OT: Film cameras and photography comeback?

[.RJ]

Film has indeed made a big comeback. The price and availability of film during covid was really bad - fortunately things have settled down a bit.

I've been dabbling in photography for a long time and picked back up with film a few years ago. It all started with buying older film (Konica) lenses to adapt to my Fuji mirrorless camera, and I figured I'd get a 35mm SLR to use them too.

Originally Posted by jamesdak

This makes no sense to me. IF I did want to go back to shooting film it would be for a camera much, much more capable than this one. Why buy something like this when there's a gazillion used options out there that will give you better bang for the buck than this, even if the Pentax is dirt cheap. To me this is the equivalent of the $50 turntables you can buy on Amazon.....why?

Why? Because the used 35mm 'point and shoot' style options are all old and getting fragile, prices have gone through the roof, and a lot of them are generally not repairable - or if they are its not cost effective. Or they have a Leica badge on them.

I would really like to see autofocus on this camera, that one really misses the mark for me. I really really want a nice 35mm 'point and shoot' AF camera but the nice ones are coming up on $1000 and the cheaper ones are a roll of the dice and some of the lenses on them are just atrocious. At $20-30 per roll by the time its done I'm not wasting time with ****ty plastic lenses.

[benb]

My interest in photography has been relatively low the last few years.. have not been using my digital cameras much.

For a long time I took a ton of photos. If I am really into it I have no desire to go back to film as over the longer term digital has been WAY less expensive.

But I also have little interest in buying any new fancy cameras. I have a Canon 5D MkIII that is now 12 years old. Some of my lenses are now 20 years old. Prices on new stuff is bonkers insane for diminishing returns. There are itches I have never scratched like using a T&S lens or a view camera but I don't really have the time to do so in a satisfying way.

I am exceedingly not interested in P&S anything at this point because smartphone cameras have literally gotten better than P&S cameras.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by benb

I am exceedingly not interested in P&S anything at this point because smartphone cameras have literally gotten better than P&S cameras.

Kindle vs printed book. The Kindle is objectively better, but some people just love the experience of reading a physical book.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by benb

I am exceedingly not interested in P&S anything at this point because smartphone cameras have literally gotten better than P&S cameras.

You're using the wrong P&S then.

But, the best camera is the one you have with you and for most of us thats the phone.

[charliedid]

I have always wanted to own an 8x10 field camera....maybe as a retirement activity. I'm afraid I am too hyper and love the immediate gratification of digital but field cams have always appealed. 8x10 contact prints are out of this world.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by charliedid

I have always wanted to own an 8x10 field camera....maybe as a retirement activity. I'm afraid I am too hyper and love the immediate gratification of digital but field cams have always appealed. 8x10 contact prints are out of this world.

I found this guy on YouTube: https://youtu.be/HRk1BWP5iDI?si=0H82kyV3ADtMcnWA

He embodies an almost extreme example of somebody who really makes life hard for himself by not only shooting film in 2024, but landscape photography with an 8x10. I mean, good Lord. First, the weight of all that in the field. The camera, the tripod (no carbon fiber Gitzo can hold that camera well), the film and film holders, the lenses (big!), and everything else you need for the trek into Zion or wherever. I almost refuse to believe he does it alone. Then there's the setup, and restriction of working a large camera on a tripod. If you read Ansel Adams autobiography, he did all that in Yosemite and the Sierras with horses or mules and a friendly assistant, but, still, made me appreciate what an athlete he must have been in his younger years, but that really wore him down. But even he smiled when somebody put a Hassleblad in his hands with some interchangable roll film backs. Game changer. I'm convinced he would marvel at modern digital and Photoshop.
Anyway, what does this young man do after he goes through all the bother of shooting these images and having them processed? (Where does somebody have large format color transparencies developed today? And reliably? Color would shift noticeably with every batch in machines in the 70s and 80s if an expert didn't stay on top of the thing. Today? I doubt the expertise is left.) Well, he scans them on what seems to be a common consumer flatbed on his desk that I would cringe to use compared to a good drum scanner. But, again, a good drum scanner is super expensive, hard to operate, and fragile. But, the point is, he DIGITALIZES them at a certain point, in order to monetize them on his website and print them. Why not start with digital in the first place? A 100 mp digital camera could easily match the quality of a desktop scanned, even drum scanned 8x10, and would be so much easier to take outside in nature. And, overall, the cost would be much less.
It's all a strange charade, but, maybe he's marketed himself well to a certain element out there who also like to make life hard for themselves for some reason, and his YouTube pays well. He certainly produces his media well.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Anyway, what does this young man do after he goes through all the bother of shooting these images and having them processed

Here's a non-scientific blog about the large format film vs 61mp digital for large prints...

tl;dr - for a 48" print, they're close. But that's a 61mp camera, which isn't typical today.

https://www.mountainphotography.com/...on-comparison/

And of course, part of producing and buying art is the process/story. I own some art that looks pretty, but I don't know the back-story and don't feel much connection with - it's just aesthetically pleasing. I also own art where I know the artist, know the story behind the art, and feel a connection with the piece.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Alistair

Here's a non-scientific blog about the large format film vs 61mp digital for large prints...

tl;dr - for a 48" print, they're close. But that's a 61mp camera, which isn't typical today.

https://www.mountainphotography.com/...on-comparison/

And of course, part of producing and buying art is the process/story. I own some art that looks pretty, but I don't know the back-story and don't feel much connection with - it's just aesthetically pleasing. I also own art where I know the artist, know the story behind the art, and feel a connection with the piece.

I've done a 60" print with a 23mp "full frame" digital image. It was a metal print and it was god-awful insanely expensive. $500+

There is "holds up" when you stick your nose at your eyes minimum focusing distance, and then there is "holds up" at a reasonable viewing distance.

If you're going to stand at the minimum distance your eyes can focus there is nothing like an 8"x10" print from an 8"x10" piece of film. It feels like infinite detail and you can just fall into the image. There is no visible film grain. The only ones of these I've actually seen of course are Ansel Adams' prints of his own work, both back about 20 years ago when there was a traveling exhibit and then about 15 years ago I visited the center in Yosemite.

But from realistic distances it doesn't really matter. And almost no one is actually doing 100% analog 8x10 prints from 8x10 film the way he did it.

This stuff really was something I was very into.. having a family kind of killed it.

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by Alistair

Here's a non-scientific blog about the large format film vs 61mp digital for large prints...

tl;dr - for a 48" print, they're close. But that's a 61mp camera, which isn't typical today.

https://www.mountainphotography.com/...on-comparison/

And of course, part of producing and buying art is the process/story. I own some art that looks pretty, but I don't know the back-story and don't feel much connection with - it's just aesthetically pleasing. I also own art where I know the artist, know the story behind the art, and feel a connection with the piece.

I quit the medium format stuff for good once I perfected my technique for crushing it with my Canon 5D. Basically, you take you subject view and then use a telephoto on the 5D vs a wide angle on the medium format. Break the scene up into 20-30 very detailed frames. Merge in the computer to give yourself a huge file that can approach on GB with a native image size of 10 feet by 6 ft (estimate) at 300 dpi. No medium format or large format image can compete.

This image was done with that technic using a Mamiya 645 200/2.8 APO lens adapted to the 5D. I have it downsized and printed at about 5' x 3'. In the full size image there are Elk in the bottom along the creek and each one is clearly detailed.



I resisted going digital for a long time but reality forced me too. Well, that and the fact that I was fully committed to Minolta for 35mm and they called it a day.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

I found this guy on YouTube: https://youtu.be/HRk1BWP5iDI?si=0H82kyV3ADtMcnWA

He embodies an almost extreme example of somebody who really makes life hard for himself by not only shooting film in 2024, but landscape photography with an 8x10. I mean, good Lord. First, the weight of all that in the field. The camera, the tripod (no carbon fiber Gitzo can hold that camera well), the film and film holders, the lenses (big!), and everything else you need for the trek into Zion or wherever. I almost refuse to believe he does it alone. Then there's the setup, and restriction of working a large camera on a tripod. If you read Ansel Adams autobiography, he did all that in Yosemite and the Sierras with horses or mules and a friendly assistant, but, still, made me appreciate what an athlete he must have been in his younger years, but that really wore him down. But even he smiled when somebody put a Hassleblad in his hands with some interchangable roll film backs. Game changer. I'm convinced he would marvel at modern digital and Photoshop.
Anyway, what does this young man do after he goes through all the bother of shooting these images and having them processed? (Where does somebody have large format color transparencies developed today? And reliably? Color would shift noticeably with every batch in machines in the 70s and 80s if an expert didn't stay on top of the thing. Today? I doubt the expertise is left.) Well, he scans them on what seems to be a common consumer flatbed on his desk that I would cringe to use compared to a good drum scanner. But, again, a good drum scanner is super expensive, hard to operate, and fragile. But, the point is, he DIGITALIZES them at a certain point, in order to monetize them on his website and print them. Why not start with digital in the first place? A 100 mp digital camera could easily match the quality of a desktop scanned, even drum scanned 8x10, and would be so much easier to take outside in nature. And, overall, the cost would be much less.
It's all a strange charade, but, maybe he's marketed himself well to a certain element out there who also like to make life hard for themselves for some reason, and his YouTube pays well. He certainly produces his media well.

I actually think what he is doing is one of the cases where it actually does still make sense. That is still a unique area of film, and digital either costs as much as a nice pickup truck or a starter house in that arena or still has major issues, and the view camera itself is still something most digital systems are not doing well.

But what I can't understand is why he is going to all that huge effort and then not developing the large format film himself like Ansel Adams, etc.. actually did back in the day. Sending it out for processing seems to defeat much of the point if you're going to such a huge effort and cost and then be dependent on someone else to do a critical step correctly.

The way those old masters fiddled with their development outside the manufacturer parameters and then did selective burning/dodging on individual prints completely in the analog realm was a large part of the magic. (Also the low magnification aspect). He is also just selling them all as inkjet prints also making his final work a lot less unique. I love the fine art way of calling fancier inkjets Giclee.. there have been some funny rants about that.

More power to him if he can make a living doing this. The whole thing is weird though, and more about personality and sales than anything. To me at least it feels like almost everything about landscape photography has become trite, we've seen it all a million times and tons of photographers have taken the same images to the point they become meaningless, and so few of them have conservation messages or a point to their photography like they did in the past.

This whole thread is just total Deja Vu of 20 years ago. It's amazing it plays out like this here in 2024.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by benb

I actually think what he is doing is one of the cases where it actually does still make sense. That is still a unique area of film, and digital either costs as much as a nice pickup truck or a starter house in that arena or still has major issues, and the view camera itself is still something most digital systems are not doing well.

But what I can't understand is why he is going to all that huge effort and then not developing the large format film himself like Ansel Adams, etc.. actually did back in the day. Sending it out for processing seems to defeat much of the point if you're going to such a huge effort and cost and then be dependent on someone else to do a critical step correctly.

The way those old masters fiddled with their development outside the manufacturer parameters and then did selective burning/dodging on individual prints completely in the analog realm was a large part of the magic. (Also the low magnification aspect). He is also just selling them all as inkjet prints also making his final work a lot less unique. I love the fine art way of calling fancier inkjets Giclee.. there have been some funny rants about that.

More power to him if he can make a living doing this. The whole thing is weird though, and more about personality and sales than anything. To me at least it feels like almost everything about landscape photography has become trite, we've seen it all a million times and tons of photographers have taken the same images to the point they become meaningless, and so few of them have conservation messages or a point to their photography like they did in the past.

This whole thread is just total Deja Vu of 20 years ago. It's amazing it plays out like this here in 2024.

"digital either costs as much as a nice pickup truck or a starter house"

Not really. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...um_format.html Of course, you'll need a few lenses which will get you close or over 10,000, but, still, just in film and processing savings alone.


"But what I can't understand is why he is going to all that huge effort and then not developing the large format film himself like Ansel Adams, etc.. actually did back in the day."

He's shooting color. Ansel only processed BxW in his darkroom. Color transparency processing is a whole different beast, and, I'm guessing, the most cost efficient way to do it on your own is to, basically, open your own lab as a side gig to both pay for it and keep the machine running smoothly, because, the more film running through it, the more stable it becomes.
It's also quite dangerous. I hand processed E3 in the 70s, not for long, fortunately. There's a stage at the end that uses formaldehyde. And you breath it. Yup, funeral parlor stuff.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

"digital either costs as much as a nice pickup truck or a starter house"

Not really. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...um_format.html Of course, you'll need a few lenses which will get you close or over 10,000, but, still, just in film and processing savings alone.


"But what I can't understand is why he is going to all that huge effort and then not developing the large format film himself like Ansel Adams, etc.. actually did back in the day."

He's shooting color. Ansel only processed BxW in his darkroom. Color transparency processing is a whole different beast, and, I'm guessing, the most cost efficient way to do it on your own is to, basically, open your own lab as a side gig to both pay for it and keep the machine running smoothly, because, the more film running through it, the more stable it becomes.
It's also quite dangerous. I hand processed E3 in the 70s, not for long, fortunately. There's a stage at the end that uses formaldehyde. And you breath it. Yup, funeral parlor stuff.

Click through to the list though and some of the bodies on the list are $32k without a lens. You'll easily be over $50k to build a fancy system. Also not one setup in the B&H list is even a "Full Frame" medium format sensor. The most common format for Medium format was 60mm X 45mm but some format were bigger than that. None of those digital cameras are even 60 X 45.

Still it has gotten a lot better. My cousin is a commercial photographer that does a lot of studio/product work and I know his medium format digital setup is in the $50-100k range.

Lighting equipment gets crazy too, and for a lot of that work it's mandatory.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by benb

Click through to the list though and some of the bodies on the list are $32k without a lens. You'll easily be over $50k to build a fancy system.

Still it has gotten a lot better. My cousin is a commercial photographer that does a lot of studio/product work and I know his medium format digital setup is in the $50-100k range.

Lighting equipment gets crazy too, and for a lot of that work it's mandatory.

I guess, but, the Fuji is fine for 99% of users.

Top photographers dumped the studio biz model some time ago and rent pretty much everything for the day, including techs and space. Doesn't make much sense to drop fifty grand on a camera that will be obsolete in five years. Annie Leibovitz probably still can't tell you what DIN means, but she's made quite the name for herself by hiring out, especially post processing, and her stuff is a good example of how retouchers save shoots.

Besides, print is dead. Why spend so much on the input side when everyone will be looking at the image on a phone or laptop?

[benb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

I guess, but, the Fuji is fine for 99% of users.

Top photographers dumped the studio biz model some time ago and rent pretty much everything for the day, including techs and space. Doesn't make much sense to drop fifty grand on a camera that will be obsolete in five years. Annie Leibovitz probably still can't tell you what DIN means, but she's made quite the name for herself by hiring out, especially post processing, and her stuff is a good example of how retouchers save shoots.

Besides, print is dead. Why spend so much on the input side when everyone will be looking at the image on a phone or laptop?

I don't know, but my cousin has been doing this for 30 years and for some reason that's what they want.

Talking major major brands, but also utterly and completely non-glamourous work. It's all digital and none of it gets printed huge most of the time but for some reason they want it all medium format.

I am not sure the stuff actually goes obsolete as fast as you think anymore, but I'm also not sure he hasn't switched to renting stuff out.

I suspect he still owns stuff because it still pays off if you're shooting hundreds of days a year.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by benb

Click through to the list though and some of the bodies on the list are $32k without a lens. You'll easily be over $50k to build a fancy system. Also not one setup in the B&H list is even a "Full Frame" medium format sensor. The most common format for Medium format was 60mm X 45mm but some format were bigger than that. None of those digital cameras are even 60 X 45.

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”

Even if you really really honestly need medium format, a used Fuji GFX + Lens would be under $3k. And unless you're doing big prints, something for half the cost will get it done for IG posts.