M8 users that still use film?

JohnTF said:
I said that until my friend Jorge showed me how to print RA4, it is easier than B&W in many ways. I use a Jobo Slot processor, but am not sure if they are still making them. I also bought a roller processor, well, I did give them $10 and they helped me carry it to the car.

Just about a bullet proof set up.

I must admit right now I am trying to figure how to get a lab to print the way I want it conveniently.


Regards, John
Click to expand...
I have never tried this, but really for colour can not fault the M8. For the few times I use colour print id stick with the lab.
Richard
 
I'd be interested in your shots, this is a Fuji BL G690 ie film not digital

415340656_9836621d2e_o.jpg
 
Richard, I think the OP'er has died! Posted once and gone...
I posted in response to his comments about using film in Bethlehem steel and specifically a Fuji 6x9. The image I uploaded is of Bethlehem and it's 6x9, I think that's on topic and hardly a debate. Now I'm waiting to see what he shot in Beth Steel with his Fuji.
 
Hi Jan,

I have been photographing the steel mill since 1989. I will post a pic on this thread and will have some on another thread regarding the M8. I have a combination of 35mm, 645, and 6x9. I am sure you will enjoy it as I would love to see more of your work. If you ever go to the Banana Factory, go to the second floor, and look at the steel prints on the outside wall of the darkroom (I run the darkroom program there). tell me what you think.

Best regards

Ed
 
Nazi Pipe in the blower house

Nazi Pipe in the blower house

Here is a photo of a pipe made in the early 1930's for Bethlehem Steel in Germany. Most of the equipment there was made by German workers brought over to the US by Bethlehem Steel. When they needed a part in an emergency they contracted out to a company in Germany for it. the Swastika is there because Hitler just came to power at the time. Interesting eh!
 

Attachments

  • Blowerhouse 3 copy.jpg
    Blowerhouse 3 copy.jpg
    79.2 KB · Views: 0
View of Blast Furnaces from battleship canon

View of Blast Furnaces from battleship canon

Here is a photo of a WW1 Battleship Cannon and the blast furnaces. Both of these pics were taken with my M8. i may have been too harsh on my initial tests of exposure with this camera. these look very good indeed with some tweaking in photoshop. I would still take my Fuji with me as well as my Pentax 645N.
 

Attachments

  • Furnaces and Battleship Canon.jpg
    Furnaces and Battleship Canon.jpg
    54.9 KB · Views: 0
In what i'm currently working on there is a place for both film and digital. From Leica film bodies, Xpans to Fuji 690, from digital compacts: GRD2 and Sigma DP1 to Leica M8.2. But i'd say the journey to this making this decision has taken 25 years. Why? Because i believe that to develop one's work one must constantly evolve over time -even if the changes seem incremental. I enjoy to work with both formats but the learning curve for digital is a steep one for me given that i still look at the keyboard when i type so no shortcuts 😀
 
Tuolumne said:
The world is full of plenty of technologies that superseded older that no one remembers or cares to. "Young people today have no clue what daguerreotypes can and can't do, which means they also do not know what digital can and cannot do."
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe this is true. Daguerreotype is an amazing medium--a first generation image on a reflective polished silver plate that has color (not representational color, but the images have color) and no reciprocity law failure--and I think that understanding a new medium or format helps one get more out of the other media and formats one uses. I certainly became a better 35mm photographer when I started shooting medium and large format, because I came to understand what each format could do best. Digital imagers could probably improve their craft by studying or even making a few daguerreotypes.
 
eleskin said:
M8 users that still use film?
Click to expand...
Yes?

eleskin said:
With all this in mind, how many of you still shoot film and use the M8, and why?
Click to expand...

Very simple: I use film cameras that are not my M8.

Just like it'd be silly for carpenters to only use a pencil to make furniture, it'd be silly to only use one camera to create a body of work.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Yes?



Very simple: I use film cameras that are not my M8.

Just like it'd be silly for carpenters to only use a pencil to make furniture, it'd be silly to only use one camera to create a body of work.
Click to expand...

Gabriel and Simon, I fully agree. Much of my current graffiti photography is done in digital due to the need to stitch images together when walls exceed 20ft/7m. For other work I use film. It all depends...
 
eleskin said:
Here is a photo of a WW1 Battleship Cannon and the blast furnaces. Both of these pics were taken with my M8. i may have been too harsh on my initial tests of exposure with this camera. these look very good indeed with some tweaking in photoshop. I would still take my Fuji with me as well as my Pentax 645N.
Click to expand...

I've a friend who told me about this cannon. From what I understand it's massive and required a special crane to move it. Quite exciting to finally see it.

Regarding Bethlehem Steel; if you click on the link to my "blog" below you'll see a panel across the top titled "Archive/Category" click on that tab and you will see a side panel. Scroll down to "steel" and click that tab. You should see about 19 images from Bethlehem Steel. I've more but they are not there.

BTW, what/where is the Banana Factory?
 
Last edited:
Richard Marks said:
I have never tried this, but really for colour can not fault the M8. For the few times I use colour print id stick with the lab.
Richard
Click to expand...


I still let the lab run my film, it is only about a dollar, but the modern RA4 printing end was much simpler than I had imagined. Processing is less than 4 minutes, plus say a five minute wash, and a hang dry. Chemistry keeps well, and my local lab supplied some of their mix, if you print enough, you can just keep adding to the supply for quite a while. A wash is superior to stabilizer as far as I can tell.

Regards, John
 
JohnTF said:
I still let the lab run my film, it is only about a dollar, but the modern RA4 printing end was much simpler than I had imagined. Processing is less than 4 minutes, plus say a five minute wash, and a hang dry. Chemistry keeps well, and my local lab supplied some of their mix, if you print enough, you can just keep adding to the supply for quite a while. A wash is superior to stabilizer as far as I can tell.

Regards, John
Click to expand...
Hmm interested
I have a Nova processor which I use for black and white
presumably this would work as i can crank up the temperature. But I would need some convincing its better than a scan / ink jet print. I know may black and white is.
Richard
 
Richard Marks said:
Hmm interested
I have a Nova processor which I use for black and white
presumably this would work as i can crank up the temperature. But I would need some convincing its better than a scan / ink jet print. I know may black and white is.
Richard
Click to expand...

Do you have any RA4 prints made from files? Put them side by side with the ink jet. And you can have RA4 for prints directly from negs.

I really like the Jobo processor as well, and the roller processor is
Durst I think, have not used it.

Obviously the controls are much different, but I liked being able to quickly edge burn, dodge, and adjust color and density. Print cost was lower, and the look of a sharp glossy is what I hope for in any alternate process.

BTW, that Hassy 500"cm" must be a bear to haul, just kidding, I know it might be illegal to buy a lens in inches now. ;-) Even the 500mm is pretty big. Is the car Whitworth (sp?), I just remember the wrenches had a W on them.

John
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom