Gear Talk > EOS Bodies - For Stills
Film Camera & Film Recommendations
libertyranger:
EOS 3 is what I think I'll get. Thanks for everyone's input. A 1V sounds great, but I think the EOS has enough at the right price point :) Thank you again for your input.
SandyP:
--- Quote from: 7enderbender on June 29, 2012, 09:26:21 PM ---
--- Quote from: SandyP on June 28, 2012, 06:15:16 PM ---I have a 5D Mark II, and a 5D Mark III.... but 90% of my portrait work is actually with film. For a year now.
I'd seriously suggest going right for Medium Format, truly. 35mm film is nice, very nice, but really not the same kind of experience or "quality" that Medium or Large Format can bring you.
If you're going to Canon film cameras, I'd suggest the EOS 3 as well. It has a 45 AF point system that is still better than many Canon cameras today! And it's cheap. Very cheap. And you can use all your EF lenses. I have a 1V, which is like Canon's flagship film camera, but it's bulky and heavy.
But really, for 99% of my serious film shooting, it's either 645, 6x6 or 6x7 format cameras I use. The difference in the negatives is SUBSTANTIAL. And makes a huge difference. The old camera systems, many of them, have lenses that are just as good as today, or better in some cases. In either case, it's about lenses having "character". My 80mm f/1.9 lens on my 645 camera (about the same as a 50mm f/1.1 lens on a full frame camera such as a 5D Mark III) has old coatings, and flares a bit weird, but it has more character and such a cool look to the photos in various kinds of light. It's more interesting. And I love it. My other systems, hell, lenses in many cases can be bought for very cheap. There are exceptions there too though, of course. So much variety!
I scanned my own film for over a year. Sucks. Takes a long time to get right, sharpness/resolution isn't great, and it's a big time sink for most people. I put it aside.
The thing is.... the negative is similar to a RAW file, if you want to think about it that way (I'm sure you know this, just saying though...) and depending on what lab (because they use different scanners, with different software, with different people running them) you'll get very different results back. Which can be frustrating.
Let's just say this:
I scanned my own film = 1/10 for happiness of tones and range/colors, etc. 3/10 happy with resolution.
I send it to a local lab that I prefer = 7/10 happy with tones and range/colors, etc. 5/10 happy with resolution.
I send it to a pro lab in the USA (I'm in Canada) = 11/10 happy with tones and such, 10/10 happy with resolution.
The thing is, there are three major labs in the USA that (well there are many more than three, many more) but there are three in the USA that are extremely popular, and people from around the world actually send them film. Myself included. These are (Richard Photo Lab, Pro Photo Irvine and Indie Film Lab, I personally use Indie Film Lab).
These labs will bring out every last ounce of quality and tones/depth from your film photos. The difference is literally MASSIVE.
I'm tired of shooting my film and knowing that there is so much beauty locked inside the film, and knowing that it's a pain in the ass to get it out of there myself. So.... off to the pro labs it goes. Results = better than any editing I can do on my digital. End of story.
Medium Format to me is a nice middle ground.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for sharing this. Especially the details on the labs. This inspires me now to really go hunting for a Mamaya or perhaps Hasselblad. Has been on my list of things for a while.
So if I understand you correctly: you process the film yourself and then send them off to be scanned at Indie Film? What if you want prints? Have you found any place that would still make traditional chemical prints?
--- End quote ---
I used to get it developed by a friend, or myself for black and white, but I stopped this year because I just wanted it all in the hands of someone else for the process, to make it easier and quicker.
I'll shoot my film, and in lots of cases I'll send it to my local lab for developing and scanning. But if it's a really important shoot I'll send it away to Indie Film Lab to get developed and scanned.
Thing is, scanning at home sucks. Very few people enjoy it. It takes time, the scans are never as nice as by more professional (ie: expensive, bulky industrial scanners) scanners, and that always drove me crazy. Don't get me wrong, you can get some really awesome scans that look good on your own home scanners, but it still isn't going to stack up to the better scanners like Noritsu or Frontier (brands of scanners) that the pro labs use, and have extremely experienced technicians running them.
I've scanned hundreds of rolls of 35mm and 120 film (medium format) at my home, on two different scanners. I've used a drum scanner that a friend of a friend owns (drum scan is like... the ultimate for resolution, if you don't know what it is, look it up, it's crazy).... and still my favorite scans are those that I got done at Indie Film Lab... they blew me away. Anytime I have a portrait session with a client, or a shoot with a model that isn't in the studio.... I shoot film now. Which is funny because I have a 5D Mark II and a 5D Mark III sitting at home. Which I use mostly for weddings and studio. But even then, I'm starting to shoot more film in the studio too.
35mm film is fun for travel and documentary stuff, but I personally never fell in love with the format, I love the medium formats though. That's when you start seeing a much bigger jump in quality.
Hillsilly:
Hi, I've got an elan 7e. It's a good little camera. These days, they are very inexpensive. Given that it has a lot of features, I'd suggest it is a good starting point. I also have a Mamiya 6 (which is also mentioned above). Since "going digital", my 7e rarely gets used. But I take the Mamiya out regularly. But for what you are thinking, investing in a medium format system is probably overkill at this stage. I suggest just buying a cheap film body. If you find you like, you might be happy with what you have. If you aren't happy, by that stage you'll know if a more advanced camera, or a change in format is for you.
What film to buy is probably the harder question. If you have easy access to someone who develops slide film (you might see this listed as E6), then I'd suggest a good starting point is Fuji Provia 100. If you like more saturated colours, maybe try Fuji Velvia 50 or 100. Kodak Ektar is a good normal negative film (but I don't know about its long term availability). Ilford Delta is also a good starting point for B&W film as it is readily available and there's lots of information out there about it.
If you tell us what you like to photograph, I'll throw some more film ideas at you.
SandyP:
Delta 3200 is more of an ISO 1250 film, I typically will shoot it at 1600 at have it developed as such. It's nice stuff.
Tri-X 400 at 1600 is really beautiful, but more contrasty of course, simply because you're losing shadow detail. But it's still really nice. Same with HP5+ and Delta 400. But I prefer Tri-X over those. (These are black and white)
FP4+ and PanF+ are excellent low ISO films (FP4 is ISO 125 and PanF is ISO 50), I use them quite a lot when shooting in brighter sunshine. (these are also black and white)
Fuji 400H is really beautiful, but I really only suggest shooting it at around ISO 200 or even 100 and having it developed normally (developed for 400) to get the best colors and range out of it. Otherwise it looks pretty boring. But when shot this way, it's extremely beautiful.
Same with Portra 400, I sorta like it at 320 or 200 the best. Really nice.
Portra 160 is super nice at 100 mostly, because you can get more shadow detail while still keeping the highlights. Fuji 160NS is beautiful as well, and I really enjoy it, if you can find it.
Portra 800 is wonderful at 800 and even 400. Again, developed normally when shot at 400 or 500 ISO. Really nice look to it. Too much further than that and it sorta starts getting a weird magenta cast to it.
I'd really say that the "best" films out there for color anyway are the new Portra ones, and the Fuji 160 and 400 colors. Slide film (E-6) is pretty neat, but I don't necessarily care for it because it has less room to play with.
Kodak Ektar is also pretty neat, but I Just shoot it at the native 100. It has it's moments.
There are other films, of course, but those are most of the major ones. There are other ones like Acros, and TMAX and such, but I don't really work with them too much. I've shot all sorts of other stuff too, but I stick to mostly Portra 160/400, Fuji 160/400, Tri-X, Delta and FP4 and PanF.
zim:
--- Quote from: SandyP on June 28, 2012, 06:15:16 PM ---I have a 5D Mark II, and a 5D Mark III.... but 90% of my portrait work is actually with film. For a year now.
Let's just say this:
I scanned my own film = 1/10 for happiness of tones and range/colors, etc. 3/10 happy with resolution.
I send it to a local lab that I prefer = 7/10 happy with tones and range/colors, etc. 5/10 happy with resolution.
I send it to a pro lab in the USA (I'm in Canada) = 11/10 happy with tones and such, 10/10 happy with resolution.
The thing is, there are three major labs in the USA that (well there are many more than three, many more) but there are three in the USA that are extremely popular, and people from around the world actually send them film. Myself included. These are (Richard Photo Lab, Pro Photo Irvine and Indie Film Lab, I personally use Indie Film Lab).
These labs will bring out every last ounce of quality and tones/depth from your film photos. The difference is literally MASSIVE.
I'm tired of shooting my film and knowing that there is so much beauty locked inside the film, and knowing that it's a pain in the ass to get it out of there myself. So.... off to the pro labs it goes. Results = better than any editing I can do on my digital. End of story.
Medium Format to me is a nice middle ground.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for this post SandyP I found it very interesting indeed.
I was wondering if anyone has experience (recommendation) of scanning houses in the UK that would be equivalent to what Sandy describes?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version