There is no doubt that digital photography is technically superior to film in most circumstances, but there are aspects of the film photography experience that can never be replicated and that keep creatives returning to the medium over and over again. This fantastic video follows a photographer on a day shooting a variety of film and shows you some of the joys of the experience.
Coming to you from Shoot on Film, this awesome video takes you behind the scene of shooting film on a summer photo trip in the west of Finland. As you will see, there are a variety of options here, most interesting being the 4x5 large format camera and direct positive images. If you have never shot large format before, there really is no substitute. Even 4x5, being the smallest of large format, is almost 15 times larger than a 35mm frame, dwarfing even the largest digital medium format cameras. This means you can expect truly jaw-dropping levels of detail. In addition, you also get more control over the image thanks to the camera movements. It can be very demanding in terms of technique, but you will often be rewarded with unique images unlike anything else you have ever seen. Check out the video above for the full rundown.
I love photographing with film still to this day. I have a very old 4x5 Gundlach and a 4x5 Illford Pinhole that i still create photographs with today. My favorite at the moment is Illfords photographic paper. While i love digital to, theres just something tactile about using film. Its a tangible piece of creativity from the beginning. My graduation portfolio from college was done with a 6x12 Belair Jetsetter and color lomography 120 film. It just cant be replicated from a pure digital format.
Nice article and video. I definitely can relate with the challenges that go along with analogue creativity.
Film has always been my first love. Digital is good too and has many uses and advant, but there's something about film that steals my heart. I found a solution to carry my gear whilst using one, or maybe two, cameras. I wear a photo belt with lens cases, etc. Also, a Spyder camera holder for the second one. When i shoot the Hasselblad 500 CM or Rollei 6006, i just put the lenses in the cases and snap my other camera to the Spyder. Film, etc i also put in a separate lens case on the belt. Both hands are free and if i want or need a tripod, it's no problem to carry the light Manfrotto with me. Keep showing these lovely videos....llease. Oh, I also love the Ilford, but have yet to try the Fomopan. Maybe should give it a try. Thank you again.
As someone who has been shooting for 47 years with the last 17 fully digital, I don't miss film at all. The limited dynamic range, finite number of shots, the weight and bulk of film and film holders doesn't make me miss it in the least. I would also argue that that today's modern sensors and software available in post, will provide a better image than 4X5 ever could. However, I do miss the swings, tilts and shifts available in a view camera -- they were very helpful when composing an image.
It's obvious you consider 35mm as "shooting film", and yes digital "full frame" (I always thought that was an odd moniker) has eclipsed 35mm film quite some time ago. But your posit on 4x5 simply isn't true. Medium and large format film still distinguishes itself from digital in resolution and tonal separation that only larger sensors (that haven't been made yet and would be excruciatingly expensive, just ask NASA) will answer. Also printmaking isn't addressed, a 4x5 (and larger) original wet printed on photo paper still eclipse any digital workflow. Go to MOMA in NY and witness that for yourself. Commercial is one thing, fine art is quite another.
“It's obvious you consider 35mm as "shooting film"”
Your comment says a lot toward your biases since I only mention sheet film. Film format has little to do with film latitude, tonal curves or spectral sensitivity. That is determined during the manufacture and processing of the film. The dynamic range (i.e. latitude) of modern sensors -- especially medium format sensors from Fuji, Hasselblad and Phase One often exceeds anything available in film. This is especially true when compared to transparency film.
“…wet printed on photo paper still eclipse any digital workflow.”
While a quality wet print is often something to behold, they aren’t the be all end all. You even mention that digital prints can be: “…quite extraordinary.” in another post. You can achieve exhibition quality prints digitally in both color and black and white (the tonal gradations and presence of light that you can achieve with Piezography rivals that of silver gelatin prints).
“Go to MOMA in NY”
I have along with visits to International Center of Photography, the Museum of Photography in Berlin, the Photographers’ Gallery in London and a number of photography centric galleries in the US, Canada and Europe.
...and yet you *still* say: "I would also argue that that today's modern sensors and software available in post, will provide a better image than 4X5 ever could." ?
I can't imagine why you would... They certainly couldn't match a wet print, and you don't seem to dispute that.
And so are you really comparing 4x5 to "full-frame" digital when you say "I don't miss film at all. The limited dynamic range..."? That's why I assumed you were talking about 35mm, because it's simply untrue for 4x5, which has a much broader tonal range, especially for negative films. Even compared to the new 50Mp sensors.
So, if you have an argument to make, please make it, because you haven't yet.
“…it's simply untrue for 4x5 which has a much broader tonal range, especially for negative films.”
As mentioned in my earlier reply, the tonal curve, latitude (dynamic range) and spectral sensitivity is not determined by the size or format of the film, but in the manufacture of the emulsion and subsequent development. As an example, you get the EXACT SAME datasheet with Ilford FP4 in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 boxes. The datasheet shows the EXACT SAME tonal characteristic curve, spectral sensitivity, latitude and reciprocity adjustments for all three formats. Arguably, you should be able to achieve a slightly greater Dmax with the 35mm film over the 4x5 since the base is thinner.
Sensors vs film. The sensors used by Hasselblad and Phase One, have a latitude of 15 EV, Most of the new bodies by Canon, Nikon and Sony all have a latitudes of slightly more than 14EV. Black and white negative film has and approximate latitude of 10EV (processed N). Transparency film has an approximate latitude of 7EV (processed N).
To approach this in terms of the Zone system, the latitude of film closely matches the 10 zones described in the Zone System. Ansel Adams (The Negative) and later through White, Zakia & Lorenz (The New Zone System Manual) and Fred Picker (The Zone System Workshop) demonstrated that each zone was densimetrically equivalent to one EV. So a properly tested and developed film (N), has 10 zones (10EV), from Dmin, film base + fog (zone 0) to Dmax pure paper white when printed (zone X).
With today’s modern sensors, the perceived zone system now extends from zone 0 to zone XIV or XV. These additional zones give the photographer even greater latitude in their pre-visualization and greater control in image management and printing.
“…They certainly couldn't match a wet print, and you don't seem to dispute that.”
I make the assumption that when you are speaking of a “wet print” you are referring to a silver gelatin and not Platinum/ Palladium or Dye Transfer print. You are correct, I do not dispute the quality of an exhibition quality silver gelatin print. However, in the same way an exhibition quality Platinum/ Palladium print looks different than a silver gelatin print; so goes the same for an exhibition quality digital print. Three different processes will deliver three different looks. You even state that the digital prints of Rodney Lough were: “…quite extraordinary.” This is often apparent when you compare a type C print to a color digital print. The gamut range of a digital print is considerably greater than that of a type C print, so the colors will usually appear more saturated and vibrant than a type C print.
One thing to note is that a digital print can achieve a much higher Dmax than silver gelatin. Ilford publishes that their fiber base multi-grade paper has a pure Dmax of 2.51. Epson’s latest series of inks reports a Dmax of 2.84. Granted, neither of these numbers have been independently verified so it must be taken with a grain of salt, but the delta between the two is significant. I haven’t seen numbers for Piezography, but I would imagine they are impressive, given that it is becoming the gold standard of B&W digital printing.
I understand your love of film photography -- I love it too. With 47 years behind the lens and 30 years of it shooting film; I do know there is something special about having your head hidden under a dark cloth, looking at an inverted image on the ground glass. I spent years using 4x5 professionally, as an educator and for personal projects. I also miss the magic of being in the amber light of a darkroom and watching an image appear from a blank sheet of paper. However, nostalgia aside, I cannot discount the advantages and advances that digital photography brings to the art. The masking features alone in Lightroom, provides me with an unprecedented level of control that could never be achieved in a traditional darkroom. Digital photography makes it easier for me achieve the visualization I had at the time I made the initial image.