color is cheaper then 35mm color.

Kodak Professional Gold 200 Color Negative Film (120 Roll Film, 5-Pack) bhphotovide 42.95$​

Kodak GOLD 200 Color Negative Film (35mm Roll Film, 36 Exposures, 3-Pack) 24.99$​

No, the 35mm is cheaper.

For the 120 roll, you only have 12 exposures a roll, multiplied to 5-pack = 60 photos, at $ 42,95 = $ 0,71 per photo.
For the 35mm roll, you have 36 exposures a roll, multiplied to 3-pack = 108 photos, at $ 24,99 = $ 0,231 per photo.

Unless you can explain how you come to the conclusion that the 120 rolls are the cheaper option.

 

[Godfrey]

No real need for justification, but ....

I don't shoot 120 formats in the same manner as 35mm format: With 120 formats, due to the small number of frames per roll, I tend to work hard to make every one count so as to minimize reloading time and use the advantage of the larger format best. Plus most 120 format cameras simply aren't as fast in operation as 35mm cameras. With 35mm, I tend to shoot more experimentally (similar to working with digital capture but not as much so) and accept a lower "keeper" rate as a consequence.

So a 5 pack of 120 format film tends to last longer than a 3 pack of 35mm film despite having fewer number of exposures to work with.

In practice, I rarely think about what a roll of film costs .. I only think about it when I'm buying film. 😉

G

 

[bulevardi]

Yes, consumption time rate was not in my calculations ;-)

 

[OmegaB600]

No, the 35mm is cheaper.

For the 120 roll, you only have 12 exposures a roll, multiplied to 5-pack = 60 photos, at $ 42,95 = $ 0,71 per photo.
For the 35mm roll, you have 36 exposures a roll, multiplied to 3-pack = 108 photos, at $ 24,99 = $ 0,231 per photo.

Unless you can explain how you come to the conclusion that the 120 rolls are the cheaper option.

the internet photography forums have always told me that a roll of 120 film is roughly DOUBLE the surface area of as tandard roll of 36 exposure 35mm film.

thus a 5 pack of 120 kodak gold at 42.95 is equal to 10 individual rolls of kodak gold selling for 8.49... much cheaper technically. thus the 3 pack at 24.99 is pricey as can be..

 

[wlewisiii]

By that logic one should shoot 8x10 portra even though it's $50 an exposure 😉