Godfrey
somewhat colored
Bravo! Sensibly stated.
Frankly, I find the hullabaloo over fancy convenience features like triple-whammy-continuous-follow-focus-tracking-AF much ado over nothing a great deal of the time, and far more intrusive into my working methodology than whether my camera has a digital sensor or film in it. The basics of a fine, working 35mm type camera pretty much jelled and formalized sometime between the 1950s and 1970s; most of what's come after has been convenience, automation, and the change of capture medium.
Tri-X has a particular look and feel that, if you like it, is unique and difficult to simulate. So why simulate it? Just use Tri-X if that's what you want.
Rendering B&W is very different from shooting with B&W film, but what comes out of the process is equally rewarding to me, when I've done it right. I find it just as easy to do it wrong with film as I do with digital, if not more so.
onwards,
G
Takkun
Ian M.
Agreed. I think this thread is more about RF versus advanced AF compact and the effect on shooting style, and not film/digital. As I posted in another thread, I traded up my Fuji for an M8 and worried a lot if I'd miss AF, or even the clever features like in-camera panorama, built-in flash, macro modes, etc. Turns out I probably don't. I'm no luddite, but I'm a minimalist and really fussy about learning new gadgets despite my youthful age, and since I've been doing just fine with a film RF, a digital one suits me fine. I personally hate developing, printing and scanning, but the ease of use is why I come back to RFs over even my old Nikon film cameras. Modern rangefinders and the early-70s-era SLRs hit that sweet spot between convenience and being a pain to figure out the 'convenient' features.
I've gotten plenty of great shots with Nikons, disposables, and iPhones, but for some of us, half the fun of photography is the joy of using a fun camera.
And I never could really get evaluative metering on the Fuji to work for me, anyway...
cosmonaut
Well-known
What Godfrey said. I find myself shooting more film lately as digital is getting so easy it's not as challenging as film. I just ordered some Velvia 50 and Ektar for my Mamiya and also a wide lens. Time to slow down and use the old brain some.
Pete B
Well-known
I will give you an idea. You seem to be working as lot in strong light, just like me, and you seem to like Tri X and M7, like me.
Here's the idea:
1- set your M7 to AE
2- set EI to 500, or if not satisfied with shadow detail, to 250
3- Put Tri X inside
4- buy 4 1 liter bottles with swing cap
5- buy a gallon pack of Diafine
6- dissolve separately part A and part B, pour each into the bottles and label carefully. Use the first bottle for developing and the second bottle for adding liquid to the first one as it becomes depleted over time.
7- buy some coffee filters for filtering the developer every now and then
8- this is the most important part: when developing, agitate 10 secs every 30 secs, otherwise you will get bromide drag
9- I develop most films 4+4 mins, Acros 5+5 mins, you can test 3+3mins for Tri X, should be sufficient
10 - let me know how you like the results
Tri X in Diafine, EI 250
2008080305 by mfogiel, on Flickr
Aaaargh! This has me confused! I've seen countless posts excited about Tri-X at EI 1000-1600, and had settled on trying it at EI 1250. Now here you are advising EI 500 and even 250. There's no denighing these excellent results, and those of your previous posts. What am I missing??
Pete
Ansel
Well-known
Film and digital have completely different aesthetics and completely different cameras/processes. They will always be discussed and compared.
Pete B
Well-known
GaryLH
Veteran
mfogiel
Veteran
@Pete B
It's not that Diafine can do everything well, but if your primary interest is to compress wide tonal range into what film can reproduce, then it does the job. Without going too much into technicalities, people in the know claim that true EI of Tri-X in Diafine is 400. I have shot it down to EI 100, and I could still extract the tonal range through scanning. Then, you can adjust the contrast in PS. Obviously, you are bound to get a somewhat denser negative and less sharpness. The tonal compression is often resulting from use of two bath developers.
It's not that Diafine can do everything well, but if your primary interest is to compress wide tonal range into what film can reproduce, then it does the job. Without going too much into technicalities, people in the know claim that true EI of Tri-X in Diafine is 400. I have shot it down to EI 100, and I could still extract the tonal range through scanning. Then, you can adjust the contrast in PS. Obviously, you are bound to get a somewhat denser negative and less sharpness. The tonal compression is often resulting from use of two bath developers.
GaryLH
Veteran
I think constructive critism is fine. I just don't appreciate it when it gets to the point of flame wars and bashing.
There are merits to film and digital.. At the end of the day as Godfrey has basically said it is all about the image and how comfortable u are w/ the equipment.
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
To op
I like first shot the best
Gary
I like first shot the best
Gary
MCTuomey
Veteran
Areyukas - glad you're pleased with your M7 and Tri-X. Like you, I shoot a lot of digital and also recently returned to shooting B&W film in an M-body. Joy to use and delightful results. I'm playing with higher speed films, T-Max and Delta 3200, for even more "imperfection" that can't be emulated digitally, at least not by me. And, yes, better detail and luminosity in the highlights.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
“…move into the future with some excitement rather than fear and with a more empowered sense of choices, rather than the sense of being of less value.”
- Susan Meiselas
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...p=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=2
- Susan Meiselas
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...p=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=2
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
With all respect, the OP's Tri-X shots look overexposed to me.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Congratulations on acquiring you M7 and lens and welcome to the outstanding worlds of rangefinder and film photography!
As you are discovering, Tri-X is a wonderful film for difficult lighting situations - some would contend that Tri-X is the best B&W film for hard, bright light such as direct sunlight and for capturing shadow details in low light.
Tri-X has a legendary ability to record subtle shades of gray and a long exposure curve. It also pushes well up to ISO 1600 and the grain is not objectionable (IMHO) when enlarged to fairly large size (11x14 inches or possibly even larger, depending on the negative).
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
To me it's more to do with a general shift into the electronic era where cars are fuel injected and have computer controlled engine management systems and virtually everything we use has influence from this type of technology.
If the digital sensor hadn't been developed where would film be ... would we be shooting grainless colour images at ISO 6400 if there was no digital? Quite possibly I suspect because the boffins in their labs would have kept trying to improve film emulsions because that's what they do!
Wburgess
Established
To me it's more to do with a general shift into the electronic era where cars are fuel injected and have computer controlled engine management systems and virtually everything we use has influence from this type of technology.
If the digital sensor hadn't been developed where would film be ... would we be shooting grainless colour images at ISO 6400 if there was no digital? Quite possibly I suspect because the boffins in their labs would have kept trying to improve film emulsions because that's what they do!
Now that's a depressing thought, and an interesting thread.
Where would film be now if digital photography hadn't gate crashed the party?
To the op, grab yourself some darkroom equipment, that's where the real fun/frustration begins!
YYV_146
Well-known
By any metric modern digital sensor have a wider dynamic range compared to film. Yes, the forum debates are there - but simply try recovering six stops of shadow without noticable noise from any 135 film. This would simple with a sensor such as that of the A7r and D800. I will agree that film holds more highlight detail than digital, but as long as one meter for the brighter parts of the image, digital has the upper hand in the dynamic range department.
One boosts tonal range on a digital image the same way you tweak contrast on a color image. With digital the advantage is greater since you are shooting in color (M Monochrome aside) and have three channels to work with. Fine tweaking eliminates the need for color filters, and can give files immense, rich tonality.
Also, why is it impossible to print digital files on any type of photo paper? I've made 20*30 digital prints on at least five or six different types of matter paper alone, and of course there is a world of paper offerings out there.
A photo with the Sony A7 and a e43 Summilux. Conversion with Silver EFEX Pro. I might have been going for the tri-X look, sans noise which must be added in the plug-in.
cz23
-
I'm just now dabbling with film, after using it for many years, but being digital-only for the last twelve or so. So although this is an old and tiresome debate, it's new and important for me.
I'm seeing what you say about the difference in post flexibility. But what appeals to me more than shadow treatment is film's expression of lighter tones. I shoot BW only and am completely enamored with the way film handles the upper zones. I've owned many digital cameras, but none (the GR get's closest) has delivered the rich, creamy light grays and whites that I like to see. That, to me, is what sets film apart and has me interested.
John
Spanik
Well-known
Or you could have doe the same metering with your digitals or you are compensating the exposure for the film in developping or printing. Incident or reflective of a grey card is essentially the same. There must be a reason photographers have been doing this for ages.
mani
Well-known
Just to be clear, that discussion is not about film vs digital: Susan Meiselas is not equating the past with film and the future with digital, she is talking about the transformation in the definition of a (professional) photographer, and how they need to adapt to a changing photographic landscape. When she happens to mention film at one point, she is using it as an analogy.
Film and digital are no more 'past and future' than oil painting vs Paintshop Pro.