75% of US pros still using film

Phil Kay · October 21st, 2007, 02:26 PM

I'd had enough of the sterile and predictable shots my Canon Eos 5D were giving me..... so I made my own stills film camera.
I shot all the photos on film that was nearly 20 years it's sell by date(Nov 1988!).

Click and have a look at the results - http://www.pbase.com/philkneen/homemade_camera

Frank Granovski · October 22nd, 2007, 04:52 AM

Nice bokeh from that Zorki lens.

Jaron Berman · October 26th, 2007, 05:41 PM

There is definitely something romantic about the style of film capture for stills. I shot my mentor's wedding two weeks ago, almost entirely digital. Surrounded by former mentors and colleagues, all of whom knew basically everything there is to know about the gear we all use, I still managed to shock them a bit. I pulled out my speed graphic and shot some type 55 and some fujipan acros. Half the fun is surprising a photographer with something they haven't seen in a long time or perhaps ever. And especially for those people, it's just plain more fun to ham it up for something as antiquated as a graflex! It's certainly less threatening than a 1D, although when the laymen asked what it is, I could hear about 4 people describing it as, "an attachment that snaps onto the Canon body, it's digital still but it looks traditional." haha. (Note that there is such a device, made by Cambo)

In the end, after proper processing and drum scanning, it's an expensive toy. The images look phenominal, and certainly have their own unique quality, but I know for a fact I could have produced similar, excellent shots in those situations using digital capture, right down to the DOF. It's more organic, and scanning the negs to full rebate is more "real" than applying a "film edge border" to a digital file.... but it's certainly more of a novelty than anything. Were I shooting landscapes for 40x50 prints, there would be no question in my mind which system I'd use. But, for anything below 20", it's become a matter of personal taste and efficiency. eh, novelty's fun every now and then!

oh, and btw - Bowhaus here in LA does a phenominal and relatively inexpensive job of drum scans.

Richard Alvarez · October 26th, 2007, 06:24 PM

Back in the mid seventies, I worked for a custom color photo lab. They put me in the "LARGE PRINT" Room. The primary reason was I am six feet four, I could stand on the floor, and crank the enlarger head up to the ceiling, and I could take a sixty by forty sheet of PAPER out of the box and lay it on the vacuum easel without crimping it! Man, printing from 4x5 negs was a blast!

Jaron Berman · October 26th, 2007, 07:41 PM

so you're basically obsolete now?

hahah

October 21st, 2007, 02:26 PM	#31
Phil Kay Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Peel,Isle of Man(UK) Posts: 194	I'd had enough of the sterile and predictable shots my Canon Eos 5D were giving me..... so I made my own stills film camera. I shot all the photos on film that was nearly 20 years it's sell by date(Nov 1988!). Click and have a look at the results - http://www.pbase.com/philkneen/homemade_camera __________________ Canon XH-A1,SGPRO flip,Apple imac,FCExpress http://www.pbase.com/philkneen

October 22nd, 2007, 04:52 AM	#32
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Nice bokeh from that Zorki lens.

October 26th, 2007, 05:41 PM	#33
Jaron Berman Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 439	There is definitely something romantic about the style of film capture for stills. I shot my mentor's wedding two weeks ago, almost entirely digital. Surrounded by former mentors and colleagues, all of whom knew basically everything there is to know about the gear we all use, I still managed to shock them a bit. I pulled out my speed graphic and shot some type 55 and some fujipan acros. Half the fun is surprising a photographer with something they haven't seen in a long time or perhaps ever. And especially for those people, it's just plain more fun to ham it up for something as antiquated as a graflex! It's certainly less threatening than a 1D, although when the laymen asked what it is, I could hear about 4 people describing it as, "an attachment that snaps onto the Canon body, it's digital still but it looks traditional." haha. (Note that there is such a device, made by Cambo) In the end, after proper processing and drum scanning, it's an expensive toy. The images look phenominal, and certainly have their own unique quality, but I know for a fact I could have produced similar, excellent shots in those situations using digital capture, right down to the DOF. It's more organic, and scanning the negs to full rebate is more "real" than applying a "film edge border" to a digital file.... but it's certainly more of a novelty than anything. Were I shooting landscapes for 40x50 prints, there would be no question in my mind which system I'd use. But, for anything below 20", it's become a matter of personal taste and efficiency. eh, novelty's fun every now and then! oh, and btw - Bowhaus here in LA does a phenominal and relatively inexpensive job of drum scans.

October 26th, 2007, 06:24 PM	#34
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Back in the mid seventies, I worked for a custom color photo lab. They put me in the "LARGE PRINT" Room. The primary reason was I am six feet four, I could stand on the floor, and crank the enlarger head up to the ceiling, and I could take a sixty by forty sheet of PAPER out of the box and lay it on the vacuum easel without crimping it! Man, printing from 4x5 negs was a blast!

October 26th, 2007, 07:41 PM	#35
Jaron Berman Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 439	so you're basically obsolete now? hahah