Digital BW, The Print

I agree with the positive comments from MF users. I still stay with film at at this time as I cannot justify the cost of the full-frame Dslrs. Another reason, I rather enjoy the look of film capture. Digital looks just a bit too "smooth" for me and I have read of photographers who add noise in PS. Of course, no one would deny the convenience of not having to process and making a quick review on a laptop or your computer screen. After processing I do a quick scan of the negatives on a lightbox or contact sheets to determine which I will scan into the computer. Interestingly, this process is quite simple with the larger negative. You can see the detail with a loupe. MF shooting also requires you to think before you press the shutter button. I have digital friends who brag about the amount of photos they can put on a card and not having to reload.  Then they download all of this to the computer and try to pick which photo meets their wishes.  More power to them!! To me, it is so much
 simpler with MF.  Most of my decisions are made at the time of the exposure. 
 
Richard expressed exactly how I feel about the usage of film.  My negatives are not going to be affected by a computer crash or disk failure. Of course, should I "mess" one up in some way, it is my fault..lol  I have negatives and transparencies going way back to the 50's - 60's that are still scannable and printable.  And I have had CDs and zip disks corrupted and have lost information in the past couple of years. 
 
Photography is now just a hobby with me and I am doing what works for me at this time. I am not fighting the digital revolution and with join it eventually. I just hope it settles down soon.  Get a MF camera, process your own film or send it out and enjoy!!!
 
T

R Murai <rmurai@...> wrote:
Although I own a couple of digital cameras I still use MF film exclusively
for my work. Coming from a traditional background I feel more confident with
film and film cameras.  It's not only understanding the characteristics of
various films and their unique qualities but it's also having to create
images confidently without the reliance of previewing on the LCD screen.
Plus I'm concerned about the reliability of digital when working in remote
locations and climate extremes. Granted, photojournalists use digital
cameras under extreme conditions but, for me, film is a known quantity and I
feel far more secure with it. Not having to lug around a laptop, converters,
cables, backup devices, etc. is a real plus. And, in addition to the DVD/HD
backup, I like the feel of archiving a real piece of film. And the list goes
on.

I own and use several MF cameras/systems. I primarily use a Pentax 645 as
it's quicker, lighter and a little bit more discreet but also use the larger
and heavier P67 for more contemplative tripod work. I use both traditional
film (Delta 400) and C-41 films. They both scan very well (Nikon 8000) and
film (especially traditional BW film) has a far wider exposure latitude in
comparison to most digital CCDs. Although the 67 format provides larger file
sizes I've been able to produce large output (30x40) from both formats.

I may use up to 60-80 rolls of 220 film per project/trip so scanning can
indeed be time consuming. But after the usual edit (from traditional contact
sheets!!) I scan perhaps a few dozen images. So it's not any more time
consuming than reviewing several hundred downloaded digital images or
several darkroom printing sessions. Plus, fortunately for me, scanning in
grayscale is a lot quicker. I have several glass carriers so while one is
scanning I'm loading a couple more.

Someday I would like to make the switch to digital capture but I think I'll
be using film for the foreseeable future.

Good luck!

Rick Murai

www.richardmurai.com
http://www.hawaii.edu/mjournal/text/issues/descriptions/cambodia04.html






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]