Totally agree. Just use your existing color camera. Most of the image quality or artistic quality of the image is in the choice of subject, the composition, and lighting, not the camera sensor and whether or not it has a bayer filter over the pixels.
I gotta say, you guys are really good photographers!
I recently told my 25 year old son, who is now into film photography a little*, about my school days in the late 70's where we had a very well equipped dedicated photography room and darkroom and a number of quality enlargers and much other quality gear.
Nowadays even if analogue photography were mainstream, the education system would not justify the cost. We didn't realise how lucky we were. My prized possession back then was a Minolta SRT100x bought brand new in Singapore.
*He has a Nikon FM, Pentax Spotmatic and Olympus Trip 35.
I recently told my 25 year old son, who is now into film photography a little*, about my school days in the late 70's where we had a very well equipped dedicated photography room and darkroom and a number of quality enlargers and much other quality gear.
Nowadays even if analogue photography were mainstream, the education system would not justify the cost. We didn't realise how lucky we were. My prized possession back then was a Minolta SRT100x bought brand new in Singapore.
*He has a Nikon FM, Pentax Spotmatic and Olympus Trip 35.
In my head part of it is that you get the benefit of less choices.
But from a technical perspective not even close. The difference is huge. Sigma's special sensors may be as close or on par if you take the raws and special process them to ignore the color almost entirely. All the other ones suffer from the same issues. There is a lot of subjective choices made with color sensors and how they put the image together, but the monochromes are just a uniform sensor that does not have to discriminate RGB variations and compile.
If I'm the sole winner of a very big lottery I'll send everyone up to this point in this thread an M11 and 35mm Leica lens and we'll where things go.
#453 - photography is Photography imo, regardless of the medium - the daguerreotype was no less different from film than digital.
When (#451) I said - throwing away our skills - I wasn't talking about all the tech stuff and procedures related to film: development, darkroom and all the gadgets that someone might like to play with, I was talking about knowing to see like film, something that only experience can give. And film saw in a very different way from digital: from the gamma, color rendering. definition etc.
This is for me the photographer's job, knowing to clearly imagine the image you want/have to produce, and knowing how to make the lights (or use the existing ones) necessary to obtain it. The light, not the camera, makes the photographs
What surprises me now, after two decades, is that a medium as different as digital continues to produce the images of before; perhaps it is so powerful that we still struggle to understand what it is.
carlo
When (#451) I said - throwing away our skills - I wasn't talking about all the tech stuff and procedures related to film: development, darkroom and all the gadgets that someone might like to play with, I was talking about knowing to see like film, something that only experience can give. And film saw in a very different way from digital: from the gamma, color rendering. definition etc.
This is for me the photographer's job, knowing to clearly imagine the image you want/have to produce, and knowing how to make the lights (or use the existing ones) necessary to obtain it. The light, not the camera, makes the photographs
What surprises me now, after two decades, is that a medium as different as digital continues to produce the images of before; perhaps it is so powerful that we still struggle to understand what it is.
carlo
Haha, we will hold you to that M11 for everyone offer! 🙂
I have used B&W sensors for scientific imaging. Really nice ones - back illuminated 90% quantum efficiency, single photo-electron noise levels, and thermoelectrically cooled to -40C. You could take a 60sec exposure without hardly any background noise counts.
I spoke with a friend who is familiar with Richard Learoyd's photography and saw him craft an image -- using direct positive C-Chrome paper there is no negative. Learoyd uses a kind of "camera obscura" to expose the paper. It requires an enormous bank of photo-flash as the direct positive exposure is so slow:
Cool! And these are originals since no negatives exist to print more. Like a hand painted picture in a way. Only good for still life images.
The sample image above has wonderful smooth tones and depth.
The sample image above has wonderful smooth tones and depth.
Let’s remove the LCD screen from a digital camera to make it more like film. And charge people for the privilege.
https://fstoppers.com/reviews/leica-m11-d-love-letter-analog-686045
https://fstoppers.com/reviews/leica-m11-d-love-letter-analog-686045
Removing the LCD screen doesn't make sense to me. It wouldn't change the work flow; it just adds time. Feedback is important in any process. Without a display screen, you would have to download your images, find out there's a problem, and then retake your photos.
In the days of film, some professional photographers would take Polaroid photos to check their setup before shooting film with their primary camera. The digital camera display simplifies that.
In the days of film, some professional photographers would take Polaroid photos to check their setup before shooting film with their primary camera. The digital camera display simplifies that.
Yes, the Cibachome paper or Ilfochome paper. You could develop it with Dektol but it needed the proprietary bleach. I used to buy the bleach by the liter from B&H Photo (near the Lincoln Tunnel in NYC) but don't know if it available anymore.
# 470 Where is the DIY 6x16 ?
Here at home, sleeping. Made for a long assignment - documentation of historical/artistic sites in my province -
Schneider Super Angulon 65mm + focus mount - with 10mm V shift - half the size and weight of a Linhof. R.I.P.
c
ps sorry for img quality - cellphone+ table lamp
Here at home, sleeping. Made for a long assignment - documentation of historical/artistic sites in my province -
Schneider Super Angulon 65mm + focus mount - with 10mm V shift - half the size and weight of a Linhof. R.I.P.
c
ps sorry for img quality - cellphone+ table lamp
Attachments
How did you make the film winding mechanism? I was thinking with 3D printers we can make a lot of cool cameras. With Arduino and some motors and gears we can make an auto winder etc. The shutter speed can be totally digital controlled as well if one had a simple solenoid shutter.
Yeah, I seem to remember their were some medium format cameras with a removable film/Polaroid back on them. Is that right? My memory is terrible nowadays!
They were certainly available for large format cameras with Graflok backs. Then, I think there was also 8x10 Polaroid sheet film which fit in the standard film holders.
Yes.
However, disabling automatic display of each image immediately after taking it made my workflow much more concentrated. Not compulsively looking at each shot, but consciously deciding when to look at the photos taken.
Hi xrk971 - It is totally mechanical and very simple (mid '90). From the drawings you can see the winding mechanism with a non-return lever, plus a resettable gear set to show the frame number. You can also see the opening, with a simple double wedge. Made with a bench lathe and a precision disk saw usually used to build special studio lights or other accessories for the view cameras.
With 3D printers i've only made - thanks to a friend's stuff - a tonearm - For me they lack of precision and stiffnes -the 6x16 is all in anodized alu, brass and steel the movin parts - Tolerances must be very tight, and the smaller the format, the tighter - 3-4 cents for the 6x16 focal plane, imagine what for a sensor.
8x10 Polaroid - yes and made really expensive, together with Ekta sheets, the single shots. So we had to know what we were doing. (the 4x5" and hasselblad back were used much more commonly)
With 3D printers i've only made - thanks to a friend's stuff - a tonearm - For me they lack of precision and stiffnes -the 6x16 is all in anodized alu, brass and steel the movin parts - Tolerances must be very tight, and the smaller the format, the tighter - 3-4 cents for the 6x16 focal plane, imagine what for a sensor.
8x10 Polaroid - yes and made really expensive, together with Ekta sheets, the single shots. So we had to know what we were doing. (the 4x5" and hasselblad back were used much more commonly)
Last edited:
My dad showed me his lens collection the other day when I was visiting, has been over ten years since I was at his house. The armoire had multiple shelves and each was completely covered by various lenses, I was surprised.
I had an interest earlier in my life but have gotten away from the hobby.
My dad was telling how when my grandfather had a studio back in the 1940s and 50s, that he used a new Leica with a smaller format hidden inside a traditional large format portrait camera, since that’s what the customers had been accustomed to.
I definitely need to visit my dad more often…
I had an interest earlier in my life but have gotten away from the hobby.
My dad was telling how when my grandfather had a studio back in the 1940s and 50s, that he used a new Leica with a smaller format hidden inside a traditional large format portrait camera, since that’s what the customers had been accustomed to.
I definitely need to visit my dad more often…