I know of a few successful photog's who are still using film and scanning. Any other resisters here who do the same? What's your main reason for clinging to film cameras (e.g. quality, flexibility, cost to switch, etc).
The only significant problem I have is getting a good quality scan into my Mac. Coolscan 9000 is out of the question, so it's down to the Epson v500, v600 and v700... great prices in the US, but B&H nor Amazon won't ship to my country...
That's a pain. All the above were scanned on a v700. I picked it up on eBay...
I know of a few successful photog's who are still using film and scanning. Any other resisters here who do the same? What's your main reason for clinging to film cameras (e.g. quality, flexibility, cost to switch, etc).
Ditto, although my combo is a EOS 30 and a Canon 550D, which means that except for one lens, I can use them on both bodies...2. I enjoy the process of shooting film more than shooting digital.
2. I enjoy the process of shooting film more than shooting digital.
I just bought a Pentax 645N medium format film camera
Have you seen the work of Ian Cameron from the UK ? He uses a 645 and his work is amazing. He shoots some of the most beautifull landscape and seascape around the coast line.
http://www.transientlight.co.uk/
Thanks for the link Rob, I enjoyed looking through his gallery, I'm with you there amazing work!
Would love to visit the UK, some amazing scenery and castles on the beach
I am a hobyist, not a pro, but I still shoot film (as well as digital). That said I don't use a 35mm SLR. My main reasons for shooting film are:
- Access to types of camera that are prohibitevely expensive or simply don't exist as digital
- Experimentation with different types of film and their response
- Higher quality
If we go from the top! I have 3 film cameras right now. These are:
- Leica M3
- Mamiya 645AFd
- Rolleiflex Old Standard TLR
I have the M3 because I was able to buy that with a 50mm Summicron (close focusing range version) for about £1000. Yes this is very expensive but a comparable second hand M9 (the only full frame comparison currently available second hand) is about £4000 without a lens
I have the Mamiya as it is a modern medium format camera. I picked this up with a standard zoom for about £500. The cheapest digital alternative is at least £6000
I have the ancient Rolleiflex as there are simply no digital TLRs. If you want to try this style of shooting you must shoot film. It's also impressively small for medium format.
I have shot these cameras on a variety of film types. Whilst various digital cameras have film simulation modes these really don't compare with actually shooting Fuji Velvia or Kodak Tri-X. And none offer anything like Illford Delta 3200.
Quality? Scanned medium format film still offers amazing resolution, tonal smoothness and dynamic range compared with even the best digital sensors.
Note I also have a Canon EOS 7D and a (very rare) Epson R-D1 for when I want digital!
Some examples:
Illford Delta 3200, Mamiya 645AFd, Mamiya 80mm f/.28
[url=http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8064/8245716896_2ff423b283_z.jpg]Image[/url]
Untitled by r0bbieduncan, on Flickr
Kodak Tri-x 400, Rolleiflex (with built-in 80mm Zeiss lens)
[url=http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8204/8231046724_0d0618a88d_z.jpg]Image[/url]
Untitled by r0bbieduncan, on Flickr
Kodak Ektar 100, Leica M3, Leica 50mm Summicron
[url=http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8299/7803636836_ccc7309663_z.jpg]Image[/url]
Untitled by r0bbieduncan, on Flickr
But since I use the D800, nobody can convince me ANY other camera (except maybe a 10x8 inch sheet one for detail, it will lack on all other properties) delivers better IQ.
Firstly, you exaggerate a bit: the D800's resolution is roughly equivalent to 6x4.5 format film. A step up from 35mm, surely, but not anywhere near LF-quality performance. I shoot 4x5, so I know there's a difference. And I suppose you have compared the D800 to a Hasselblad H4D or Mamiya DM? Of course, those cameras are much more expensive, so I'd guess you could say that if the Nikon comes anywhere close for a much smaller price, it's a good value. And I routinely shoot with cameras that are 30-60 years old; no digitoy is going to last anywhere near that long.
Don't underestimate Portra's shadow retention. It can be pushed rather a lot; I've seen it done up to 25000. It does get a tad grainy when pushed, but it really is an amazing film. It's too bad Kodak's management is not up to the level of it's R&D. Sadly I find Portra too costly to use in 4x5.