Moving From Digital to Film! Just bought a MF camera.

[fschifano]

Probably not. Polaroid backs were/are used primarily for checking lighting ratios in studio settings. These days that is an extravagance considering the cost of Polaroid and Fuji instant films. You already have a DSLR, and it can be used for that application without the additional costs for consumables. If one is to believe the press, a fair number of film photographers are using the new Canon G9 point and shoot camera for just that purpose. Since you already have a DSLR, use it instead.

 

[max_ebb]

I don't see the big deal in processing one's own film. For the most part, the creativity/control is in the printing, not the film processing. Personally, I don't see the point of shooting film if it's just going to be scanned and converted to digital. Might as well just shoot digital to begin with if digital files are going to be the end product.

 

[Mark Antony]

Max why is that? I often see that argument 'if you are printing digitally then just use a digicam'.
Does digitising film suddenly transform the medium into a dlsr clone?
I don't think so, I'm all for printing my own B&W but sometimes I shoot film and scan as I have more output options.
Also processing your own film (especially B&W) gives you a level of control at the printing stage. film has an ability to record a wider range than paper can deliver, processing your own gives you control in the way you compress or expand those tones in order to help you print.
So processing and printing are equally important sides of the same coin (if a print is your output)
Digitally scanning film does not magically make film into a digicam, it just digitally copies the film (within limits of scanner) for output to (in the case of colour) wider gamut materials.
just my 2¢
Mark

 

[k_jupiter]

I have pretty much your same setup, with a 150SF lens instead of the 50. The chimney viewfinder is my favorite, I never use my prism, both just makes backpacking the camera a bit harder so I use a WLF when hiking. All that stuff doesn't need to be in your backpack. You will seldom need both 50 and 65mm lens, same with the 90 and 127. Pick about three max. They get heavy fast. I usually travel with the 90 and the 150, 65mm mounted on the camera. With the diffusion disks out, the 150 is a pretty nice medium tele. Take both red and yellow filters (77mm) for B&W shooting.

I found a Tamrac CyberPack 6 for a hundred bucks that fits three lens, camera, tons of accessories,flash, grip, meter, and even your laptop for airline travel. Worked well on my recent trip to N.O. It all gets heavy though.

Films... color, or B&W? B&W two films, one slow... PanF? One fast... Tri-X or HP5.

Color? 6x7 Chromes are amazing. Other than that, anything in 120 by Fuji or Kodak.

Polaroids are not quite as useful anymore.

Get a decent tripod. I do shoot the 65 handheld with the neck strap held tight but a tripod makes things easier.



tim in san jose

 

[Greg_E]

There are only a couple of digital monochrome capture devices, none of them are cheap. Megavision makes 16 and 32 megapixel backs for medium format cameras in both monochrome and color (Bayer pattern). The 16MP is around $8,000 last time I checked and the 32MP was around $25,000+. Other backs that use the Kodak sensors can have the same choices if the software is written for them. So for black and white, there is still a distinct financial difference between the two types of image gathering. With the RGB to mono conversions you lose about 2/3 of your resolution right off the top due to the filters over the pixels (same really goes for the digital color work too).

Then get into low light work where you need fine grain and low light levels. Even actively cooled imagining sensors put in a lot of noise as the exposure gets really long.

So really each form of image gathering has similarities, but they do not completely overlap in all areas. In some place film has the definite edge, in other digital has the edge.

Now since processing film does not require a dark room (or darkroom), it is easy to see why people might want to shoot film, process the film, scan, print digitally. All you need for this is a good changing bag that can be folded up and put in a drawer when not in use. Once the film is in the tank, everything else is daylight compatible.

 

[ajk1]

I don't see the big deal in processing one's own film. For the most part, the creativity/control is in the printing, not the film processing. Personally, I don't see the point of shooting film if it's just going to be scanned and converted to digital. Might as well just shoot digital to begin with if digital files are going to be the end product.

well you can use that same argument with audio recording and film.

Alot of audio recording is still done on 2 or 3" tape and then digitized for editing... the analogue recording still ads that special something.

Same thing with film. Movies are recorded on film and then digitized... ads a look that a HD cam cant quite capture.

 

[D Dahl]

"What type of film would you recommend? I will mainly be using this for landscapes, cityscapes and outdoor portraits – some might be nighttime, but they would be long exposures."

For portraits, I would recommend print film. Fuji and Kodak both make some nice color films for this type of work. Landscapes and cityscapes Velvia would do well, B&W would also be a good choice. When it comes to long exposure night shots, I use Fuji Provia 100F. I think this film is excellent for exposures running for several minutes. A tungsten balanced film also workes beautifully. Fuji Acros has been talked about alot by night photographers as an excellent night B&W film, though I never tried it myself. For nightscapes lit primarily by a full moon, Provia, f5.6 for about 8 minutes is usually a good starting point. The RB67 is an amazing camera for night / lightning shooting, it's my weapon of choice.

 

[Greg_E]

I just want to point out that there a few and far between recording studios using analog tape now a days for their primary recording. They are still using plenty of tape, but it is digital information going onto that tape mostly for archival purposes.

And the digital cinema cameras have come a long way recently. Not sure what resolution they are up to, but there are a few that take regular cinema lenses and offer more then 2000 pixels across the long axis, I'm pretty sure there are a few 6K devices out, and 6k is a common resolution used to digitize film for motion picture editing. Now if they could only get the CCD to handle the same as film in all lighting conditions, more studios might think about going all digital. The biggest factor in film versus digital in motion pictures is the archival problem. Obviously film stores fairly easily and can be digitized for editing many years after it was shot. Digitial is still the unknown quantity for archiving, and if you look at the sales literature that Kodak has with their motion picture films, you see that they point this out very quickly. Now if they could just get rid of the Bayer color filters on the CCDs and still have them so that a standard cinema lens could focus on the sensor, things would be a little better.

 

[tim elder]

I was hoping this thread wouldn't devolve into a "film vs. digital" thread, but it seems to have taken the inevitable downward spiral.

Enjoy your Mamiya RB. They are great cameras and you have a whole bunch of great lenses. Do you have any mechanical questions about using the camera?

My one piece of advice: don't forget to pull the dark slide!

Tim

 

[Frank Szabo]

I was hoping this thread wouldn't devolve into a "film vs. digital" thread, but it seems to have taken the inevitable downward spiral.

Enjoy your Mamiya RB. They are great cameras and you have a whole bunch of great lenses. Do you have any mechanical questions about using the camera?

My one piece of advice: don't forget to pull the dark slide!

Tim

Ah - but he bought a Pro S - it won't go ker-CHUNK unless he yanks the slide or the back is off.

 

[fschifano]

Yeah, but he might not intuitively know that. My Hasselblad is the same. It won't fire with the dark slide in place. First couple of times out, I went a little dazed and confused until I realized that the dark slide was still in place. Now it's second nature, as it will be for the OP after a few times out.

 

[ajk1]

I was hoping this thread wouldn't devolve into a "film vs. digital" thread, but it seems to have taken the inevitable downward spiral.

Enjoy your Mamiya RB. They are great cameras and you have a whole bunch of great lenses. Do you have any mechanical questions about using the camera?

My one piece of advice: don't forget to pull the dark slide!

Tim

I think i'm good with the mechanical stuff -

the camera arrived today and I loaded and shot off a roll of film - nothing special... just of my room so I could work on loading, working the mechanics, focusing, etc.

I think i got it all working.

thanks for all the advice!

 

[mattk]

Just don't forget to switch the lens out of the mirror lock-up position if you use that feature. I blew a roll of couple of weeks ago...Doh!

 

[TheDreadPirateRobins]

I think you'll have fun with your new MF camera. I recently picked up a cheap TLR, of quality I am sure much below your Mamiya (mine is a somewhat world-weary Weltaflex that says "Made in Germany/USSR OCCUPIED" on the side), and I have been having a lot of fun with it. I have been shooting almost nothing but Ilford FP4 (and this is not an endorsement of recommendation) which I picked because my local camera shop stocks a lot of it, they process it, they're used to processing it, and I have been liking what I have been getting from it. I decided to not noodle around too much for the same reason that others have already mentioned - I want to get to know this film.

One thing I really like about medium format is the depth of quality of the images that I have been seeing. I also shoot a Pentax Spotmatic, and while the Takumar lenses are, in my opinion, superior to the lens on my TLR, I have noticed a certain quality to the images that I do shoot, and I am thinking that some of it may be due to the much larger negative, something on the order of approximately 4 times the size.

I don't really think so much in film vs. digital terms. I have a digital I use, also. It comes in handy to take a picture of the kids doing something funny and send it to my mother-in-law via email quickly. I also sometimes use it to check an exposure just to see if I am even in the right ballpark, keeping in mind that it's CCD and the film in my 35mm SLR or my MF TLR will act a little differently, but to me it's all photography and the most important bit is the eye of the photograher and the care taken in choosing and executing the shot, not in all the gear.

I would like to get a much better MF camera some day, but right now this is about what the finances will bear, and so I am going to have fun with it for now and see what I get.

Adam

 

[JBrunner]

I don't see the big deal in processing one's own film. For the most part, the creativity/control is in the printing, not the film processing. Personally, I don't see the point of shooting film if it's just going to be scanned and converted to digital. Might as well just shoot digital to begin with if digital files are going to be the end product.

Since you are a primarily color shooter, I can see why you might think processing ones own film might not be a big deal in controlling the overall process, but as a primarily B&W shooter I would disagree, when it comes to B&W. Take care with blanket reasonings.

 

[max_ebb]

Since you are a primarily color shooter, I can see why you might think processing ones own film might not be a big deal in controlling the overall process, but as a primarily B&W shooter I would disagree, when it comes to B&W. Take care with blanket reasonings.

Well, since the OP said he/she shoots 95% color, my reasoning was along the lines of color photography, not "blanket reasonings". Maybe the B&W shooters should read more carefully and "take care with blanket reasonings". Why give advice that is better suited for B&W photography to someone who shoots 95% color.

 

[JBrunner]

Well, since the OP said he/she shoots 95% color, my reasoning was along the lines of color photography, not "blanket reasonings". Maybe the B&W shooters should read more carefully and "take care with blanket reasonings". Why give advice that is better suited for B&W photography to someone who shoots 95% color.

What a surprise. :rolleyes:

 

[Jeff Kubach]

B&W film try HP+5, Pan F and T-Max 100.

Jeff

 

[max_ebb]

What a surprise. :rolleyes:

What's with the snotty response? You accused me of posting "blanket reasonings" that don't hold water with B&W photography. I pointed out that the OP stated 95% color photography on the first page, and you respond with some snotty remark followed up with a "roll eyes" gif?

 

[JBrunner]

I have personally felt that some of your posts are adversarial when they could be otherwise. I thought I might see for myself, and I did. Simply put, I learned what I wanted to know about you. I'd rather not continue to derail the thread, so I'm done here.

Very sorry for the snotty remark.