A.R.S.E.

It never really went away. Some say there is more film being made today than five years ago. Others, including those in the industry, say that's not true. "The Impossible Project" brought Polariod film back and Fuji instant film has stayed in production. Ilford is still making most of the stock it did ten years ago and you can still buy new stock of Fuji and Kodak.

Some do it for the look, a bit like those who still play vinyl records. Others, like me, are going back to film because there are things you can do to tactile media that you can't do to a digital file.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32337778

By the way, if any of you has a yen to get back to film, have a look at some of the prices film cameras are going for on eBay at the moment. I recently picked up a mint Mamiya RB67 ProS with a 140mm f/4.5 macro lens for US $188. Being such a heavy camera, the postage was a significant cost. Sure, it needs the seals replaced but given what these things cost 20 years ago, it still represents good value.

You can still get powdered chemicals online but you can't buy them in liquid form unless you do it over the counter.

Hopefully the first of many. This was just a sacrificial roll to see what's working and what isn't.

I'll display ignorance here and in no way am I trying to piss on your chips JD because you're obviously passionate about this, I just wondered whether I was alone in thinking that, as a general rule, I'm all for moving things forward at the very moment the latest technology has improved upon its predecessor. I struggle to empathise with an emotional attachment to a media format or a technology despite having many happy memories of things like vinyl and cassettes.

Perhaps it's because I'm a programmer and clinging to an outdated system is career suicide, but the very second MP3s became established I started ditching my CD collection, and as soon as digital cameras were up to par I have never even considered a film one.

Is it just me?

Film is superior to digital in some way in regards to image quality. It's just more costly and not immediate.

If you scan a medium or large format transparency, you'd be amazed at the digital file it can produce. I'm looking at shooting a few rolls of b&w on the hasselblad at work just for fun. There's just something magic about analogue film that digital will never compete with.

Go for it JD. No arguments from me!!

I guess you could say i'm biased, i've recently expanded my trophy business by selling new and pre-loved vinyl records.

I love seeing old tech, kicking some serious modern-day tech arse. I'd give my left nut for a hi-fi vinyl turntable system over a loaded mp3 player with 10,000 + songs anyday of the week, judging by the amount of vinyl I sell on a weekly basis, i'm definitely not the only one!! Yeehar.

I used the RB67 a lot when i was working as a studio photographer in the early 90's. Those things are built like tanks. Great buy JD!

I do miss the darkroom experience.. fumbling around trying to get a 120 roll onto the steel spools for processing only to find you'd left a kink in the film

Good times.

I still would love to get a large/ultra large format camera to lug about and take some landscape shots with, not overly a project that I would be willing to invest the time and money it would require to become a reality though.

durbster wrote:I'll display ignorance here and in no way am I trying to piss on your chips JD because you're obviously passionate about this, I just wondered whether I was alone in thinking that, as a general rule, I'm all for moving things forward at the very moment the latest technology has improved upon its predecessor. I struggle to empathise with an emotional attachment to a media format or a technology despite having many happy memories of things like vinyl and cassettes.

Perhaps it's because I'm a programmer and clinging to an outdated system is career suicide, but the very second MP3s became established I started ditching my CD collection, and as soon as digital cameras were up to par I have never even considered a film one.

Is it just me?

No problemo. I don't have an emotional attachment to film. As I said earlier "Some do it for the look, a bit like those who still play vinyl records. Others, like me, are going back to film because there are things you can do to tactile media that you can't do to a digital file."

It's true. Dust doesn't stick to digital images quite the way it does to a freshly processed wet negative

DexterPunk wrote:There's just something magic about analogue film that digital will never compete with.

Thats the emotional thing that durbs was talking about....

I cant comment on working with film, but I consume it almost entirely digitally. It just makes sense for it to be produced the same way it is consumed.

Look up Catherine Yass. No way you could get this sort of random result with a digital neg:





You might be able to imitate it but it's not the same. The first one was processed and left in a canal for a week. The second one she put under a griller for 5 seconds.

I won't be putting much of this up unless people want to see it. It's mostly personal stuff. Just for the record, I'm not giving up digital. In fact, I think I'll probably end up doing multi media stuff, using both formats. The sky's the limit.

pixelboy wrote:I do miss the darkroom experience.

So do I. I recently joined a camera club to get access to a darkroom and theirs can do up to 5x4 so an RB67 is no problem. Feel free to relate any of your experiences mate. I'm sure a few of us will be interested to read them.

PS: IIRC, Norbinator has a Holga tucked away somewhere...

Enforcer-J wrote:

DexterPunk wrote:There's just something magic about analogue film that digital will never compete with.

Thats the emotional thing that durbs was talking about....

Yes. That's part of the appeal for me.

But it doesn't end there. The contrast curve for example isn't linear for film. It's very hard to replicate. You can also expose film for hours without banding. Film grain is quite nice because it isn't uniform and doesn't come from a pattern of equal size photo sites. Film is also sensitive to UV. Digital for the most part isn't. Bayer array sensors (unless someone perfects the fovian style sensor) are interpolating 3/4 of the image. Film captures colour detail using filters that block each wavelength and capture colour better in that regard. There are many quantitative reasons why film is superior. There are advantages of image quality in digital too. But it's not as black and white (scuse the pun) as just saying one is superior to the other.

Like I said though. Immediacy and cost are huge factors. And I also prefer to use digital for those reasons. It's just nice to shoot some traditional film stock now and then.

mole2k wrote:I still would love to get a large/ultra large format camera to lug about and take some landscape shots with, not overly a project that I would be willing to invest the time and money it would require to become a reality though.

I looked into it too and it's quite complicated.

Cost of a 5x4 body, either a Cambo, Horseman or Toyo, (standards, rail, bellows, ground glass and back) around US $200-250 for something functional and $400 for a good one. Cost of a 150mm f/5.6 standard lens (Schneider, Rodenstock or Fujinon) with suitable lens board around US $250-300 for a decent one. Tripod for same - and you need a big bugger - about $300 and up. As you can see, the costs mount up quite substantially but they are still very cheap compared to what they were twenty years ago.

The brands I named are ones I used 30 years ago in my brief foray as a studio photographer. Of course, like everything there are economies of scale and coupled with that are brand loyalties and the usual dose of snobbery, usually centred around brands like Linhof (the large format equivalent of Hasselblad and Leica). The truth is that they are all much the same but the snobbery drives the prices up.

Although I would have preferred a Bronica because I have a fair bit of experience with them, in the end I settled for an RB67 because:

1) it had the largest neg for its cost and an equivalent Bronica GS-1 would be nearly three times the price I paid,
2) there were shedloads of RB67s available at very low cost
3) I still have some of my developing stuff, like my black bag and developing tank and
4) the cost of 120 roll film compares very favourably. 5x4 is about $5 per sheet and although it's still available, 120 is easier to find and process.

This is not going to be a kit with lots of lenses and backs. There just isn't a need for it. It's just a relatively low-cost foray into film of a size I can physically handle and manipulate.

And for the record, I do think film does B&W better than digital but that's a side issue for me.

I have my fingers crossed that one day someone will manufacture a digital back for medium format that's reasonably priced. I'm almost tempted to pick up one myself to use for film from time to time and hope that it happens. Then again, it's not likely since Pentax have their medium format complete with AF etc and not that high of a price.

I've actually looked at buying that Pentax for work. But I just don't think that the advantages are worth it over something like the D800 that we have.

DexterPunk wrote:I have my fingers crossed that one day someone will manufacture a digital back for medium format that's reasonably priced. I'm almost tempted to pick up one myself to use for film from time to time and hope that it happens. Then again, it's not likely since Pentax have their medium format complete with AF etc and not that high of a price.

Wish I had the money to commission someone to hack together a digital back for my Mamiya C330S. I have so much kit for it, but its basically a display piece now.

Then why not just load it up with some 120?

DexterPunk wrote:I've actually looked at buying that Pentax for work. But I just don't think that the advantages are worth it over something like the D800 that we have.

Digital medium format is basically dead in the water because of cameras like the D800. The trouble is that the developers, like Phase One, just keep doing boneheaded things. Pentax are really the only ones with any brains and even their market is largely made up of wealthy amateurs.

Off to buy some chemicals tomorrow.

I don't think I want to go back to processing my own film any more. I'm only really interested in B&W and I wouldn't trust a third party to do the processing properly. I suppose there is the option of some of those colour-process B&W films like the Ilford XP2. That said, I don't actually have an attachment to film as the medium and I feel that I'd be more likely to grab the camera and give it a run now and then if I didn't have to dedicate so many resources in realising what I captured.

I love film cameras. I reckon when I retire I will build a proper darkroom in my shed.


My Film Cameras by Todd Norbury, on Flickr

The Yashica 635 TLR is my favourite camera in the world. Bought it super cheap and sold it at a massive profit.

And TTL (Through the lens) on the TLR. by Todd Norbury, on Flickr

I used to develop the B&W film and scan it. It was very therapeutic.

I gave this negative to a mate who had it printed 3 foot by 3 foot for his old house in Parramatta. It looks stunning that big in the high ceilinged house he lives in. It is out of a Holga too, plastic lens.

Swamp Road Gallery by Todd Norbury, on Flickr

Nice!

Finally managed to get my hands on a working 35mm SLR (without having to deal with actually paying for it) but I do need to find a PXL28 battery from somewhere ... and some film. Then all I need is some motivation to take photos ...

durbster wrote:
Is it just me?

Not just you

It would be people who aren't photographers.

DexterPunk wrote:It would be people who aren't photographers.

No yourself! You can't tell me that people with little interest in it as a hobby or profession are going to bother with film when they can pick up a point and shoot instead.