Industry News: Nikon officially announces the Nikon Z fc

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,432
5,655
I am sure I already have one somewhere. But developing film isn’t something I have room for in my house just now.
Developing film can be done easily in practically no space with a very small amount of equipment. It is something I do as a demo at camera club meetings on a small coffee table! A changing bag takes literally no space and a developing tank is the size of a ’quart’ paint can.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: cayenne and Sporgon

CanonFanBoy

Purple
Jan 28, 2015
5,627
4,037
Irving, Texas
Developing film can be done easily in practically no space with a very small amount of equipment. It is something I do as a demo at camera club meetings on a small coffee table! A changing bag takes literally no space and a developing tank is the size of a ’quart’ paint can.
Well, then there's the printing, drying, etc. Room for enlarger, developer, fixer, water, etc. I've done it in a bathroom. Not fun at all.
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Developing film can be done easily in practically no space with a very small amount of equipment. It is something I do as a demo at camera club meetings on a small coffee table! A changing bag takes literally no space and a developing tank is the size of a ’quart’ paint can.
As I’m sure you realised my post was only in jest !! I thought some people would be interested to see the camera that started this design trend from all those years ago. In fact at the time I remember someone in the photographic press writing “this is the worst Nikon ever”. How wrong they were to be proved. However as you say, easy and cheap to develop black and white film.
I think @Codebunny would be a little dismayed at the quality of the output from the Nikon FM compared with the Z fc though. It’s almost as if there 43 years worth. ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: privatebydesign

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,432
5,655
Well, then there's the printing, drying, etc. Room for enlarger, developer, fixer, water, etc. I've done it in a bathroom. Not fun at all.
Most people that shoot film then just scan it, they don’t go on to make wet prints. They can get the ‘film’ experience easily and cheaply yet retain the practical application, post processing, and distribution capabilities of digital.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: cayenne and Sporgon

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Most people that shoot film then just scan it, they don’t go on to make wet prints.
It’s interesting that some photographers wanting to produce the finest wet prints whilst retaining all the advantages of a handy camera system, are actually shooting digital and then writing the file to film so a traditional wet print can be produced from the negative. Selgado is a top example.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
Jan 28, 2015
5,627
4,037
Irving, Texas
Most people that shoot film then just scan it, they don’t go on to make wet prints. They can get the ‘film’ experience easily and cheaply yet retain the practical application, post processing, and distribution capabilities of digital.
Probably true, but kinda doesn't make sense without prints. At least, not to me. Everyone has their "thing", I guess.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,432
5,655
It’s interesting that some photographers wanting to produce the finest wet prints whilst retaining all the advantages of a handy camera system, are actually shooting digital and then writing the file to film so a traditional wet print can be produced from the negative. Selgado is a top example.
Indeed!

I used to be pretty dismissive of the concept of process forming an integral part of the art. Mainly because I am not an artist merely a tradesman. But I now realize even though damn near identical end results can be produced in a variety of different and 'more efficient' ways that isn't necessarily the point.

I also feel as digital camera technology has matured it has gone ever further away from the results we used to get using film and wet prints. I can sit at my desk and print a 24"x36" color print in a couple of minutes with no effort at all, and the results will be identical across prints and print sizes, things we never dreamt of from anything less than a true master printer in the past. But all too often those prints have a clinical, maybe soulless, feel to them after you get past the initial hit of visual awe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cayenne and Sporgon

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,432
5,655
Probably true, but kinda doesn't make sense without prints. At least, not to me. Everyone has their "thing", I guess.
Oh no, I agree with you on prints being the desired end result. But they can still print using regular digital means. Of course you can send the files and still get digital to wet prints commercially, but I think most people just use inkjet either with their own printers or commercially, which are not a 'lesser' form of print nowadays with the improvements in paper and ink technology.

I saw an unused Canon Pro-1 printer for sale the other day for $250! That has the same print head and ink technology a brand new Pro-6100 has that costs $10,000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Indeed!

I also feel as digital camera technology has matured it has gone ever further away from the results we used to get using film and wet prints. I can sit at my desk and print a 24"x36" color print in a couple of minutes with no effort at all, and the results will be identical across prints and print sizes, things we never dreamt of from anything less than a true master printer in the past. But all too often those prints have a clinical, maybe soulless, feel to them after you get past the initial hit of visual awe.
Do you feel this way because you know how easy it was to print, and if it had been a wet print you know the time and skill it took to make the picture ? Would someone who doesn't know about what work went into the print see the difference ? Inevitably with many people the answer would be 'no', but a significant number would say 'yes'. Certainly Selgado feels this way, and the quality of his images is superb, they are a work of art, and he says that he hasn't been able to get the same quality with inkjet. I have seen same very large and expensive photographs taken on 5 4 cameras and printed to a very high standard with inkjet, but IMO they don't have the depth of a quality silver halide print.

I think that so much of the digital imaging development is catering for the way many people view their images now, with keen amateur photographers having 30" plus, 5K plus screens and seeing the detail of their images at 100%.

I have always preferred the printed image, and over the last few years I've started shooting 35mm film for my own enjoyment. I was fascinated to discover that when (the better ones of) these are printed say A3 and put into an art case type portfolio collection, they stand up so well to the digital images. I stop looking at the detail and begin looking at the whole picture as we used to, and to be honest I prefer many of them to the immensely technically superior digital images.

Also the enjoyment is getting back to traditional photography with the old equipment, because I can actually make my files from the digital cameras absolutely identical to the real film ones if I want to.

Anyway, with a growing collection of 'modern' negatives it means that as I get older and maybe have more time on my hands I could get back into some traditional silver halide printing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cayenne

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,626
585
Well, then there's the printing, drying, etc. Room for enlarger, developer, fixer, water, etc. I've done it in a bathroom. Not fun at all.
Nah...you scan them either with a flatbed scanner, or even better....set up to scan with a good digital camera.

It's really quite fun....
 

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,626
585
Probably true, but kinda doesn't make sense without prints. At least, not to me. Everyone has their "thing", I guess.
I get prints from the digitized image from film....that way I can clean it up and fix it like you might have in the darkroom days....

I pretty much only shoot film, however, in aspect ratios I just can't shoot with digital....like my 6x17 medium format view camera....one click panos, no stitching....

I also play with 6x6 (Hassy), 6x9 (fuji), 6x12 (Ondu pinhole)...and recently I dipped my toe into 35mm....but with a Russian HorizonT swing lens pano camera.

At some point, I plan to jump into 4x5 large format photography....again, something that is beyond most digital today....

Right now, I take my film to a place not far for developing, but I bring the negatives home. I've been using Silverfast with an Epson flatbed scanner, but I"m building a rig with mostly Negative Supply gear to fix up a decently high end film negative scanner, using my GFX100 as the scanning camera.

I'm thinking on very special images that I want high resolution for printing....I might scan using pixel shift and see what a 400MP image would do for me...I'm guessing that might come close to drum scanner level?

I dunno....its all just fun....

And I've really been finding that not only are legacy lenses fun on digital, combined with actual film stock, seem to give a "feel" and I dunno...texture maybe that digital just doesn't.

Don't get me wrong, I loves me some digital...but I figure the film stuff is just another arrow in my quiver of tools for creating.

It certainly (to me) has its place.

I do plan next to get some Patterson tanks and spools and try my hand at developing my own stuff. My place does it for about $7/roll....but of late, their processes seem to give less than great results...I'm thinking maybe they haven't serviced or cleaned their equipment in awhile?

Anyway....
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy