Yes -- it has -- between getting the Rollei 6008i worked on, and keeping in mind and getting the needed copyright registration for any new images, too much time has past. Well -- I'll make it up.
This is a digital image - shot from the Buss stop and of the Harmon's grocery store facade. It's really abstract - and I love it.
I take the camera with me everywhere. And it's nice my Wife is understanding and keeps a good attitude as it usually means an extra piece of luggage or bag I have to carry. This day was like no other - I had the camera, and as I drove into the parking garage to the UPS Store - this appeared.
Shot on the Nikon F100 with Ilford HP5+.
I run a constant battle between which format of film I shoot or choose to shoot.
I really like the big negative which is why I really love the 120 format, aka, Medium Format - or if you are really old skool you may call it 2-1/4. 2-1/4” which is the square format of the negative in inches.
But — I also have my Nikno F100 body in 35mm. Scanning the 35mm is super easy- and I love that. And the body is easy to carry around from place to place — and I have many lenses to choose from.
Nikon F100 - Ilford HP5+ - Home developed and scanned - SLC Utah
This was shot on the Nikon F100 with Ilford HP5+ and developed recommended with DD-X.
Taken at the Starbucks on State Street; it is one of my favorites. It was a grab shot while waiting in line for service.
I was so hoping she wouldn’t look up - and she didn’t.
It matches the frame of medium format film perfectly.
No crop - Kodak Portra 400.
Yashicamat124G - MF Film
Kodak Ektar - Nikon F100 50mm f1.4
Yashicamat124G - Ilford HP5+
The 35 year old Yashicamat124G still has some legs. Ilford HP5+ with no crop.
Ilford HP5+ Yashica124G No Crop
BW film or any film is always a bit of an event in discovering the result — and I guess that’s what keeps me coming back.
As I learned in my stats class years ago - there are some un-predictable parameters which don’t lend to a “sure thing” event.
I now see why, when those back in the day, shot film they were true artists of the time. There was no preview - no chimping - no spray and pray. A wedding photographer for hire had no choice but to get the shot - and I doubt any had “errors and omissions” insurance if they didn’t. And if you didn’t get it - then - a world of hurt your had to face with the client.
The capture is the easiest - film selection defined your style - and predicting exposure with limited frames determined your profits. And I haven’t even brought about the challenges of flash.
This is downtown SLC - a scene of the sun peaking during just the right time of the morning. BW with this golden light is a challenge - where color becomes dramatic and a no brainer - BW is unforgiving.
Nikon F100 - Ilford XP2 C-41, 80-200mm f2.8 AF-s
I really like photos taken in the rain because it is a venue not very much captured -- and as luck would have it we had days and days of rain falling on a Saturday where I could take advantage to shoot. As I was driving downtown - and as if it was planned - here was a colorful umbrella traveling the sidewalk on South Temple Street.
As much as I could - I got head enough in the car in order to pull over to take some frames.
The scene really turned out well - as it was a serendipitous event all coming together. And as much as I hate to say it - photography is all about the Serendipity -- seriously -- If you have the camera you may just come away as being the Rockstar with the one and only image of the event - whatever that may be.
Nikon F100 - Kodak Ektar 100
Here's Lola again - with my wife Madeline. When Lola was around 10lbs.
I love this image - combined with the look of film this brings me to a "Madmen" type scene -- with the hat and film base it looks like something from the fabulous 1950's.
No lies here -- I don't know how fabulous the 50's really were as I wasn't born yet -- but I can't get over the nostalgia this image brings. Too bad the cars are in the background - else it would have been timeless.
This is Kodak's Portra 400. For its skin tone rendering - it has no peer.
Self developed with a C-41 Tetenal Kit - no crop.
Nikon F100 - 50mm f1.4 - Kodak Portra 400, Tetenal C-41 Kit
Kodak Ektar - YashicaMat 124G
EDIT: A friend of mine mentioned to me a few things about this post of which I've decided to clarify. And they are important enough to add this edit. My vision for how I process film is just one technique - wether that's scanning, choice of lab processing or developing at home. There are many who have used different techniques, equipment, flat bed scanners, and films of which the final outputs have been received without peer. It's never been my intent to offer the opinion of end/all, be/all - please keep that in mind.
Scanning film in the digital age
Coming at this as a newbie months ago, I really schooled myself about scanning services from labs: what they offer for resolution and pricing. None of which is standardized. And the idea of scanning my own developed film. Here's a quick distillation of my findings.
Scanning film becomes a confusing subject in this recent world of digital photography - as really the only purpose of the film scanning process is getting the best resolution possible.
The photographic / scanning labs aren't dumb either - after years of getting beat up by the influx of the digital camera eating into their survivability, they have now monetized the analog/digital aka "Hybrid" workflow with pricing tired services.
And I'll get to that in a moment.
There are a few components to the idea of scanning film. The first is the scanning; getting the resolution in-order to print something bigger than a postage stamp sized print (and I'm being a bit sarcastic of course).
The second is getting the scan to look like what would be expected when you would nakedly print. Meaning - the digital representation looks like the the original film stock, i.e. Kodak Portra, Kodak Ektar, Ilford HP5+, Ilford Delta, Koday Tri-X, etc. This can be tricky - and there are certain photoshop integrated pieces of software which keep the integrity of the "look" of the film you've scanned.
The third - is the price. That's were the monetization of services from the lab comes in. Bigger scan = more cost. Color vs. BW is a price difference there also. Color is easier to scan as the dust removal is more automated - BW scanning needs to be “spotted” manually which is more laborious.
So now I'm just touching the surface - and let's not forget shipping, i.e. getting it to the lab. Ugh. That’s a part of the expense also.
One would think that the scanning sizes per price paid would all be standardized.
But as you look around at which labs are worth considering you will see that scanning resolution sizes are not necessarily tied to price.
I might also add -- that if you are a lab and you are not scanning - then I don't even consider your services. But why -- why do you want a scan ?? --- Well that's a bit of another conversation but suffice to say - that wet printing is a bit of a diminishing return for how good ink jet and how capable large format ink jet has become.
Here's a taste of the confusion -- these numbers include Development and Scanning
theDarkroom.com 35mm BW
1024x1536 - $11
2048x3072 - $15
4492x6774 - $20
theFindLab.com
2285x3035 - $22
3042x4040 - $27
3647x5444 - $32
This is an example of what I mean -- Price and Resolution - you would think this would easily be your guide, but there is no correlation between the two. One doesn’t compliment the other - and here's another curve ball -- what's the secret sauce if there is a difference of price - what is theFindLab giving you for that extra $12 bucks on their top of the line scan compared to the theDarkroom ???
Is it better dust correction - do they care more - or is a scan a scan, especially when you are talking a high volume production shop ?
I've used these two labs as I’ve gotten started in the film hybrid workflow -- theDarkroom out of CA, and theFindLab out of UT., and I'm torn. TheFindLab is probably one of the most expensive in the country - yet I've never had to second guess with what they have provided me. The DarkRoom has great resolution, is sometimes a 1/3 cheaper but I've had to send some stuff back to be re-done, 5” prints to be exact.
So what's the future hold -- Well. As I get deeper into film I've started developing BW and color C-41 and scanning myself. I've secured a Nikon LS-8000 for MFormat film getting 4000dpi and a Minolta Dimage 5400 for 35mm at 5400 dpi.
Everything I’m doing is “cradle to grave”.
Both of these scanners will give me resolution competitive if not better than standard lab offerings - but the process for me will be a time hog. So either way you are paying -- in time or in money.
And here’s the rub - the scanners producing these outputs desirable aren’t made anymore. Yep - Nikon and Minolta scanners don’t exist as new - and services to repair them don’t exist either. Yet the frustrating part is that no one makes a comparable product - yes the technology of 2000 can’t be matched - Mind blower. Expect to pay at least $1000 for a Nikon first generation LS-8000 and expect to pay $500 for a Minolta Dimage I, used.
In closing -- the only way to see how a lab treats your negs., is to try them - util you come to the point of wanting to create your own work flow.
While I’m at it — let’s keep this conversation going — what happened to the “Flatbed option” ? Good question.
Ok — if your are planning to use a flat bed — Epson 600, 650, 700, 750, 800, 850 then you will hit the wall of real resolution vs. interpolated resolution. Meaning - the flat beds really don’t resolve past 2400 dpi. And, if you are a purest in all sense of the term then that just won’t be good enough for your artwork. There are many internet posts on this subject to be searched - and this was quite an eye-opener upon researching it - as I had no idea about this aspect.
On another note, and this is the biggest reason I’m not flatbedding - the flat beds can’t adjust and focus on the film image - so you may not get the sharpness you are entitled too. The flatbeds have an arbitrary focusing point - it’s either good out of the box, or horrible.
Whew — ok — so you got all of that ?
Months ago - testing the nature of film and how it works against architecture. Film is so foreign - its like putting on blinders and walking out side. Digital allows you to confirm the capture - film says, "screw you" -- I'll give it up when I want too. And that's the truth.
For a paying gig - well - that's a bit unnerving.
This is at the University of Utah. When the light is right - there are some striking areas to shoot.
YashicaMat124G - Fuji 400H
The last snowstorm of the season - 400 S and 300 W.
Nikon F100 - Ilford HP5+
Riding the Trax - anything goes -- especially at 7am - ish.
Nikon F100, Ilford HP5+
The best thing about film, and the worst thing about film: not seeing the image after capture.
It forces the creation of the discipline to wait. Some times that is very lengthly. My nephew of 7 years, after I took a picture, asked me, “Can I see it ?”.
Ilford HP5 - SLC County Building
Nikon 1 V1 - No Crop
Looking toward Vegas - toward City Center.
No crop.
Nikon 1 V1 - 30-110mm
Here’s a photo of opportunity - sitting for dinner at a distillery in Park City, Utah - High West - some in this group may have even experienced their award winning Whiskey, but I digress. This was a matter of great light, and shinny objects - and I can’t lie - I’m a sucker for those also. This is basically out of camera - with sharpening but NEF.
ViewNX - when I can get away with not having to lens correct is the editor of choice - the secret “color” sauce is very, very welcomed. I wish LR 5 had the magic. LR gives me about 90% of what Nikon’s software produces. Too bad it is always the last 10% which determines the good stuff.
I’m always torn with the V1 system - as I wish the lenses were faster - as now I’m thinking of going B/W and pegging it a 1600 ASA, and just going to town and seeing what happens. If anything it will provide a new perspective - and that is always welcome.
Nikon 1 V1 - 18.5mm
