A Newbies Website

[FoldingCamera]

Hello all, I am new here but have been interested in photography for some 30 years and still use film as a matter of preference, my website contains photographs from over that period. I enjoy the creative process of taking a photograph and producing a print, negatives scanned into my computer and printed in pigment ink, by the way, I am fond of folding cameras, so much more compact than am SLR and probably better image quality than can be obtaind from digital!?
Stephen.

[Roger_Provins]

Hello Stephen, welcome to the forum

I've looked at your website, very interesting and some good photography. I too am a fan of monochrome.

I think digital can now better film (even medium format) in many ways. Have a look <here> - you may need to use the horizontal scroll bar to see the comparisons.

[FoldingCamera]

Thank you Roger for that link, it is a very close call, Hard to decide which is the better; however this is a comparison between two cameras costing thousands of pounds! I am currently using, when I have the time and money, an Ensign Autorange 220 with Tessar lens, uncoated, that gives me sublime image quality and only cost me about £25 although I did have to rebuild it! and the choice of developer makes a difference.
Stephen.

[LargeFormat]

I'm with Roger, I'm afraid even my 4x5 remains in its case these days although I think it has the edge on prints larger than A2.

I have a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta 531 (16 on 120) with an uncoated f3.5 Tessar. It is certainly "interesting" but its so out performed by modern lenses that it seldom has a film run through it. It is, however, a miracle of compactness like my Rollie 35s.

[Roger_Provins]

....however this is a comparison between two cameras costing thousands of pounds! ....
Stephen.

I chose this comparison because it compared a full frame (35mm) sensor digital sensor with one of the top 6x6 film camera /lens combinations. I thought the results were quite distinctly in favour of the digital. With older film cameras the difference would even greater.

I've had many 6x6, 6x9, 6x4.5 folders over the years but, apart from compactness, they cannot compete with modern digital. I have several medium formats sitting forlornly on the shelf.

[FoldingCamera]

I don't disagree that the digital image is arguably better but the degree is quite small but you miss my point which I didn't give particularly strongly; I simply cannot afford these, some times remarkably bulky, digital cameras and have therefore had little experience of them, I have however a Panasonic DMC FX 100, the image quality from this falls abysmally short of the image quality I can get from a Canon FTb (film) and any of the lenses that I have for this, which is itself far short of the image quality that I can get from the aformentioned Ensign or for that matter a Voigtlander Bessa 66 with the bottom range Vaskar lens. I made these comparisons at 100% in Gimp the Image files being about 75MB and around 5000 to 7000 DPI.

I made the assumtion that current digital cameras would be roughly similar to 35mm in image quality, but this is perhaps not so.

If I ever went in for digital I might go for a Hasselblad 500cw (lovely mechanical machine)with the digital back - 37 megapixal, the likelyhood of my ever having one of these is about the same as my being Prime Minister and changing the world for the better!

Stephen.

[Fen]

So...

Because you can't afford to get equipment of a comparable quality...

Digital is worse than film.

Okay...

[P_Stoddart]

I don't disagree that the digital image is arguably better but the degree is quite small but you miss my point which I didn't give particularly strongly; I simply cannot afford these, some times remarkably bulky, digital cameras and have therefore had little experience of them, I have however a Panasonic DMC FX 100, the image quality from this falls abysmally short of the image quality I can get from a Canon FTb (film) and any of the lenses that I have for this, which is itself far short of the image quality that I can get from the aformentioned Ensign or for that matter a Voigtlander Bessa 66 with the bottom range Vaskar lens. I made these comparisons at 100% in Gimp the Image files being about 75MB and around 5000 to 7000 DPI.

I made the assumtion that current digital cameras would be roughly similar to 35mm in image quality, but this is perhaps not so.

If I ever went in for digital I might go for a Hasselblad 500cw (lovely mechanical machine)with the digital back - 37 megapixal, the likelyhood of my ever having one of these is about the same as my being Prime Minister and changing the world for the better!

Stephen.

Welcome to the AP forums.

Just to put in context here. The Canon FTb in today prices would cost over $500. The FX100 is probably about half that. Also I don't have big pockets but a secondhand dSLR from say 3 years old will produce result that will standup very well against the Canon FTb. Also you have to factor in film costs when comparing digital to film.

There are quite a few dSLR under $500 or £500 out there like the Nikon D5000. In fact I have seen it as cheap as £360.

The main reason I switched to digital in 2003 was I could not keep paying out for E6 film and chemicals to process my films. Not to mention the task of doing the processing. Which I was force into due to a lab wrecking my shots in 2000.

Film is magical but the makers are slowly pulling away from the market. One of my favourite films was Kodachrome 25/64/200. But it is gone. I just don't trust other people with my work. Because of 2000.

One thing digital can do that film had a real problem with is night shots. Since going digital it is a whole new world in that area. With film you would have to guess unless you really knew your film stock because long exposure would fall outside the film specs know as reciprocity failure.
This could cause the colour to go off. This also meant exposure was a bit hit and miss. Then there was camera shake. I used to try and do 1/6 shots on film never worked. Can do them now because of anti-shake and quieter shutter of modern camera.

The issue of film against digital is a complex and heated one But you have to weigh up how big you are going to print your images if you do at all. It has already been debated at length on here and other sections. From what I know anything above 6MP on a good dSLR will produce clear prints at 10x8. Most dSLR are way above that so A3 prints are possible. If anyone disagrees I am sure they will post in response.

[FoldingCamera]

So...

Because you can't afford to get equipment of a comparable quality...

Digital is worse than film.

Okay...

Not as simple as that, I have tried using some digital cameras, a Nikon SLR D40 or somthing like that that I was asked to use to take some photo's at my former place of work, is was so complicated to use that it played a part in putting me off digital cameras and it was so bulky, physically some what bigger than my Canon FTb, although it was lighter. I don't know what the images were like as I never saw them exept on the screen on the camera which told me that they were at least OK.

The other thing that bothers me is how much use will I get out of them, how long will they work for? and they are not exactly repairable are they? and if they are is that going to be very expensive? what I like about folding cameras is that I can repair them myself - being mechanically adept (I used to be a Horologist).
Stephen.

[P_Stoddart]

So...

Because you can't afford to get equipment of a comparable quality...

Digital is worse than film.

Okay...

Not as simple as that, I have tried using some digital cameras, a Nikon SLR D40 or somthing like that that I was asked to use to take some photo's at my former place of work, is was so complicated to use that it played a part in putting me off digital cameras and it was so bulky, physically some what bigger than my Canon FTb, although it was lighter. I don't know what the images were like as I never saw them exept on the screen on the camera which told me that they were at least OK.

The other thing that bothers me is how much use will I get out of them, how long will they work for? and they are not exactly repairable are they? and if they are is that going to be very expensive? what I like about folding cameras is that I can repair them myself - being mechanically adept (I used to be a Horologist).
Stephen.

I can understand where you are coming from. With a pure mechanical camera you just stick the film in and pick your shutter speed and f stop and away you go. Looking at service manual for some of today's digital cameras you can see that repair is very difficult. If anything electronic goes you end up replacing most of the insides. But alot of photographer replace their camera about every 6 years anyway because of increases in technology. Well built dSLRs should last over 10 years. But it has not been tested because all of the above 6MP cameras are only about 5 years old.

[FoldingCamera]

Another Factor regarding comparisons between film and digital is that to make a reasonable comparison the negative is scanned into the computer; the manner of the scanning, the developer and the film type obviously make a difference. I look at the image at 100%, see how good it is from a 1930's folding camera and question whether there is any advantage in changing? The big disadvantages of digital is the requirement for a battery and the absence of a negative that you can go back to if the digital file is lost of reinterpretation even.

I do not think I am being a Luddite in taking this view as I have found that producing the final print in photoshop (adjustments), Gimp (examination) and Irfanview (print) is a means by which I can produce much better prints than by the traditional method whis requires a darkroom that I never had, only a makeshift setup that then had to be dismantled. the printing done in a hurried manner which was not condusive to good results.

[FoldingCamera]

What I failed to mention is that I am currently using black and white film which is very economical. Colour negative film is more expensive, especially the developement. I would like to start using colour, this then does raise the question as to whether I should go digital or set my self up to do colour developement?

At the moment I cannot afford to move either way but the same considerations remain and I might try a 1950's 6 x 9 folding camera with coated colour corrected lens to help me make that decision.

[gray1720]

Well I enjoyed the website, and never once thought that you should go digital.

Personally, I think photography is a broad church and, for want of a better phrase, "takes all sorts". I love being able to use my "wrinklies" for the job they were made for up to a century ago (just ask Fen, who I don't think has ever recovered from trying my Purma Plus) and sometimes I even take a half-decent photo with them.

I'd offer you the loan of my Moskva, but sadly it's in dock until I can fix the bellows.

Adrian

[P_Stoddart]

Before I went totally digital. I used colour E6 slide film. Which only requires a film processing tank. I used to get E6 slide chemical kits from Jessops every few months. Then scanned them into the computer using a 2720ppi scanner which gave me 10MP images. Then inkjet print them later.

So is E6 slide a option? You can even push process to increase ISO.

[FoldingCamera]

I used to be said back in the 1970's that printing from transparency onto Cibachrome gave the sharpest colour prints, however colour film has improved so much in the last 20 years thas this is pehaps no longer the case?

[P_Stoddart]

I used to be said back in the 1970's that printing from transparency onto Cibachrome gave the sharpest colour prints, however colour film has improved so much in the last 20 years thas this is pehaps no longer the case?

Well I don't know about that. I got some really lovely big Cibachromes (20x16) I had printed up from Kodachrome 64 in the 80/90s. I think dye-sub prints are a good match these days.

I had to leave the cropping of the Ciba to the lab though which I was not happy about. They also cold laminated them to protect from scratches. It is so easy to damage a Ciba unlike dye-subs.

I had C41 prints done in the 80/90s and they were aweful the colour was all off or image seemed fuzzy. It is because I only shot slide by that time so they had to do a neg-dup.

Even if I was shooting slide I would go for dye-sub after scanning into a computer. More control over cropping and colour balance. Once you hand over a C41 neg who knows what colour settings they will dial in.

[FoldingCamera]

From a C41 neg I would scan into my computer, adjust the image to my satifaction and print with pigment ink on to archival quality paper, same infact as I do with black and white. If I were to start colour it would only be if I develop the film myself, not so easy as black and white and more expensive.

[FoldingCamera]

I have just noticed that my website link has been removed for my signature, I have read the forum rules that leav me none the wiser! an explanation please?

[pachinkofan]

You'll need a link back to the AP website on your site somewhere.

[Clicking on the FORUM RULES link supplied, it includes:

"d) As with rule 7, we ask for return links as a common courtesy - if you cannot link to our website from your site then please leave the link off your signature."
]
G>

[FoldingCamera]

You'll need a link back to the AP website on your site somewhere.

[Clicking on the FORUM RULES link supplied, it includes:

"d) As with rule 7, we ask for return links as a common courtesy - if you cannot link to our website from your site then please leave the link off your signature."
]
G>

Thank you, I have now done this, my website is in the process of being redeveloped (pun?) and the links page is one of the many things I had not yet done, but is now!