i think what i meant was get a handle on shooting a purely mechanical camera at the same time as not having an instant replay to let me know i got the shot right.
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
Truth is, I dont shoot tons of photos with my digital... I may take a few more than I would with film, but i usually get it right the first time. Plus I usually shoot on manual (at work - pr, sports, events photography - and for fun).
If i were moving to a 35mm film slr - i would be less wary - I would still have many of the automated control but not have the crutch of reviewing my photos. Here I am getting rid of that crutch at the same time as familiarizing myself with a fully mechanical camera. I just dont want to have to work on learning how to develop my film at the same time. Plus this camera is not something i plan on using regularly at work - my dslr is still the logical choice for work since most of my photos are used for print publications or online and it is nice to have a digital file right away. This camera is really for my personal use.
I just think i should take it one step at a time and not worry about processing yet (plus it is an expense to invest in the equipment, even if I can get it dirt cheap on ebay)
There are a number of reasons to consider doing your own processing, but for me the most important is that there is a real synergy between using your camera and developing your film.
I'm not saying that you cannot have a satisfactory experience if someone else does your developing for you. What I am saying is that if you do both, experience with each part enhances the experience with the other part.
If you are going to refrain from developing, I would strongly suggest using slide film, and getting and using a slide projector. Nothing will challenge you more, or teach you more, than that experience (unless it is developing and printing your own).
Good for you for reversing a sad trend...be truly daring and do your own darkroom work, at least in B&W. You will be pleasantly surprised what skills a little practice will give you.
And remember, you are moving from fauxtography to photography, "writing with light."
All you are doing sounds reasonable and a good way to go. I would try some colour negative film as well as reversal however. The big advantage here is the "dynamic range". Both colour reversal and digital sensors will only give you about 5 stops between just textured highlights and just-textured shadows in the scene (sometimes less). Colour negative will give you at least another 2 stops. Of course, you may just prefer the look of the transparencies... The other up-side is that you may find it easier to find a local lab to process medium format C41 negative than E6 reversal these days.
The down side is that some scanners reportedly have some trouble scanning through the orange mask of colour negs but as I don't scan to print I'm not that up on current trends in that area (and it's off-topic for APUG anyway even if I were).
For film I'd suggest 50-200 ISO/ASA when you are using the tripod and 400 ISO/ASA for handheld or low light. Any of the big-three (Kodak, Fuji & Ilford (b&w only)) films are of the highest quality. There are smaller companies that produce excellent products, but as a beginner, stick with the big-3 and perhaps experiment later.
Don't be discouraged if the first few rolls are a bit pants compared to what you are getting now. As you can't see what you have done until you get the film back, the learning curve takes a bit longer to climb.
Have fun, Bob.
Last edited by Bob F.; 08-05-2008 at 12:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
[QUOTE=ajk1;662270Would I want a Polaroid back as well? What would be its use?
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.
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.
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¢
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
Where ever you are, there you be.
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.