Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

 

“Our autobiography is written in our contact sheets,  and our opinion of the world in our selects”  

"Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."  

 

Bill Pierce is one of the most successful Leica photographers and authors ever. I initially "met" Bill in the wonderful 1973 15th edition Leica Manual (the one with the M5 on the cover). I kept reading and re-reading his four chapters, continually amazed at his knoweldge and ability, thinking "if I only knew a small part of what this guy knows... wow."  I looked foward to his monthly columns in Camera 35 and devoured them like a starving man.  Bill has worked as a photojournalist  for 25 years, keyword: WORK.  Many photogs dream of the professional photographer's  life that Bill has earned and enjoyed.  Probably Bill's most famous pic is Nixon departing the White House for the last time, victory signs still waving. 

 

Bill  has been published in many major magazines, including  Time, Life, Newsweek, U.S. News, The New York Times Sunday Magazine, New York Magazine, Stern, L'Express and Paris Match.  :His published books include  The Leica Manual,  War Torn, Survivors and Victims in the Late 20th Century, Homeless in America,  Human Rights in China,  Children of War.  Add to that numerous exhibitions at major galleries and museums.  Magazine contributions include  Popular Photography,  Camera 35, Leica Manual,  Photo District News, the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, the Digital Journalist, and now RFF.  Major awards include Leica Medal of Excellence, Overseas Press Club's Oliver Rebbot Award for Best Photojournalism from Abroad,  and the World Press Photo's Budapest Award. Perhaps an ever bigger award is Tom Abrahamsson's comment: "If you want to know Rodinal, ask Bill."

 

I met Bill in person through our mutual friend Tom Abrahamsson.  In person his insight and comments are every bit as interesting and engaging as his writing.  He is a great guy who really KNOWS photography.  I am happy to say he has generously agreed to host this forum at RFF  From time to time Bill will bring up topics, but you are also invited to ask questions.  Sit down and enjoy the ride!

 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

And the winner is.........
Old 03-19-2017   #1
Bill Pierce
Registered User
 
Bill Pierce's Avatar
 
Bill Pierce is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 935
And the winner is.........

It’s impossible to make direct comparisons between pixels and grain or even two different ways of interpreting color and brightness range, but most folks accept that current full frame and APS-C sensors at somewhere between 10 and 16 megapixels outperform 35mm film in sharpness and brightness range.

Is there a way for film to outperform these popular digitals? Go by an old 4x5 sheet film camera and some holders. Mount it on a tripod and stop the lens down until its performance peaks. An economical Epson 750 scanner working at 2400 dpi produces a color scan my Mac tells me is 591 mg. And with film of that size and proper sharpening in your imaging program, it is essentially impossible to tell the difference between that scan and a scan from my much more expensive Imacon. Once again, just counting megapixels from a scanned negative and comparing them to the megapixels of a digital camera is not really meaningful. But, believe me, when properly used, 4x5 film kicks butt and equals or perhaps even surpasses the 6 x 4.5 cm digital sensors.

My first “professional” camera was a 4x5 Speed Graphic. Washed cars and mowed lawn for one summer in high school to afford it. One just a bit newer along with some lenses that rarely find their way onto a Graphic sit in my studio and sometimes make it out into the daylight. Someday I’ll buy myself one of those medium format digitals, but for now I’m going with the old fashioned, but infinitely more affordable, solution. Your thoughts?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2017   #2
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,969
While I can't really argue pixels and sharpness, I still like the tonal qualities I get out of black and white film. Looking for a Medalist with a decent lens for my "big negative" fix. I can scan the 6x9 negs in my Coolscan 9000 (the biggest size film negatives it can handle). Don't really have a way to scan 4 X 5.

A director of photography told me years ago, and I still think it applies these days, the reason he still shot on film (while the studios were pushing digital) is that film handled the huge dynamic range of life better than digital. Once an image was captured on film, and then scanned to be used for digital post production, the digital medium could handle the dynamic range of the film negative. So Huge Dynamic Range of Life -> Large Dynamic Range of Film -> More Limited Dynamic Range of Digital.

And again, I like film for the subtle tonal gradations that I get with it.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2017   #3
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 40
Posts: 3,104
I've been shooting cameras with 120 film for quite a long time. The bulk of my photographic experience, which is almost 30 years. My recent go-to cameras are a pair of Mamiya 6 bodies. I got into the system because of the 50mm lens which is spectacular.
Over the last 15 years I've owned and shot a few 4x5 cameras, all Crown or Speed Graphics. One I turned into a severely modified 4x5 point & shoot with a 65mm Super Angulon hanging off the front.
Last year I took an old cigar box and put a laser etched .35mm pinhole on one side then fabbed up a way to stick standard film holders on the back. I've been taking some photos with it at The Woodlands Cemetery here in Philadelphia and the results are stunning. I don't have a scanner for large format yet but I built myself a little rig to digitize the negatives and hobble them with the capture range of a Nikon D300s. That said, the negatives themselves are outstanding. Even with the pinhole, little can touch it with regard to the sheer tonal gamut that 4x5 film has.
Even my old Type 55 and 57 polaroids had tonality that the Mamiya 6 can't match.
Now I recently got myself a "real" field camera for landscape use with 4x5 film and can't wait to make some huge negatives.
My next purchase is going to be a Microtek i900 scanner for the large format negs.
...and after that, a faster computer with 10TB of NAS storage...
So yes, the winner is certainly large format film.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2017   #4
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 3,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
Someday I’ll buy myself one of those medium format digitals, but for now I’m going with the old fashioned, but infinitely more affordable, solution.

Your thoughts?
Of course.

I KNOW that medium format is higher-definition than 35mm (or close to) digital or film cameras. The largest I have is a Yashica TLR and I know it is capable of stunning resolution.

However, for convenience (and what I'm simply used to) the 35mms and the digitals are the ones I carry and use regularly.
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2017   #5
Ranchu
Registered User
 
Ranchu's Avatar
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,658
Digital certainly does not outperform film in 'brightness range'. My thoughts are because of that, film is superior as a photographic medium.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2017   #6
Bill Pierce
Registered User
 
Bill Pierce's Avatar
 
Bill Pierce is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
Digital certainly does not outperform film in 'brightness range'. My thoughts are because of that, film is superior as a photographic medium.
Over the years this has changed. From an ariticle in Petapixel -

"Most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range. Today’s modern digital cameras all average around 14 stops of dynamic range, with high-end units such as the Nikon D810 reaching almost 15 stops. Film continuous to deliver incredible dynamic range, but today’s digital technology can easy match it."

And

Tests conducted by Roger N. Clark, showed that high-end digital cameras in 2005 began to show “huge dynamic range compared to [scans of] either print or slide film”. http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...#dynamic_range
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2017   #7
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 4,927
I honestly don't think digital matches film in resolution or dynamic range. 35mm film vs full frame, there's not a chance in hell of digital cameras matching the dynamic range on offer from film in a natural way. Shoot a roll of 400h or portrait 400 5 stops overexposed and you'll still get details in the highlights and creamy correct skin tones, albeit more pastel. Digital 5 stops over is a white frame. Sure you can boost the hell out of shadows, but without exception it looks unnatural and garish.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2017   #8
Ranchu
Registered User
 
Ranchu's Avatar
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
Over the years this has changed. From an ariticle in Petapixel -

"Most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range. Today’s modern digital cameras all average around 14 stops of dynamic range, with high-end units such as the Nikon D810 reaching almost 15 stops. Film continuous to deliver incredible dynamic range, but today’s digital technology can easy match it."

And

Tests conducted by Roger N. Clark, showed that high-end digital cameras in 2005 began to show “huge dynamic range compared to [scans of] either print or slide film”. http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...#dynamic_range
Hype. Digital can only record a 1 to 1 ratio of the scene contrast to the contrast recorded, c41 records .7 stop difference on film for every 1 stop difference in the scene. Then an s curve is added to the digital file so it looks decent, increasing the midtone contrast from 1:1, while the film has the s curve built in, giving more tone compression in the highlights/shadows and keeping the .7:1 ratio in the midtones.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2017   #9
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 45
Posts: 1,254
In terms of tactile experience and value, MF film (cameras) is (are) hard to be beat- provided there is restraint in the number of frames exposed. For the dilettante, then.

In terms of quality I would say digital surpassed 35mm awhile a go, whatever that might mean. That might mean you have to be a photoshop master, or not. Get it right the first time will always be, well, timeless... You can print any size from almost any medium. It is simply up to you; there are, actually, no rules.

Film now, marketing wise, offers a "new" experience, a "new" look. It is quite interesting.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2017   #10
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 65
Posts: 647
I would like to ask a question that I think relates to the original intent of this thread. (Note that I still have no personal experience with digital.)

When I read about larger digital formats and higher capacity, I read about more megapixels/more data/more detail/larger files.

In the case of film, larger format means more detail/less grain/better tonality.

In discussions of larger digital formats, I don't see reference to improved tonality. Why is that? (Have I just missed it in the conversation or is there no significant improvement in digital tonality with more pixels or larger sensors?

Thanks -

- Murray
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2017   #11
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is online now
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
Over the years this has changed. From an ariticle in Petapixel -

"Most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range. Today’s modern digital cameras all average around 14 stops of dynamic range, with high-end units such as the Nikon D810 reaching almost 15 stops. Film continuous to deliver incredible dynamic range, but today’s digital technology can easy match it."

And

Tests conducted by Roger N. Clark, showed that high-end digital cameras in 2005 began to show “huge dynamic range compared to [scans of] either print or slide film”. http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...#dynamic_range
That assumes colour film and no dodging and burning of the film image. The difference is that those ~14 stops in your digital image is all there is. Below, pure black, above, pure white. In a film image the part of the density curve you can get into a print might only be 12 stops, but there is a huge amount of information either side that that which you can squeeze into the final image by a variety of methods.

There is also the question of how the recording medium shows the transition from the brightest recordable details to pure white, and from the darkest recordable details to pure black. This still tends to look uglier and more of an abrupt change in digital but more smoothly transitional on film.

But the noise and sharpness is miles ahead with digital, and the available speed is incomparable. I miss how Plus-X with a yellow filter looks, but I don't miss shooting it, especially in marginal light.

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2017   #12
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 4,429
The Leica Monochrom.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Hang up your boots
Old 03-20-2017   #13
Kevcaster
Registered User
 
Kevcaster is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: London
Posts: 206
Hang up your boots

This forum continues to be the home of some of the best discussions in photography and never fails to provoke thought and debate, bravo to those who contribute. Here are some of my thoughts.

Digital quality and convenience has won in almost all but a few esoteric applications. It strikes me that users at both ends of the photography spectrum, full time professionals at one end and consumers (who may not identify themselves as photographers) at the other, have embraced digital completely. Why would they change from that position? The sheer convenience, the immediate feedback and the facility for instant sharing and distribution trumps film in every way possible, even if there was still a case for higher quality images from film - and there is not a case for this.

Film still offers an alternative medium with special qualities other than sharpness and tonal range in the same way that painter might choose Goache or Acrylic paints for certain subjects. If artistic vision stretches to the use of the special qualities then, as many of you have one or two, the film camera can do the job and produce wonderful, sharp, tonally satisfying images that, additionally, play on the nostalgic and romantic senses of the viewer. Some professionals can exploit these qualities for some assignments and projects, again this choice is unlikely to be based on the search for sharper or tonally dynamic images.

If we consider those who identify themselves as photographers, not professionals, and are still practicing their craft with film then the picture is quite different. In this group the motivations for using film might include many other factors in addition to the search for the sharpest image or dynamic tonal quality. The romance, nostalgia, the craft, making something, the relationship with their machines, the challenges, the tactile result; all of these factors may outweigh their interests in pure image quality measured in pixels and LPM.
I belong to this group and in the game that played out between film and digital for image quality, I hung up my boots a long time ago and abandoned digital.
Good pictures are good pictures whatever the medium, some are sharper than others and some cope better with that black doorway in the desert sun.
Kevin
__________________
Leica M6 1989 - no more broken cameras - no digital
[url="https:[email protected]/"]Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017   #14
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,533
As far as I can tell, for rather large prints large format film is the way to go.

A corollary would be 135 format film has no advantage for normal sized prints. From an objective point of view (in other words... show me the data) right now many still 135 format and even APS-C format digital cameras outperform film in every way. Years ago I bristled at a simple fact. In skilled hands a raw file can be rendered and printed to have the same aesthetic as an 100% analog 135 format photograph. But that's the way it is. The reverse is not true.

Subjective preferences for film and for using cameras that use film are authentic. Happiness in photography is more important than objective differences in media performance.

The thing is – subjectivity also includes the possibility of a preference for digital imaging. A preference for digital imaging is tainted by its convenience. But scanning film media can be convenient as well.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017   #15
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,574
My problem, with the 14 trillion photos taken with digital, is I still haven't found anybody that I like that is shooting digital. I use to like Martin Parr but now his stuff just looks like my brother took it. Any suggestions? Where are the AAs, HBCs, Man Rays, James Ravilious(es).
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017   #16
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,678
IME, film has more range in the highlights and digital in the shadows.

Digital can't bring out the detail in these flames:


Bathtub, Minneapolis, MN, 1987 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017   #17
Bill Pierce
Registered User
 
Bill Pierce's Avatar
 
Bill Pierce is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 935
Maggie is right. You can not overexpose digital highlights. In a sense, digital is like transparency film. And digital is certainly good at holding shadow detail when compared to silver prints. Whenever we have threads like this, there is always the comment that digital black-and-white images don’t look the same as silver. That’s usually true if you simply set levels and contrast. Both silver negatives and the silver enlarging paper have curves. Most digital programs will allow you to create curves the mimic this, but it takes experimentation, a lot of test prints and throwing away some of the precious shadow detail that digital images can hold. But you can reach the point where photo friends will look at prints and ask is that digital or silver.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017   #18
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is online now
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,267


Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017   #19
Nowhereman
Registered User
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 217
Maggie - not so sure that digital cannot bring out sufficient highlight details, even when shooting directly into bright sunlight...


Leica M10 | Summicron 35v4 | ISO 200 | f/5.6 | 1/180 sec

Paris


_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #20
Mr. Fizzlesticks
Registered User
 
Mr. Fizzlesticks is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
My problem, with the 14 trillion photos taken with digital, is I still haven't found anybody that I like that is shooting digital. I use to like Martin Parr but now his stuff just looks like my brother took it. Any suggestions? Where are the AAs, HBCs, Man Rays, James Ravilious(es).
Yup.

10 characters
__________________


It is not the camera in your hand dingleberry; it is the brain in your head.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #21
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 668
Most of the photography I see online is pretty sad. But there are some gems out there. Even some older and long revered photographers have switched, at least in part, to using digital. I think the vast majority of working photojournalists today are digital shooters...by necessity if not by preference.

I recall a video about Saul Leiter that stated he shot several digital cameras the last few years of his life although I don't recall ever seeing any of his later work published or exhibited. Stephen Shore (famed for 8x10 format color work) now shoots digital. Maybe not totally but some of his more recent work has been with a digital Nikon. His book "Winslow, Arizona" looks a lot like his older large format work while he states he used digital for convenience and cost. I've always liked Shore's work.

I'm sure there are more but I seldom pay attention to what equipment was used as long as the photo is interesting. Film has advantages, digital has advantages. Good photographers will always get good photos.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #22
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by maggieo View Post
IME, film has more range in the highlights and digital in the shadows.

Digital can't bring out the detail in these flames:
Maybe digital could... maybe not. It's impossible to know.

It could be true that optimizing exposure (shutter time and aperture) is much more critical for digital compared to film (especially negative film).

Digital imaging performance is highly dependent on the analog signal-to-noise ratio when the shutter is open. Any under exposure will certainly reduce the "range". And as mentioned above, over-exposure of important/required/desired highlights regions results in an irreversible loss of information.

When using raw files, the information loss is not necessarily catastrophic. Destroying 10% of the blue channel information does not make rendering an aesthetically acceptable sky impossible. There is very little, if any, sky detail in the blue channel. But the hue will have a cyan cast. This is trivial to counter. Obviously at some point overexposing the blue channel will be catastrophic. If the sky is the photograph's subject (i.e. a studies of cloud formations) then any loss of blue channel data would be have consequences.

Intentionally overexposing specular highlights or other bright, point-source lights is a practical way to maximize the "range". For static scenes one can automatically bracket exposures and render the one raw file that happens to have optimum highlight retention. (This is not exposure blending). When I started using digital raw files (D200) I bracketed on one-stop steps. With the D700 and X100 I switched to switched to 1/2 stops. With the X-T1 and X100T 1/3 stop brackets suffice.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #23
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,474
And the whiner is...

All of these talks about formats and megapixels are relevant to something else, but not to photography which most of us are into. Get it printed at 8x10 or less. Have it on the screen. 8MP sensor and 135 film will do.
Who is enlarging, printing at posters size?
All of those notes about how deep range of MF and LF is are often, if not always comes from those who are taking boring pictures.

Jane Bown, Garry Winogrand, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Victor Kolar, George Zimbel. I have their books at home. Incredible photography with 135 bw film. 4x5 is totally useless for it.

I printed from 4x5 on 8x10 and honestly, it is not worth of the hassle. I'm getting much more vibrant prints with Leica.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #24
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,733
I don't think anything digital has the look and range of a properly executed B&W zone system image from an 8X10 neg and a silver gelatin zone system print done by someone that really knows the system.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #25
Nowhereman
Registered User
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 217
airfrogusmc - perhaps, but maximum resolution and the smoothest gradation possible is not the necessarily the best thing. For myself, I've always preferred the "35mm aesthetic".
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #26
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman View Post
airfrogusmc - perhaps, but maximum resolution and the smoothest gradation possible is not the necessarily the best thing. For myself, I've always preferred the "35mm aesthetic".
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
I like both. I think it depends on subject and message. If we are talking tonal range and sharpness Adams Yosemite Clearing Storm or Westons Cypress Tree Ponit Lobos is pretty hard to beat. I think that they both have a place for sure but I think we were taking tonal range and if that's the criteria I stand by my statement. Preference is subjective but range and sharpness are far more objective. And as said I haven't seen anything digitally or from say a 135 format in B&W that can compare to a well executed zone negative and print by a photographer that has mastered the system when talking sharpness and regarding tonal range. That said I also love a gritty high contrast B&W print of subjects that lend themselves to that aesthetic. Proper tool for the job. Landscapes that require range and sharpness; 8X10 zone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #27
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 40
Posts: 3,104
This has become a straight digital vs film debate, regardless of format. That's ok, it's still a civil discussion.
One thing that is rarely touched upon, if ever is the actual working of a digital camera vs a film one. I like getting away from the city and electricity as often as possible and I don't do it enough. I can carry several hundred years' worth of S76 cells in my bag for my Gossen Luna Pro, Nikon F3, Nikon F2AS, Nikonos V, Mamiya 6 pair and a soon-to-be-mine Nikon FA. That's all the electricity I need and if the batteries fail, I replace them. If it's too cold, I can put them in my pocket and use when necessary. Worst case scenario, I use my built-in Mk 1.1 eyeball light meter and the F2. Those are my cameras that need batteries for internal metering and shutter operation, to some extent.
The Kodak Retina IIa, Leica M4, Nikon F2 sans-meter, Nagaoka 4x5 and a pair of homemade pinhole cameras, can operate forever without electricity.
There aren't any digital cameras out there that will allow me a week of backpacking out in Canyonlands National Park, Utah nor a similar time frame on the Appalachian Trail, nor anywhere for that matter. Get cold weather involved and you have less than two days' shooting, even with carrying a plethora of spare batteries. Lithiums get very inefficient and drain fast in cold. I just hate being tied to radius near a wall socket for the purposes of capturing images.
For people who don't mind sitting next to the highway, within a few hours of a hotel room, this isn't a concern.
In a nutshell, I kind of hold up my camera kit to the standard of production I had when I was deployed with the Navy. I always had to have a backup that would work if my primary died. At the time, my primary camera (Nikon D2h) died quite a few times due to a number of reasons. My Leica M2 and M4 never stopped.
And back to large format film, there are few, if any digital or smaller than 6x8cm cameras that have the ability to move lens and film standards like a view camera does.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #28
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,733
If were are talking smaller formats though I still love film in all formats my MM is my fav if talking smaller formats like 135 though if I still had a darkroom I would still be shooting film in some capacity.i They all have place. For color in smaller formats digital all the way. M-E and M 262....
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #29
Nowhereman
Registered User
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 217
airfrogusmc - Yes, there can be all types of landscapes. I happen to like the first one below, which shows something about a hybrid workflow: this was a Tri-X shot that a lab made a mistake on doing stand development; they used a two-roll tank that was too small for a 1:100 Rodinal dilution — the result was severe underdevelopment, so severe that the "TRI-X" lettering on the film was barely visible. The negative was so thin that, in the lab, one would never would have been able to make a print using an enlarger. In Lightroom the histogram was just a sliver, and moving the various sliders just one unit made huge changes. However, I was able, carefully, to tease the image below from this frame. This shows that using a hybrid workflow is something that can result in a look that one might not to be able to get in the darkroom.

One the other hand, the second and third shots below show the "medium-format look" that one may be able to approach with a full-frame digital camera, and possibly with an APS-C camera as well. That's enough "quality" for me, but I understand why people may want to shoot 4x5 film as well.


Leica M6 |Tri-X @ 400 | DR-Summicron-50 | Stand development in Rodinal 1:100

Wiang Pa Pao



Leica MM | Summicron-35v4 | ISO 640 | f/8 | 1/250 sec | Yellow filter

Wiang Pa Pao



Leica MM | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 320 | f/8 | 1/750 sec

Hua Hin

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #30
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,733
I am not even going to comment on 100 KB compressed jpg s from a web site as far as tonality and sharpness go. These are all fine photographs but a 135 negative does not have the range and the detail of an 8X10 zone system negative that was shot and processed by an accomplished zone system photographer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #31
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 40
Posts: 3,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
I am not even going to comment on 100 KB compressed jpg s from a web site as far as tonality and sharpness go.
This is why I really want to find a low shutter count Nikon D2Hs. Pro-built camera that is more than enough for the tri-tone print and web use for news work. Nothing more. Tools for the job.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #32
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman View Post
Maggie - not so sure that digital cannot bring out sufficient highlight details, even when shooting directly into bright sunlight...
It's OK, but in the bathtub shot, the wicks of the candles are very close to true black, whereas, in your shot, the tones of the building are lucky to get close to Zone II.

Actually, I think that the process that gets you the most dynamic range is a hybrid film/digital process, with silver-based film. You can let quite a lot of highlight silver build up on the negative, while exposing for the shadows, and after you've scanned the negs, processing can cut through the layers of built-up silver and bring out loads of detail in the highlights.

Hey, I think I've just come up with another good reason to shoot Tri-X!
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #33
Ranchu
Registered User
 
Ranchu's Avatar
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,658
I was talking about midtone contrast, actually. It's a venn diagram, you'll be able to get some from each that look similar. That's not the point, the question is which is better as a photographic medium, and why.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #34
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 2,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by maggieo View Post
......Hey, I think I've just come up with another good reason to shoot Tri-X!
Kind of related to this discussion. I entered three B&W prints in a recent photo contest in my small town. Strictly by coincidence, all three were taken with a film camera of some sort. The picture that I liked the most (taken with a Leica MP on Tri-X), received high marks for subject matter, originality, tones etc., but was marked down because it had grain. The judge, a youngish chap in his 30’s, was partial toward prints taken with a digital camera that had no grain.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:

http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #35
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,678
Jim, way back in the 1970s, when I was in Junior High, I entered a bunch of photos in the Burt County Fair's photo contest.

Most folks who saw my photos thought they were a lock to win, but I was disqualified for developing and printing them myself.

Contests are humbug.
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #36
Hatchetman
Registered User
 
Hatchetman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 182
In a photo contest I think everyone is a loser.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #37
Nowhereman
Registered User
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by maggieo View Post
It's OK, but in the bathtub shot, the wicks of the candles are very close to true black, whereas, in your shot, the tones of the building are lucky to get close to Zone II...
Not a good comparison: you've got candles and my picture is straight into direct, strong sunlight, so strong that you squint your eyes...

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #38
Ranchu
Registered User
 
Ranchu's Avatar
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,658
Just looks like contrast to me. What is this 'medium format look' you speak of? This is what I think of as a 'medium format look'.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...53&postcount=2
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #39
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,733
Heres the large format zone system things I was referring to though this small JPG does the image no justice. I saw 4 ft by 5ft print of this in the mid 1990s at the Andrew Smith gallery in Santa Fe. Adams had printed himself and it had detail in the shadows and he held all the highlights and the detail was insane.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2008...ams-LP-533.jpg

And I had a chance in 1997 t see this at the Weston Gallery in Carmel. I actually saw a loose print in a mat and over mat at the gallery without glass or plastic sleeve over it and it to is spectacular.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-lobos1946.jpg

Nothing from small format film (135) can give you that kind of detail or tonality. Especially when done by someone that really knows large format and the zone system.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #40
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman View Post
Not a good comparison: you've got candles and my picture is straight into direct, strong sunlight, so strong that you squint your eyes...

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
And the bathtub shot is a very long exposure into direct, strong flames. Your exposure was a fraction of a second, mine was many seconds.
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 14:41.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.