View Full Version : Just fell in love all over again
PointOmega
05-19-2012, 14:46
I used to own a number of film Ms, all of which have since passed on, and have been using an X-pro 1 almost exclusively for the last couple of months. Went out and bought a new Voigtlander R3A body and Epson V700 on a whim yesterday. Shot my first roll on Tri-X this morning, got 36 negatives developed at Manhattan Color Lab for 8 bucks and just scanned the roll on the new Epson, using its native software. I am amazed - the B&W images I'm looking at on my screen have a certain something I have not been able to replicate in Silver Efex, call it soul or whatever. I actually tried to post-process them in Efex out of curiosity, and the originals look so much more natural. I'm guessing that my scans can only improve as I learn the process. I appreciate that there are people out there who have really mastered the Efex B&W conversion process, but it feels great to be able to generate B&W images that to me are awesome without having to do much beyond scanning real B&W film. The pictures I took this a.m. are all of family, so I'll post some others over the next few weeks.
In any case, to each their own, but I would definitely recommend that any digital converts out there give the ol' film a try. The workflow is way easier than I expected, and shooting the Voigtlander felt so much better than my X-pro, like suddenly remembering that first kiss 20 years ago.
I also feel pretty satisfied having bought a new rangefinder for less than $5,000. I expected the Voigtlander to suck (no reason really, just a Leica snob) and it actually works great, and feels great, though I don't expect it to last as long as my old Leicas. Feels like I did something to support perhaps the only company on earth that still cares about making film rangefinders for the common man. Feels so much better than passing cash around in a circle for used equipment. All in all, a great 24 hours. No affiliation whatsoever with any of the names mentioned above, just really happy.
helenhill
05-19-2012, 15:00
Cooool...it's Wonderful to be Drunk on One's creative endeavors
So what lens did you use on the R3A ?
Best- H
Great story! Thanks for posting.
PointOmega
05-19-2012, 20:16
Thanks! Used a summicron v.4. Fantastic.
in term of long run for budget wise..which one better? the film or digital ?
in term of long run for budget wise..which one better? the film or digital ?
Film. Cost of premium full-frame 35mm or even medium format film equipment puts digital to shame. It would take 10 years for digital to pay back that difference and that would be 10 years of inferior results.
How bout the cost of D800 with digital output or let say X pro 1 .. compare to the price of M6 body+film + negative processing + scanner etc..
Teuthida
05-22-2012, 00:27
If you want to augment your Bessa/film experience, try shooting an F5, which you can pick up used for $350. Its like shooting a D4, but with film. AF, AE, motorized drive, matrix metering etc. After 10 years of digital, it feels weird, but liberating, to pop a roll of Tri-X in the back door.
That's the funny part: film actually takes less time! Glad to see you've fell back in love with it again. The way light responds with an analogue medium is not to be underestimated. Ultimate sharpness means very little.
shadowfox
05-22-2012, 10:45
in term of long run for budget wise..which one better? the film or digital ?
Let's say it's digital.
Does that matter if shooting film gives you more satisfaction?
Driving my truck cost me more than driving a car.
But I would not trade it as long as I still can afford it.
shadowfox
05-22-2012, 10:46
In any case, to each their own, but I would definitely recommend that any digital converts out there give the ol' film a try. The workflow is way easier than I expected, and shooting the Voigtlander felt so much better than my X-pro, like suddenly remembering that first kiss 20 years ago.
Thank you for writing this.
Made my day :)
PointOmega
05-22-2012, 11:56
Glad it warmed your hearts. Seriously, I thought my new x-pro was the answer to my prayers (short of an M9), and it truly is an amazing digital camera, but man, there is nothing like shooting a roll, scanning in 15-30 minutes and then realizing you've just scored some shots that are beautiful beyond reckoning out of the box! And that bessa viewfinder? Holy crap, it makes my other cameras feel so confining. I am in my thirties and had years to shoot film, unlike some others here, but wow, I actually forgot how magical it can be. Totally different experience, beautiful (for me) results. Really freaking special. Seriously, like being 18 again on a Parisian summer night...yowza
PointOmega
05-22-2012, 12:05
On the question of cost. For a "hobbyist" like myself, I figure 2 rolls a week generates a total of ~$1500 a year for film (at ~$5 a roll)+negative development (~$8-10 a roll). The scanner cost me $400, but you can get a plustek 7400 for about $230 if you have a little more time to scan. Seriously, I spend more than that each year on much sillier things. If you can spend $30 less a week on starbucks, etc., you won't even notice it.
Speedfreak
05-30-2012, 04:30
the B&W images I'm looking at on my screen have a certain something I have not been able to replicate in Silver Efex, call it soul or whatever.
Its all in your mind exclusively. But if it makes you happy, go ahead. :D
I love my Bessa (R4A) too. Feels so easy and right to me, too. Supplemented with a Mamiya 7, Canon 1V (and L glass), a Bronica ERTS, and a few old Minolta X series 35mm and I feel like I have it all covered. Scored a MAJOR film buy at an antique store and I can literally shoot 35mm as long as I'd like. I develop B&W and C41 myself, and scan on a V700. The only part I don't like is the scanning. Wet printing the B&W is magical, though. :)
I am amazed - the B&W images I'm looking at on my screen have a certain something I have not been able to replicate in Silver Efex, call it soul or whatever.
This isn't in your mind, at all. Film really does evoke a totally different emotional response.
Possibly that's because film chemicals respond to light in the same way that our eyes do, while a linear interpolated digital algorithm reading from a sensor site doesn't. Or maybe there's something else in the image - the natural sharpness or the organic grain?
Whatever it is, the difference is really there. It's just the same way that some people can't tell the difference between Thunderbird and Bordeaux.
loquax ludens
05-30-2012, 14:19
Uh oh, this could turn into a film vs digital debate. Hopefully we're all tired of that by now. But at least we're in the right part of the forum for it.
I bought an X-Pro 1 because I needed a new digital P&S for convenience photography (ebay and craigslist ads, forum fodder, etc), but I'm finding it's actually a fair bit better and more pleasurable to use than I imagined it would be. To be fair, an X-Pro 1 is a bit beyond the type of point & shoot camera I was really after, but I liked the idea of interchangeable lenses.
My heart, however, belongs to film. I love the cameras, the process, and the look of film. I'd rather labor in my darkroom than struggle with Lightroom. But that doesn't mean I think film is better than digital. It is just better for me.
My theory is that film is actually a 3-d medium, where light can hit the surface at different angles and can be recorded thus. But digital sensors are essentially a flat-plane 2-d media where light collects in little buckets that are sealed off from one another, side to side.
In my mind digital can never emulate film unless it can somehow record the third dimension.
BardParker
05-30-2012, 17:27
I've gotten back into film in the past few months. I have been sending film for process and scan at NCPS and Precision Camera with great results. However, I have started developing some of my own B&W film at home and now see a need for a scanner. I shoot 35mm and 120 medium format, so need a scanner that will do both formats. Sounds like the Epson V700 just might be the ticket. Any other recommendations that cost under $1000? Also, just how labor intensive is the scanning process? (Most posts hint that it's the least enjoyable aspect of film photography).
Regards,
Kent
V-700 is probably the best under $1000.
Scanning can be fun and fast once you get the hang of it and develop a good workflow.
Digital ICE helps tremendously.
I spend no more time on scanning and post-processing my film than I did post processing my digital pics. And what upset me the most was all my digicam pics required post processing anyway.
I use Photoshop CS5 or PS Elements 10 and can pick the dust off in about 1 minute or less per photo. You get good at it real quickly.
With my Epson 4490, while 4 frames are scanning, I touch up the previous 4 and a roll of 36 goes by fast. A roll of 120 or 127 goes even faster with only 12 or 15 shots per.
loquax ludens
05-30-2012, 21:22
The Epson V-750-M Pro would be a better choice than the V-700 for under $1000. Epson says the optics are better in the V-750 (mirror and lens coating enhancements) and so it delivers better image quality and it scans faster, relative to the V-700. Plus, you have the option of fluid mounting with the V-750-M Pro.
V-750M is negligibly better than the V-700; it's all marketing.
Speedfreak
05-31-2012, 05:25
Possibly that's because film chemicals respond to light in the same way that our eyes do, while a linear interpolated digital algorithm reading from a sensor site doesn't. Or maybe there's something else in the image - the natural sharpness or the organic grain?
And when a negative gets scanned and put up on the web then the magic is gone or not?
Whatever it is, the difference is really there.
I have seen bw wet-prints and inkjet prints from good to bad. Never did the medium matter.
Take any properly done print and only a few experts will be able to tell if you shot film or digital. But then, this is not a matter of photography anymore but counting pixels vs counting grain.
If film is your prefered process, thats fine. But dont fool yourself into the "it is better because its film" trap.
If film is your prefered process, thats fine. But dont fool yourself into the "it is better because its film" trap.
Film isn't my preferred process, at all - but the result is better.
Speedfreak
05-31-2012, 05:31
Also, just how labor intensive is the scanning process? (Most posts hint that it's the least enjoyable aspect of film photography).
If you are picky, like me, scanning may drive you nuts. Dynamic range on all the sub-highend scanners is poor, resolution from 35mm is poor compared to just about any current DSLR. Add in the hassle of scratches and dust and expect an hour or so scanning a 35mm roll. (The V700 is faster but you will have to deal with the flimsy, idiotic film holders).
Speedfreak
05-31-2012, 05:32
Film isn't my preferred process, at all - but the result is better.
Could you post an example of a picture that is "better" because it was shot on film?
Shouldn't it be expected that a $200 scanner would not be as good as a $2000 scanner? Just the same as a $200 digicam is not as good as a $2000 digicam?
Digital capture and reproduction will take away some of the quality of film/paper but scanners capture the image of film much differently than a digicam does.
You can see the difference. (Well, I can... I can't fairly say what you can see)
Could you post an example of a picture that is "better" because it was shot on film?
If you're happy with your digital images, that's great - I'm not sure what you're doing in this thread though, where someone was expressing their excitement about returning to film after using digital.
I work with digital media - both still and motion. The motion team I work with capture on three RED cameras, and we use P45+ backs for stills. The technical quality is astounding. When I shoot film, I get an image that has a totally different emotional quality - so I recognized what the OP was talking about. If you don't, then it's entirely up to you - absolutely nothing I say or show would convince you of anything different.
Speedfreak
05-31-2012, 08:04
If you're happy with your digital images, that's great - I'm not sure what you're doing in this thread though, where someone was expressing their excitement about returning to film after using digital.
I am here to learn. You say "film gives better results" so I am asking for an example were film gave "a better result".
When I shoot film, I get an image that has a totally different emotional quality
If shooting film makes you happy then go ahead. We werent talking about "emotions" in the first place though. You claimed film gave "better results".
absolutely nothing I say or show would convince you of anything different.
You are chickening out.
Speedfreak it is up to you to convince yourself. We can not do that.
Perhaps like the OP, PointOmega, you can get some film gear and make your own experience.
Be prepared though... :)
Teuthida
05-31-2012, 09:41
I am here to learn. You say "film gives better results" so I am asking for an example were film gave "a better result".
If shooting film makes you happy then go ahead. We werent talking about "emotions" in the first place though. You claimed film gave "better results".
You are chickening out.
You're tone deaf.
Teuthida
05-31-2012, 09:42
If you're happy with your digital images, that's great - I'm not sure what you're doing in this thread though, where someone was expressing their excitement about returning to film after using digital.
I work with digital media - both still and motion. The motion team I work with capture on three RED cameras, and we use P45+ backs for stills. The technical quality is astounding. When I shoot film, I get an image that has a totally different emotional quality - so I recognized what the OP was talking about. If you don't, then it's entirely up to you - absolutely nothing I say or show would convince you of anything different.
well said.
loquax ludens
05-31-2012, 17:53
V-750M is negligibly better than the V-700; it's all marketing.
I am by no means denigrating the V-700. It is almost the same scanner as the V-750M Pro. My point was that if the budget is $1000 for a new scanner, the V-750M Pro is a better choice than a V-700. Two reasons, better glass coatings, and option to wet mount. Say what you like, but the latter is definitely not just marketing. You could argue that the former is because the coatings probably make little to no difference for most scans. Another reason I didn't mention before is that the V-750 comes with the full AI version of Silverfast, the V-700 doesn't.
The V750 is available for MUCH less than $1000. It is under $800, in fact. I paid $736 for mine.
Now, if the budget was for under $600 scanners (new), the V-700 would clearly be the best choice.
I am here to learn. You say "film gives better results" so I am asking for an example were film gave "a better result".
Why not use the medium yourself and throw in your own opinions? Otherwise you're just trolling.
The people who shoot film know why they prefer film.
For the record: F digital.
heartattackandvine
06-01-2012, 23:48
Could you post an example of a picture that is "better" because it was shot on film?
I don't know what's "better" according to your standards, but as some sort of answer to your question, I can suggest browsing through the appropriate flickr groups (say, "Film is not dead it just smells funny (http://www.flickr.com/groups/onfilm/)" vs something like Nikon D90 (http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon_d90/) - or pick any other digi camera of your preference. Btw. I'm a member of both groups and use both media - and don't see why I'd have to pick only one - but in terms of emotional/artistic satisfaction, I have no doubt which side has a stronger tendency to satisfy me. Exactly why that is so I wouldn't know (though I like the "3D theory" I've seen on this thread). I agree with you though that there is a "it's better because it's film" trap, and I suppose many hipsters have fallen into it. But then again that's why they're referred to as "hipsters".
I use both. As a new film user and trying to learn as well I find that film/digital are two different aesthetic mediums, that's where I'm coming from. That's just me of course, and I'm sure it's very much to your eye and what you want to achieve - artistic or otherwise.
shadowfox
06-18-2012, 09:00
And when a negative gets scanned and put up on the web then the magic is gone or not?
Scanned negative is a half-potential alternative to darkroom printing.
I'm not saying it's bad, it's convenient, and allows for digital post-processing which could turn an image into pretty much anything nowadays.
Darkroom prints, or other alternative printing is closer to the full potential of what film photography can offer for the photographer (not necessarily the viewers). And yes, I'm talking about the process, which is just as important ( to me) as the results.
I have seen bw wet-prints and inkjet prints from good to bad. Never did the medium matter.
May I ask: Have you ever *made* one yourself (a darkroom print)?
You may still not see the point even when you had experienced it, but at least your views will hold more weight because you can tell us why *for you* the medium doesn't matter because the process does nothing for you either.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.