B&W photography on film, who else enjoys it?

Actually medium and large format is one area where film still rules the roost.
Making a 4″x5″ digital sensor is a pretty tall order.

yes, at a price 🙂

For large format you would be looking at 5×7 and larger….just imagine the file size for an 8×10, never mind the size of the digital back required!!!

@ GrahamS a 4×5 sensor would be amazing! Not going to happen in the near future though.

Well so far as for medium format goes a Phase one P65 is a full format 645 sensor. We use them in the studio everyday and the quality really is something else. Looking at a scanned in 645 shot from a Mamiya and a shot from the Phase one I would be surprised if you could tell the difference.

But like I said a Phase one P65 on a 4×5 with a good lens will produce such a good image it rivals that of 4×5 film. Until the sensor is actually 4×5 film will be better.

I use an OM2 and can dictate the details of my photographs. My FinePix theoretically allows that too but there’s so much faffing with switches and buttons it puts me off. I don’t expect anybody else to agree with my viewpoint though.
I dislike easy ways, I like making my life harder, I like being asked to suffer by my choices. To me digital is too easy to achieve ok results, just like riding in Hyde Park on a 5. Too convenient for my liking.

For large format you would be looking at 5×7 and larger….just imagine the file size for an 8×10, never mind the size of the digital back required!!!

but the large format lenses don’t match the pixel pitch of current sensors. so if you had a sensor that big it would out resolve the lens, you would be capturing diffraction.
and the file size would be too big for all but the fastest computers.

To me digital is too easy to achieve ok results

but isn’t that an invitation to do better ? Yes, you might have to find out what those buttons and switches do, but the results might be worth it 🙂

Good point MrSmith…lenses are a restriction.

I found this on luminous-landscape which is interesting…….

Do sensors outresolve lenses? It depends on the lens you use, the properties of the light, the aperture and the format. Small format sensors may have surpassed the limit, this is, in most cases they are lens-limited in terms of resolution. It is easier to correct aberrations for a smaller light circle though, so you can approach diffraction-limited resolutions for lower f-numbers. The signal-to-noise ratio, however, imposes an inflexible limit to the effective resolution of the whole system, mostly due to photon shot noise.

Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats.

You cannot compare the limits of two different photographic systems looking at a print because the variables that determine the subjective perception come into play. Different systems can provide comparable results on paper under certain conditions (the circle of confusion reasoning explains how that is possible), but the limit of a system must be evaluated considering the pixel as the minimum circle of confusion.

Good point MrSmith…lenses are a restriction.

in more ways than one, as the format gets bigger, either the lenses have to get bigger or the exposures longer…

I use an OM2 and can dictate the details of my photographs. My FinePix theoretically allows that too but there’s so much faffing with switches and buttons it puts me off.

But my point is that the controls on digital cameras don’t have to be used y’know.
You can[/I] choose to take pictures fully manual in exactly the same way as an OM2 if you want to.

You don’t have[/I] to make things easy for yourself.

You can even flog your bare back with nettle and thorns between shots if it is still to easy 😀

You don’t have to make things easy for yourself.

1) buy a light meter
2) tape over the LCD
3) set camera to manual
4) post memory card to yourself to simulate developing delay

sorted.

in more ways than one, as the format gets bigger, either the lenses have to get bigger or the exposures longer…

?? the angle of view will change for a given focal length as the film format gets bigger (40mm being a 70° angle of view for 6×6/ 25mm for the same angle on 35mm)

or if you mean pysically bigger then physical size is irrelevant, a 150mm lens for a 5×4 is tiny.

either you don’t know what you are trying to say or i don’t understand what you are saying.

or if you mean pysically bigger then physical size is irrelevant, a 150mm lens for a 5×4 is tiny.

at the cost of a small aperture. The light passed by a lens depends on its relative aperture, so if you double the focal length, you have to double its diameter to maintain the same sensor illumination, which makes it 4 times heavier.

SFB, you’re walking in circles. Besides, you’re unable and unwilling to accept the fact that somebody has a different opinion.

SFB, you’re walking in circles. Besides, you’re unable and unwilling to accept the fact that somebody has a different opinion.

ya think? If we all thought the same there’d be no scope for argument. However, I can question your opinions and you can question mine

Shooting digital can make you lazy in some respects.

How so (honest question)?

And why is digitical photography easier than film? My old film SLR had the same P/A/S/M modes that I use on my DSLR. You could under or over expose in the exact same way, and get very similar results.

Digital is vastly more CONVENIENT and helps you learn to take photos very quickly, because you have instant review, but is it really easier? I don’t think so.

My DSLR has more features (spot metering, action modes etc) than my SLR did but that’s because it’s 15 years down the line I suspect and my SLR was super bottom of the range.

at the cost of a small aperture. The light passed by a lens depends on its relative aperture, so if you double the focal length, you have to double its diameter to maintain the same sensor illumination, which makes it 4 times heavier.

well there are no ‘fast’ large format lens’s (f4.5-5.6 being wide open)
it will not necessarily be 4x heavier, it depends on construction/elements, not having to allow for a mirror means the lenses are usually very simple 2-4 elements with no aspherics or anything fancy you get in 35mm lenses

well there are no ‘fast’ large format lens’s (f4.5-5.6 being wide open)

hence “either heavier or longer exposures” 🙂

, not having to allow for a mirror means the lenses are usually very simple 2-4 elements with no aspherics or anything fancy you get in 35mm lenses

that sounds to me like not trying very hard to correct lens aberrations 🙁

that sounds to me like not trying very hard to correct lens aberrations

not a big problem because often any aberrations (fringing etc) aren’t resolved. resolving power is lower as the film format is bigger so the line pair resolution isn’t so critical.which is why pre digital 5×4 lenses look like mush on a digital back. large format lenses are very diffraction limited though something lens designers still haven’t got sorted today.

resolving power is lower as the film format is bigger so the line pair resolution isn’t so critical.which is why pre digital 5×4 lenses look like mush on a digital back.

isn’t that what I said ? Effectively, the benefit of the larger format is partly wasted by poorer quality lenses, as better ones would be too expensive 🙁

I happily use both film and digital. Digital is much more convenient, and I use it for the vast majority of my photos, but I hugely value film too.

I bought an old Hasselblad for about £300 on eBay a couple of years ago, and several 35mm rangefinders for rather more. The Hasselblad gives me medium format quality – by which I mean the wonderful depth of field characteristics more than resolving power – at a price I can afford. And the rangefinders give me the equivalent of full frame digital quality at both a vastly lower price and a fraction of the size – I’d much rather carry my Minolta CLE around all day than a D3S, even if I could afford the latter.

On top of all that is the discipline film requires of me. Yes, of course I could tape over the light meter and set my D300 to manual, but I don’t. I love the simplicity of my film cameras, and because I take more time over my photos, and I don’t carry anough film with me to take hundreds of photos in a day, I slow down. This forces me to think, and think again, and work on my composition and lighting and exposure, and I take better photos as a result. This may not work for others, who may have the discipline to apply this approach with a digital camera, but I don’t and it works for me. It’s pretty hopeless for taking pictures of my kids running around, and the DSLR excels at that, but sometimes it’s just what I want…

I prefer the instant feedback/tweakability of digital (raw etc) but I do think it makes things a bit easier as you can salvage shots which were underexposed, not white balanced etc. I also think it makes you a bit too snap-happy which makes you think less about the shot. I use my film camera less as I only want to be getting pictures that are actually any good developed.

Film slrs are usually smaller as well which makes them easy to carry around 🙂

Like many others above, I shoot film and digital, but treat them as almost entirely separate entities.

Anything I’m shooting for money (professionally) is done digitally; weddings, portraits, commercial work…. I shoot film for fun – all B&W and process and print at home.

I would absolutely love to shoot a whole wedding on B&W film using my F4s cameras – it would justify me having them (along with a big pile of FMs, FM2ns and F90s). The cost, time-wise would be large though, considering it generally takes me perhaps an hour to produce one fibre-based wet print. An album made from such prints would surely be a beautiful thing though…. Any takers?!

Also love IR film – still got a large stockpile of HIE in the freezer which I’m almost scared to use, given the price they seem to be fetching on ebay – £30 a film anyone!!

Would love to have a permanent darkroom setup – right now it’s the spare room with trays and enlarger on the floor. Long sessions leave me with super-stiff knees for a few days 🙁

considering it generally takes me perhaps an hour to produce one fibre-based wet print

yeah, I used to be shocked at how unproductive I’d be 🙁

. This forces me to think, and think again, and work on my composition and lighting and exposure, and I take better photos as a result. This may not work for others, who may have the discipline to apply this approach with a digital camera

I think it depends a lot on your disposition. Usually I find that when I’m taking photos I’m so wrapped up in the subject that it’s hard to spare any attention to mundane things like camera settings, and I’m given to think that even composition is an externality, not part of the scene, and I’ll often shoot a bunch and then spend ages on the computer trying to decide which works better at leisure…

I agree, and perhaps as well as disposition it’s down to the type of photography one does. I can absolutely see how if one is primarily interested in content then it is the subject that matters above all else – that is certainly the case when I’m taking photos of my kids or other people. But I also like to take more abstract or minimalistic photos, and for these I find that things like composition, selective sharpness, and exposure matter far more to me than the subject – for recent examples of this see my pics on Flickr[/url].

This is why I use different cameras for different types of photos – I can of course take snaps with my Leica and poncy shots with my Nikon – but I find it much easier to use them the other way around. As long as I am lucky enough to be able to indulge my hobby in this way I’ll continue to do so.

Anyway, it’s good to see this kind of debate – I’m now thinking of digging out an old paint tin as a pinhole camera and making up my own paper using liquid light …. 🙂

This is a great thread, picked up an F4 in perfect condition the other week for a bargain price, it will get some B&W film through it soon.
The sheet film for the 4×5 cameras is waiting in the fridge…
that make a good thread – “What trailer for my camera?”

For those reading the thread and thinking about having a go at B&W its well worth having a go digital or film.

Here’s my pitch for digital – most of the sky shots are taken from a moving car or train where only about one shot in 30 is usable, and otherwise it’s proof that you can take pleasant photos without any creative input beyond deciding when to press the button 🙂

http://cid-d46042c38e27299d.photos.live.com/play.aspx/Cave%20walk%2024%20Oct%202010

Here’s my pitch for digital

Sorry, but if I were trying to extol the virtues of the format, I’d come up with better sky shots than those. Perhaps 30 clicks weren’t enough? Ironically, (aside the complete absence of any attempt at composition), it’s the digital noise that ruins them…

Why am I looking at colour digital photos on a thread about B&W film images?!

Why am I looking at colour digital photos on a thread about B&W film images?!

Because: Simon.

Oh yeah, I just remembered having to select different kinds of film for different colour response depending on the subject matter. Hehe…

Barnes, where is that? Shot #13 has what looks like a brilliant bit of trail coming through the bracken about 2/3 of the way to the right.

in answer to the OP question.

Yep, my SLR is a Canon A1, and I only use a 50mm lens.

For fun shots, I just use my compact (leica)

Great selection of photos Simon, and several that conform to compositional guidlines (shock horror!). Nary a gnat’s chuff of noise either and anyone that’s looking at noise in those pics is missing the point.

Digital advocate here. I like the old stuff as collectables, but see no reason to use out-dated tech when better is available.

and several that conform to compositional guidlines

only by accident 🙂 I put considerable effort into forgetting that stuff when I’m snapping and post processing!

Barnes, where is that? Shot #13 has what looks like a brilliant bit of trail coming through the bracken about 2/3 of the way to the right.

yes, I thought that too. I think it’s the BW from Lining Crag down Grasmere Common

Ironically, (aside the complete absence of any attempt at composition), it’s the digital noise that ruins them…

yay! Composition free as intended! The set is just what I saw at the weekend, and Sunday happened to be one of the clearest days I’ve ever seen in The Lakes.

Why am I looking at colour digital photos on a thread about B&W film images?!

one of them did come out monochrome 🙂 Oh, and the OPs reasons for using film seem to be based on ignorance and prejudice rather than format advantages…

Film will let you do some specific things on a budget (wide angles, shallow dof) that you need serious digital kit to achieve. However I think the way forward is to shoot in colour, get good negative scans and go digital in Photoshop or similar, it gives you far more flexibility with filters etc. Yes the intangible magic doesn’t happen, but it’s easy to simulate.
I’ll be plumping for a DSLR as soon as I think my ablilities justify it.

Yes the intangible magic doesn’t happen

possibly due to it being imaginary ?

several that conform to compositional guidlines (shock horror!)

It is perhaps a little bit telling simon that despite your determination to avoid “rules” about composition or exposure, your most successful pictures are those that abide by those rules, even if by accident.

I’ll be plumping for a DSLR as soon as I think my ablilities justify it.

Then I’d say get one now and let your abilities grow into it. It won’t make you a magically better photographer but it will help you to see what you are doing.

you’re most successful pictures are those that abide by those rules, even if by accident.

well, if you don’t mind me saying so, you would say that as you’d reject the others automatically, making it self-fulfilling :o)

Beauty exists in the world without any concept of composition