Slides or negatives ?

[martin.mintal]

Hi guys,
I am new here. I just wanted to say Hi!

Perhaps, you'll think I am crazy but I selled my perfect Canon 5D with my brilliant Canon 24-70L lens (first pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinmintal) 1 month ago....well, I am not crazy. I can appreciate the images you can make with an SLR, they can be very good technically but I simply cannot get the same shots you can get with you small veteran RF....I mean, I like the b&w film atmosphere - ok, I could use some sw filters etc., but it's not the same. Till now I - and many pros confirmed this to me - could not gain the same feeling film is able to give....digital grain is a mess too...

And also, my 5D with the attached lens looked like a giant plasma rifle...you can't gain any decent street shots with a setup like that.

The camera was not bad, but I did not use it much, because you simply cannot take an SLR everywhere with you - I therefore missed the most interesing shots...

I therefore ordered 2 Kievs from Oleg (http://www.okvintagecamera.com/about.html)....Oleg ist a very nice guy btw, I specifically wanted the "Kiev 4" (that means with exposure meter, without plastic parts, year of production smaller than 1965) and he offered me 2 pieces, that are not listed on his web page....these cameras are still not ready, just some parts in his magic box, but he will dismantle the cameras, clean them, oil them etc. - in short, they will be better than when new 40 years ago.

I already had one Kiev 4, but unfortunately, it was not working correctly (when using slower shutter speeds).

IN SHORT: I wanted to now if you use negative or slide film....

If I understand this correctly, with negatives you have the advantage that you have a huge exp. latitude, that means, you don't have to get the perfect exposure and your shots still can be very good.

On the other hand, when shooting with negatives, much can go wrong in the lab - postprocessing. Here, slides are the king, because they will be "developed" as they were recorded, am I right ?

What type of film do you, guys, prefer when shooting with rangefinders ?

I also would like to know, if I can use a cheaper scanner (for about 200-300 EUR) first - till I buy something more sensible (like the Epson V750).

Thank You Very Much

Martin Mintal
Slovak Republic

 

[martin.mintal]

...and, the Kievs are only are preliminary solution, I will probably buy the "new" Zeiss RF....I only wanted to know, if I'll be able to work with film, first....

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

What kind of shooting will you be doing (e.g. day time, low light)? Do you like saturated colour or do you want more realistic results?

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

You can't get decent street shooting with that setup? Really? I think the amount of street and journalistic shots I've seen with DSLRs makes that statement suspect. I spent quite a while in Hong Kong shooting with and old Canon 10D, with battery grip, and a Tamron 24-135. Had no problem at all. The way one moves in a crowd is far more important than the camera in ones hand.

Case in point, this photographer uses a 5D.

www.shihofukada.com

 

[martin.mintal]

reply

reply

Well, I think both but mostly day time.

I will be shooting B&W mostly (using B&W film or using colour film and than apply a b&w filter in the computer)

What kind of shooting will you be doing (e.g. day time, low light)? Do you like saturated colour or do you want more realistic results?

 

[martin.mintal]

It is possible, of course - but in general, a smaller camera is much more enjoyable to use. You can have it in your pocket everywhere you go - with a 5D this is not possible... ok, you could use a 5D with a small prime lens, but still...

I don't say, it is not possible to do street shots with an SLR, but a rf is much more convenient...

You can't get decent street shooting with that setup? Really? I think the amount of street and journalistic shots I've seen with DSLRs makes that statement suspect. I spent quite a while in Hong Kong shooting with and old Canon 10D, with battery grip, and a Tamron 24-135. Had no problem at all. The way one moves in a crowd is far more important than the camera in ones hand.

Case in point, this photographer uses a 5D.

www.shihofukada.com

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

If you're going to be shooting B&W then I don't think you want slide film. Try Kodak Tri-X or Fuji Neopan 400. Neopan has more contrast, in my experience. For occasional colour film, mostly used in daylight, I'd use Fuji Reala 100 or Fuji Pro 160. Good colour and not much grain.

 

[Al Kaplan]

faintandfuzzy, those hardly look like "street shots". Most of them look carefully arranged and posed to the point of trying to match an A.D.'s layout sketch.

 

[benkelley]

faintandfuzzy, those hardly look like "street shots". Most of them look carefully arranged and posed to the point of trying to match an A.D.'s layout sketch.

I was about to say that exactly!

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

You're not crazy, but your rationalizations are not truths.

1) For one thing, you should have been shooting with a small prime lens on your 5D, not a large zoom, if 'stealth' and/or a quiet, unobtrusive RF-like experience was what you wanted.

2) Many people do very well with B&W film simulations from a digital camera. They are far from "a mess" if you find a 'formula' for working with the files. I would have suggested that you try Alien Skin Exposure and/or Nik Silver Efex. From your flickr images, i believe a bit of PS finesse could transform them into the kinds of images you seek.

3) I don't agree that you can't get street shots with an SLR. These days, any SLR is more common-looking and usual than any rangefinder. Despite the slight difference in size (millimeters!), rangefinders elicit more 'looks' because they're quite foreign looking to non-photographers.

4) It's an exaggeration to say that you can't take an SLR everywhere with you. Perhaps you just needed a smaller SLR? Even so, the differences are not that great, if you're using a small prime lens, like the 35/2. I routinely see teenage girls carrying their SLRs "everywhere," yet the rangefinder crowd constantly moans about "huge" SLRs compared to their dainty little RFs. Yes, there is a difference. But, i also know photographers who carry Hasselblads "everywhere." There may be some sacrifice in comfort needed for the sake of the image. If you really want a 'carry everywhere' camera, it's still not a rangefinder. Get something you can put in your pocket. Something that wouldn't be too big to put on a dinner table at a nice restaurant. THAT's where the size issue comes into play. Get a Contax T3, maybe.

And, isn't a Kiev 4 nearly the same weight as a 5D?

5) I agree, however, that film is 'different.' It's also my preference. But, i also have a 5DMkII that is actually more practical and it does things the rangefinder and film SLR doesn't do. I'm just suggesting you probably shouldn't have made the decision to go 'whole hog' and sell the 5D just to acquire the Kievs, if that was at all possible.

I wish you luck, though. Maybe, despite the 'facts,' you'll simply find the RF experience more rewarding. Personally, i have digital because i'm too often frustrated by certain technical aspects of film shooting. Most often, it's the variables i can't control. With digital, i have a reasonable certainty that i have The Shot. With film, i'm too beholden to film labs, and the blame for 'screwups' is never firmly affixed.

Did you mention lenses in a later post? Consider the Jupiter-3. If you get a good sample, it's very nice. Mine reminded me of my Pre-ASPH 50mm Summilux. I also had a Jupiter-12 for a short while. I saw some very nice images from one, from another photographer, but i never got used to the handling of it....

Hi guys,
I am new here. I just wanted to say Hi!

Perhaps, you'll think I am crazy but I selled my perfect Canon 5D with my brilliant Canon 24-70L lens (first pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinmintal) 1 month ago....well, I am not crazy. I can appreciate the images you can make with an SLR, they can be very good technically but I simply cannot get the same shots you can get with you small veteran RF....I mean, I like the b&w film atmosphere - ok, I could use some sw filters etc., but it's not the same. Till now I - and many pros confirmed this to me - could not gain the same feeling film is able to give....digital grain is a mess too...

And also, my 5D with the attached lens looked like a giant plasma rifle...you can't gain any decent street shots with a setup like that.

The camera was not bad, but I did not use it much, because you simply cannot take an SLR everywhere with you - I therefore missed the most interesing shots...

I therefore ordered 2 Kievs from Oleg (http://www.okvintagecamera.com/about.html)....Oleg ist a very nice guy btw, I specifically wanted the "Kiev 4" (that means with exposure meter, without plastic parts, year of production smaller than 1965) and he offered me 2 pieces, that are not listed on his web page....these cameras are still not ready, just some parts in his magic box, but he will dismantle the cameras, clean them, oil them etc. - in short, they will be better than when new 40 years ago.

I already had one Kiev 4, but unfortunately, it was not working correctly (when using slower shutter speeds).

IN SHORT: I wanted to now if you use negative or slide film....

If I understand this correctly, with negatives you have the advantage that you have a huge exp. latitude, that means, you don't have to get the perfect exposure and your shots still can be very good.

On the other hand, when shooting with negatives, much can go wrong in the lab - postprocessing. Here, slides are the king, because they will be "developed" as they were recorded, am I right ?

What type of film do you, guys, prefer when shooting with rangefinders ?

I also would like to know, if I can use a cheaper scanner (for about 200-300 EUR) first - till I buy something more sensible (like the Epson V750).

Thank You Very Much

Martin Mintal
Slovak Republic

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I disagree

I disagree

faintandfuzzy, those hardly look like "street shots". Most of them look carefully arranged and posed to the point of trying to match an A.D.'s layout sketch.

They don't look much different than the work of David Alan Harvey or Steve McCurry. And, McCurry shoots Nikon dSLRs now, and used to use F100s - same size/profile as a 5D.

Unless you're saying "street shooting," by some sort of definition, means the subject is always unaware he's being photographed.

The camera doesn't matter. I just came back from San Jose, Costa Rica, and did my 'street shooting' with a Bronica RF645, Canon 5DMkII, and Zeiss Ikon.

 

[John Lawrence]

I mainly shoot black and white negative film, usually Ilford HP5. Lately the price of HP5 has increased and so when I finish my current batch, I may try some Fomapan or Fuji film.

 

[ferider]

I used to use slides but switched to negatives years ago due to added dynamic range. You can just simply do more with them when one of your targets is scanning.

Best,

Roland.

 

[Jason Sprenger]

In answer to your specific question, it depends.

At the moment, I am using Fuji 400X slide film. ISO 400 is usually enough and I generally like the way this film handles color without a lot of grain. The price I pay is in exposure latitude, but since my Zeiss Ikon has a pretty good meter in the camera, I go with it.

In color negative, I like Fuji 800 Press. Nice colors and grain for its speed. Simply amazing for 35mm film.

In black and white negative, I shoot Kodak Plus-X at 125, Fuji Neopan 400 and Tri-X 400. At 400, I prefer the look of Neopan, but if I might push the film (interiors with no flash), I prefer doing that with Tri-X. It's just a subjective preference.

As to a scanner, best to get the best available and these days that means the Nikon Coolscan 5000 or 9000. These scan pretty close to their 4000dpi specifications, whereas even an Epson flatbed delivers maybe 2000dpi. While 2000 dpi is enough for most film, a higher resolution scanner delivers the best possible result. See www.normankoren.com for a scholarly treatment of this subject.

 

[kdemas]

I shoot negatives quite a bit more than slides, though I actually prefer slides by quite a margin. The issue is the immediacy, I like to get a look at what I've done more quickly than slides normally allow. With the corner drugstore processing C41 I usually opt for that route with my "fun" weekend shooting.

Agfa Ultra 50 was one negative film that I put up with there with slides, it really brought something different tot he table (some might say it brought too much!).

That said, I am shooting some Kodachrome and Agfa Scala this weekend 🙂

Kent

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

Agfa Ultra 50 was one negative film that I put up with there with slides, it really brought something different tot he table (some might say it brought too much!).

I never used Agfa Ultra 50, but I used to shoot Ultra 100 regularly. I miss that stuff!

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

They don't look much different than the work of David Alan Harvey or Steve McCurry. And, McCurry shoots Nikon dSLRs now, and used to use F100s - same size/profile as a 5D.

Unless you're saying "street shooting," by some sort of definition, means the subject is always unaware he's being photographed.

The camera doesn't matter. I just came back from San Jose, Costa Rica, and did my 'street shooting' with a Bronica RF645, Canon 5DMkII, and Zeiss Ikon.

I've done street with a Mamiya RB67 and grip before. Because I'm looking down, tehy don't notice me as much. I agree with your comments on her work. Street doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone.

Martin....do you put an M8 in your pocket? You might get a different reaction from people if you do. 😀

 

[julio1fer]

I believe that in Heaven people only shoot slide film. In 4x5. Kodachrome 25. Down here, we need latitude or convenience so we use color neg, digital, B&W, whatever does the job best.

I am just an amateur with about 60 rolls a year. Now I shoot maybe only 2-3% of my output in slide film, but still nothing feels better than tossing your just-developed box of slides on a light box and getting your loupe over them.

BTW I thought that dynamic range in slide film was way higher than in neg film. Maybe Ferider is talking about latitude, above?

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

I believe that in Heaven people only shoot slide film. In 4x5. Kodachrome 25. Down here, we need latitude or convenience so we use color neg, digital, B&W, whatever does the job best.

I am just an amateur with about 60 rolls a year. Now I shoot maybe only 2-3% of my output in slide film, but still nothing feels better than tossing your just-developed box of slides on a light box and getting your loupe over them.

BTW I thought that dynamic range in slide film was way higher than in neg film. Maybe Ferider is talking about latitude, above?

Exact opposite. DR of slide film is between 5-7 stops. One can achieve 8-10 stops with neg film.

 

[julio1fer]

Faintandfuzzy, I respectfully ask to be illuminated, because maybe my physics have become outdated.

I've looked at data sheets of two films that I use often: Sensia 100 and Fuji Superia 100 color neg. You can find them in the Fujifilm site.

Densitometry data range:

Sensia - 3.5 to 0.1 (blue), 3.3 to 0.1 (overall)
Superia 100 - 2.7 to 0.5 (for green layer), 3.2 to 0.2 (overall)

So the optical density in the film is larger for slides than negs. If you consider a single color layer, the difference is 3.4 to 2.2 - about 10 times, since densitometry scale is logarithmic!.

I believe this is because blacks are about the same in both films (given that neg film is now using 4th layer); on the other hand, clear is transparent in slides and only orange base in the negs (i.e. darker than in slides) in best case.

Neg film does not need a large DR, since it is meant to be printed, and prints have a very low DR. If you doubt this, compare the luminosity of an illuminated white paper with that of a light source.

However, *usable range* of exposure zones is actually larger in neg film. Neg film is able to compress a larger range of luminosities into film, because of a flatter densitometry curve when compared to slides. It may be able to pull an extra stop or two into the film. But unfortunately, it does not give that range back in the final image!

The largest imaging dynamic range has always been in a slide on a light table, way more than a printed neg or scans shown in a digital screen.

I'd be most glad to be corrected if wrong...this is an interesting topic.