Reminder Secure

Helmut Newton on BBC4 later...

This thread is being watched by 2 people
Anthonygh is off-line
17 March 2014 07:16
anthonyh
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Kent


The use of film gear was the point I was getting at ......the price of even top quality MF film gear is still cheap compared with some of the digital prices....and I'm not talking high end digital pro gear here either.


Anthonygh is off-line
17 March 2014 07:20
anthonyh
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Kent


The Albert Watson documentary is worth watching for several reasons....one that I found interesting was that he was stitching images together to get the resolution he wanted despite shooting with a digital MF back...


Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
17 March 2014 08:30
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

Quote from anthonyh
The Albert Watson documentary is worth watching for several reasons....one that I found interesting was that he was stitching images together to get the resolution he wanted despite shooting with a digital MF back...



Digital MF resolution isn't that high (it's only ~4x that of 35mm digital).
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


OldMaster is off-line
17 March 2014 12:40
OldMaster
Photographer
OldMaster
Location
United Kingdom
Hertfordshire
Harpenden

Correct! Drum scanned 6x6 at 4000ppi (typically highest res. for film to avoid just "scanning the grain) would give you a 8500 x 8500 file = equivalent of 72.25mp (working on real mf dimensions of 54mm x54mm).

This would result in an 8 bit TIFF of 216.75mb but it would cost you around £70 per scan if you had it done commercially.

They also shot 5"x4" and Bailey certainly 10"x8" which is pretty much off the scale! 5x4 (scanned at 4000dpi) = equivalent of 320mp or 960mb file as a 8 bit TIFF, 1.9Gb as a 16 bit!! This would produce a print size of 80" x 64" if printed at 250ppi...

Nowt wrong with film, its just much more expensive if you take into account "per shot" + process and that a decent scanner can cost more than any MF digital camera. You could print optically if you could find someone!

Digital is great of course, very convenient and capable of superb quality...but high quality DSLR's now cost much less than my 35mm Nikon F100 which retailed for £1100 body only nigh on 20 years ago, a new Blad 500CM was around £2000 and my Linhof 6x9 (if I could ever have afforded a new one was new around £5000!!). The Rolleiflex 2.8f, 50 years old, can still be had from £800 upwards for a decent one. Take into account the Rolleiflex finished in the mid 60's I believe and the 500cm's must be at least 30 years old now as they changed to 501's,etc..so we must compare like with like!

I hear you say but the Nikon D4s is £4k+..sure but it doesn't take higher quality pictures than the entry level £600 Nikon which also have higher res at 24mp as long as you use the same high quality optics on both?

And bear in mind even top quality glass is really pushed to perform to the corners of even a FF digital sensor with much more even performance on film.

How much will any digital camera be worth in 50 years..and how many will still be working? My 'Blad was over 20 years old when I sold it, the finish on it was like new and it hadn't dropped a frame in all that time? During that period I was shooting weddings every weekend.

I rest my case


Anthonygh is off-line
17 March 2014 12:53
anthonyh
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Kent


Of course no film equipment will be working in 50yrs if film production stops for any reason......


OldMaster is off-line
17 March 2014 13:16
OldMaster
Photographer
OldMaster
Location
United Kingdom
Hertfordshire
Harpenden

Well they still teach it at college and film and paper production has increased, bit like vinyl records. Although production is of course small it is still increasing year on year.

Not sure how many film cameras are made now but of course when the Newton film was shot digital didn't exist or if it did it was rubbish! He died in 2004 so pretty much at the inception of half decent digital...? And Bailey of course will use digital now but of course all his work from the 60's up until very recently I guess will also had to have been on film. In interview he said that he still liked film but it "worked out at £50 a shot" More for 10x8 I imagine.

The real point here apart from all the technical stuff is perhaps more relevant. Shooting film, particularly as the format grows from 36 on a roll to 12 frames to 8 to the single shot of 5x4/10x8 certainly focuses the mind. No histograms just an understanding of exposure and film latitude,etc and a completely OCD attitude towards cleanliness and detail particularly if you were processing it yourself. It's why I could charge £50 p/h 30 years ago just for PR B&W work and why we are worth around £10-15p/h now. Its also why models can always charge and we always pay...because as we all know, every one is an artist now and everyone with a camera is a photographer


Anthonygh is off-line
17 March 2014 15:01
anthonyh
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Kent


Fuji have just released a 'new' MF camera......film that is......

I saw the DB documentary last year...he was shown using three cameras...a 5 X 4, TLR Rollie, and a Mamiya 7....all film of course. I guess if you prefer film and you have his reputation and income...you shoot film!!



26 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
Czechbeauty emmaloux Franchella MissCaraJane pinklilly QueenDeeVa01 RoxyMendez Sammy_Louise Sarahlou73
ad360photo antoinewynn david1500 dorrian john_at_tina_spice Jpdo JRFox lemonvalleystudio Peter_d_photography peterh PhilWinterbourne rscott360 ScottMCCCXIV shinywear Shootonlocation Steveh32 tigerman