film diaries – Ming Thein

Photoessay: Fukuoka without people

May 14, 2013 by Ming Thein

What is a city without its people? What if a person from several thousand years ago were simply transported into the present day and dropped in any moderately-sized metropolis without any explanation – especially on a Sunday, when only a few brave souls are to be seen wandering the streets, purposefully running the gauntlet or perhaps acting as keepers of the strange world? Nature appears to have taken over in places, though the square rocks remain. Even the animals mostly avoid the place. Strange movable objects line every path. Did something bad happen here? Would they view the cities as strange landscapes? Or recognize them as artificial constructs? Perhaps they would wonder why anybody would leave nature to be all squashed together in square rectangular blocks…or maybe they wouldn’t even view the blocks as fit for human dwelling. To question, to wonder, to dream, to adapt, and go forth out to explore out of curiosity even if it makes us feel a little bit scared. That is what makes us human.

Or, perhaps, I just scared the Fukuokans off with the mighty clap of my Hasselblad mirror 😛 MT

Film diaries: Watches and a Hasselblad

April 30, 2013 by Ming Thein

Digital contact sheet of the negs.

I’ll admit that deep down, from the day I decided to buy the Hasselblad, I’d harboured a deep, masochistic desire to do this. During previous evaluations of medium format for my main commercial subjects, it didn’t really fit the bill: too difficult to achieve the degree of magnification required for watches, and digital medium format wouldn’t give me the width I needed for architectural work. It’d also be overkill for food photography in this country, given the current state of affairs*.

*I recently had a large corporate client ask for a portfolio and quote, then turn around and give the job to another photographer who quoted less and said ‘here, copy’. The results were crude because of harsh lighting and repetitively boring subject placement, but I suppose if they can’t tell the difference…perhaps I’m the one who’s got unrealistic expectations?

But hey, on film, for fun and in the spirit of creative experimentation, why not?

Film diaries: The importance of hapatics and tactility, part two

March 29, 2013 by Ming Thein

Continued from part one.

Some gratuitous camera p***, and one of the nicest cameras I’ve handled – the choice of materials is superb. Too bad the price puts it out of reach for all but the lucky few.

This article falls into the film diaries because historically, there have been many attempts to make cheaper versions of popular cameras – the M2, for instance, is supposed to be a cut-price and simplified version of the M3; the Nikkomats are another example. Yet none of these feel particularly poorly made or roughly finished; if anything, they still considerably exceed the perceived quality level of anything currently available new. Objectively speaking, my 1995 Hasselblad 501C is a pain to use: it’s large, heavy, only carries 12 shots, has serious mirror slap, has a reversed finder, requires a separate external meter (or very good eye), is a pain to reload, slow to shoot with, and an ergonomic disaster – yet somehow I just love making images with it because of the way it feels in the hand. The lens’ aperture and shutter rings move with distinct, clean clicks. The mirror and shutter sound feels positive and deep. The accessories detach and snap into place with solid, positive clicks and zero free play; there are no rough-feeling mechanical parts or actions, and the focusing rings (mostly) have precisely the right amount of damping.

Film diaries: The importance of hapatics and tactility, part one

March 27, 2013 by Ming Thein

Spot the odd one out of this bunch. (Hint, it’s not the M9-P because the image isn’t low-key, or because it’s the only Leica in a bunch of Nikons.) It’s also not the F2 Titan because it requires no electrons to operate. Let’s try another set:

Film diaries: Postcards from Fukuoka, and thoughts on Fuji Acros 100

March 21, 2013 by Ming Thein

On the last day of my recent trip to Fukuoka, I somehow managed to run out of film. The entire brick and both magazines of Delta 100 were depleted in a couple of hours; I was lucky enough to have magical light and the inspiration to shoot, so making the most of it, shoot I did. Let me tell you I wish they still made 220…12 frames for street work means reloading at least every half an hour or less if you’re in the thick of things.

Review: The Ricoh GR1v

February 16, 2013 by Ming Thein

Earlier at the start of this year, I was lucky enough to have not one, but two of the cameras I lusted earlier in my photographic career show up – the Contax T3, reviewed here, and the Ricoh GR1V, which is the subject of this article. My first encounter with the GR1 was in 2001, when I was a student and there was still an independent pro camera store on Oxford’s High street. I was looking for a compact point and shoot and played with just about everything they had to offer, but landed up being seduced by something small and horrible (an APS Fuji Tiara 1010i, of all things). The GR1 (or perhaps it was a GR1v) was the only one that left much of an impression due to the way it felt, and the rather stiff price tag. Later, I recall a time in late 2005 or early 2006 when I visited a local camera store – at that point I was very much in the acquisition phase (not that it ever really stopped) on the hunt for exotic old lenses; the faster the better because I was still dealing with the limitations of the D2H. They had the Ricoh GR-Digital in stock, and the GR1V too – I landed up handling both, once again very much liking the feel of the GR1V, but walking out with the GR-Digital.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Film Diaries, Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: film, film diaries, gearhead, gr1v, ming, mingthein.com, review, ricoh, ricoh gr1v, thein

Review: The Contax T3

February 14, 2013 by Ming Thein

First, a starting note. Reviewing film cameras both takes a little longer and always somehow feels a little less complete than doing the same for digital; I suspect it’s because there really are quite a lot of unknowns in the equation which you can’t determine whether are due to the camera or some other portion of the process. Still, there are definitely characteristics that shine through regardless – part of this is perhaps down to the equality of media across all cameras – an F6 has the same sensor as a Mju II, which in turn has the same sensor as a 1930s Leica I. Differences are down to glass, assuming that processing is carried out consistently. When evaluating images in the analog domain, it’s already difficult enough to form an opinion based on a small websize jpeg; this is why it’s important to go along with the words of the reviewer as they’ve (hopefully) seen large, uncompressed files on a calibrated monitor – what you’re seeing is merely for illustration and perhaps to break up the enormous blocks of text. The same goes for film: a web scan isn’t going to have anywhere near the same amount of information as the original negative; even printing introduces an additional variable into the mix which might lead a review to conclude erroneously.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Film Diaries, Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: contax t3, film diaries, gearhead, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, review, t3, thein, tilm

Film diaries: Picking a camera

January 24, 2013 by Ming Thein

If my recent forays into the whys and hows of film have gotten you curious enough to try it (or revisit it) yourself, the next question you’ll probably be asking is also the one that’s natural for all photographers: which camera should I buy? Fear not: it’s a pretty simple question to answer, and the best thing is that there are two enormous advantages that film has over digital in this regard: image quality, and price.

What? Image quality? Specifically, consistency: cameras that shoot the same format are capable of producing comparable results, assuming there aren’t huge deviations in the lenses. Grain, color etc (note that I didn’t mention sharpness or resolution here, because that is lens-dependant) of course depend more on your film type than your camera; an enormous Nikon F5 will give you the same noise level as a compact Olympus Mju II if loaded with the same film. (Of course, you may get different results under the same shooting conditions, given that you can get an f1.4 lens for the Nikon, but you’re stuck with the fixed 35/2.8 on the Olympus.)

I mentioned two advantages: the second has to do with price. These days, outside of Holga (and similar Russian equivalents) and Leica, there are almost no 35mm film cameras still in production and available new. This means that you’re going to be buying on the secondary market; it also means that there’s relatively little financial risk involved in buying a camera, trying it, and then reselling it if it’s not to your liking – not something that can also be said for anything digital. Couple that with the fact that prices appear to be at an all-time historical low* and it’s very much a buyers’ market. I don’t know how much longer this is going to continue, though.

*The aforementioned Nikon F5s are going for a song these days – remember, the F5 was Nikon’s flagship back in the late 90s: the D4 equivalent of today, and priced in the same ballpark, too.

Whilst it’s almost a given that we’ll never again see a similar proliferation of high end film cameras as we did in the late 90s or early 00s, the good news it that most of these were made in sufficient numbers that there still both relatively easy to find and affordable – limited editions aside, of course. That period in photography represented what I like to think of as the height of the Goldilocks camera: compact, full-frame 35mm cameras that were pocketable but uncompromising on optical quality or control; something which is only now being approached with the likes of the Sony RX1, and even that still doesn’t quite get the formula right: it’s more electronic gadget than proper camera. In some ways, we appear to have regressed.

Before I examine some of the more interesting options available, there are a few things to bear in mind when hunting for a film camera:

Format: realistically, 35mm or 120?
Age: the older the camera, the more likely it is to a) break and b) be difficult to repair. There are of course exceptions to this rule. Although modern electronic cameras (under 10 years old) are more likely to be in perfect working condition, older mechanical cameras are more likely to last – simply because a spring or lever can be re-fabricated fairly easily, a chip or circuit board can’t. It’s probably also safe to say they were better made back in the day…
Usability and ergonomics: I was lent a Rolleiflex by a friend: I still haven’t used it because I’m not sure how to load it, and neither is he. Awkward controls, difficult loading, beware. I’d add any model-specific quirks to this category, too.
A slightly marked, well-looked after and regularly-exercised user is probably a better buy than a 40 year old safe queen or photojournalist’s beater; especially with mechanical cameras, you want something that’s been regularly exercised; lack of use is just as bad for mechanical cameras as abuse. Such cameras are also likely to be more reasonably priced than perfectly mint examples. Think of it as a vintage car that’s never been driven: I don’t know about you, but I’d probably send it for a complete overhaul before taking it out on the road.
The lenses matter, much more so than digital: you can’t realistically sharpen or add contrast or correct color; otherwise you might as well be shooting digital, it’s just easier.
Somewhat tangential, but almost all mechanical cameras should be stored with the shutters uncocked to avoid weakening the springs; the one notable exception are the Hasselblad V series, which should be cocked – otherwise you won’t be able to remove the lens without breaking the leaf shutter drive shaft, plus you’ll lose a frame if you cock it after mounting a back.

Let’s break things down into a few categories to make it a bit easier. Note that I’m going to ignore Lomos and the like for the most part to focus on serious photographic tools; they’re both unmetered and have almost zero manual control, so I don’t consider them serious photographic tools. (In any case, I’m guessing you probably wouldn’t be reading this blog if that’s what you were looking for…)

35mm compact
There are a lot of great choices here: interestingly, none of them seem to have come down much in price from when they were new; or if they did, I missed the slump and subsequent rise. I think the market is recognizing that these cameras were both the pinnacle and end of an era. In this category, the best picks as shooters are all fixed with moderately wide lenses and mostly pocketable. At 40mm, there’s the Leica CM; 35mm gives you the Nikon 35Ti, Contax T2/ T3, Yashica T4 (the T2/3/4 have Zeiss lenses; the T3 even has synthetic sapphire viewfinder windows to prevent scratches), Konica Hexar AF, the Olympus Mju II (also known as the Stylus Epic), and if you don’t mind something a bit older, the Rollei 35S, Minox 35GT and Olympus XA/ XA2. The Mju II is even splashproof. Going wider, at 28mm we have the Ricoh GR1/GR1s/GR1v; Nikon 28Ti and Minolta TC1. Even wider still, there’s the Ricoh GR21 at 21mm. If you’ve got friends in Japan, Fuji made a limited run of Natura cameras with a fixed 24/1.9 lens – the fastest and widest available in a compact.

Note that all of these cameras were high-end products, and are built accordingly. They’re pleasant to handle, have (often very nice) built in viewfinders, fast, high-quality lenses, and some degree of manual override; usually aperture priority, exposure compensation and sometimes also zone focus. They all meter accurately enough to shoot slide film with, though I suspect none have spot meters, sadly. Almost all of them have little gremlins and foibles, too – the GR1 is notorious for LCD problems, for instance; the CM had electronic issues, and the T3 has idiotic settings that revert to defaults every time the power is cycled. Some Minox 35s use mercury batteries that are no longer available. Oh, and the Rollei 35s are upside down: the wind lever is on the bottom of the camera.

You’ll notice I haven’t suggested anything with a zoom: this is for good reason, because zoom lenses on compact cameras have horribly slow apertures – I think the worst I’ve seen was something like f8-f13. That means you’re stuck using flash all the time, and you can be almost certain the optics are a very poor compromise.

Expect to pay anywhere up to $800 for a nice black Contax T3 or Leica CM at the high end, down to a few bucks for a beaten up Mju II at a garage sale. My favorite of the bunch, the Ricoh GR1v, runs between $400-600 depending on condition.

35mm rangefinder
If anything, this is an even broader field than the compacts: you’ve got the Leica Ms and Barnack cameras, Voigtlander Bessas, Konica Hexars, Yashica Electros, Canon Cannonets, Nikon S’ and Zeiss Ikons – and that’s just some of the manual focus options available – not to mention of course the Contax G series, which had autofocus. Most of these also have the benefit of interchangeable lenses; a lot of them are also Leica M or screwmount, which means they can be used even on modern digital versions like the M9 and M Type 240. This also means that used lenses aren’t always cheap – and they almost certainly aren’t up to the quality of modern glass.

With the exception of the Leica MP, M7 and Voigtlander Bessas, the rest are out of production – even the Ikon was discontinued recently. The electronic models suffer from potential battery availability issues, as well as limited replacement parts should something go wrong; the earlier mechanical models have become very collectible and commensurately priced. I doubt you’ll find anybody buying a mint condition original Nikon SP to shoot with.

The obvious choice here is a Leica M of some description – M6es are a good place to start; they’re reasonably priced in the US$1,000 range, relatively modern, still serviceable, and have a meter. They do have a known rangefinder flare issue that made the RF patch difficult to see under some lighting conditions; modifications to later versions solved this. The M7 adds aperture priority but requires batteries to operate; personally, the MP would be my pick – fully manual, wonderfully tactile, all speeds work without batteries, but you do have the benefit of a meter if you’re not sure. Avoid the Bessas unless you shoot wide – the rangefinder base length is too short to accurately focus very fast or telephoto lenses; but they are the only cameras with built in 21mm frame lines (Bessa R4M). The Yashica Electros are interesting budget options, but note that they have fixed lenses and non-TTL meters; this is probably only important if you’re shooting slide film.

If you’re particularly masochistic, you can try a screwmount Barnack Leica (I, II, III and variants) – it’s not for everybody. Slow shutter speeds are on a separate dial; the rewind crank is a stiff knob, and you have separate (and tiny) viewfinders for focusing and framing; also, the only built in frame line is 50mm – everything else requires an external finder. They’re very nice cameras as engineering objects and vintage objects, but a total pain to shoot with.

The final interesting option is the Contax G series; they were offered with a set of excellent Carl Zeiss AF lenses, have unique zoom finders (rather than variable frame lines, as with the Leica Ms) and seem to be pretty much the final evolution of the rangefinder; in many ways, they remind me of an interchangeable lens version of the high end T series compacts.

35mm SLR
If anything, we’ve got even more choices here. The confusing part is that some of the newer, cheap entry-level AF SLRs are very competent indeed, and are probably more camera than one needs. I’m talking about things like the Nikon F55 (N55 in the USA) – not particularly nice as an object, but will get the job done, and coupled with say a cheap AF 50/1.8 D, capable of providing some excellent output – afterall, it’s the optics that make all the difference. I realize that there’s no way I can provide a rundown of even the major cameras in this category, so instead I’ll single out interesting options. The F55-class would not be my choice at all: though cheap, frankly, they’re nasty to handle, and a load of cheap-feeling plastic isn’t the kind of thing that inspires one to get out and shoot.

Since these are system cameras, the primary consideration will be lenses: what’s available, and at what cost? Systems with longevity – Nikon F and perhaps to a lesser extent, Pentax K – are the best choices here. Not only is excellent glass still available, chances are you’ll probably already have some. The reverse is also true – AI/ AIS lenses are still relatively easy to find and not too expensive on the secondary market, and will work just fine on most of the midrange and higher DSLRs. I can use the same excellent Carl Zeiss ZF.2 lenses on my D800E and F2 Titan – despite a 40 year age gap between the cameras. Note that the modern Nikon electronic-only G series lenses will not work fully on anything earlier than the F5.

In the Nikon stable, the F series and FM series are the ones to go for – not only were they constructed as befits the flagships of the day, they’re also reasonably cheap, easy to fix, and easy to find – for the most part. The original F is probably not the best shooter because of its removable back and (most cameras) lack of metering; it’s also not very ergonomic and has an oddly-placed shutter release. I like the F2 a lot, both because I’m biased towards it as my first serious foray into film, and because apart from the FM series, it’s the only F that is fully functional without a battery. The F2 is available in metered and unmetered versions; fortunately the latter is a lot easier to find than the former, and oddly, cheaper, too. The K screen is ideal for focusing – it has a microprism ring and split prism, as well as wonderful focusing ‘snap’. A user in nice condition user will set you back no more than $300-400 or so, but prices range into the thousands if you want a mint condition Titan. Just check the foams (mirror, back) and shutter speeds, because remember: these are entirely mechanical cameras. The timing system – especially for the faster 1/2000 speeds – functions much like a mechanical watch. Watch out for any slack in the rewind crank or hesitation at slower shutter speeds.

Personally, I’d avoid the F3 and F4 because they feel too much like transition cameras; you get some of the odd ergonomic holdovers from the mechanical era without the full integration of electronics. The F100 is very much a mini-F5, and much lighter and less battery-hungry too, though it won’t do 8fps. I personally like the F5 anniversary because of its titanium prism, and the F6, because in many ways it is and was the ultimate film camera ever made – and almost certainly the final incarnation in the line. Interestingly, all of the Fs – even the electronic, motorized ones – have a mechanical rewind crank so you can get the film out in case you run out of power. Of course, with the F2 and and it siblings, power is never an issue – I suppose that’s one of the joys of shooting with one of these cameras; I know it’s almost certainly going to outlast me.

The FM3A gives you the benefit of both mechanical shutter speeds up to 1/4000s (without batteries even), as well as aperture-priority and match-needle metering if you do put a battery in. It even has backlight compensation and AE-lock, in a smaller and lighter body than the unmetered F2 – though admittedly, it simply doesn’t feel as nice in the hand. These are not cheap on the secondary market, and sell for pretty much their original retail price – around US$700-800 or so for one in excellent condition, or ~$450 for a beater.

There are a few other interesting systems worth mentioning: notably, Canon FD. Canon abandoned all of its legacy users with the shift to EOS in the 80s; as expected, resale value for these cameras and lenses fell through the floor. A friend recently picked up an excellent+ condition AE-1 Program and two lenses for about $50 – granted, the cameras have some operation quirks, but if you can get used to them, are of course capable of delivering great results. And L glass from the FD era is both good and cheap.

I’ve always been intrigued by the Contax RTS system with it’s Zeiss lenses (this particular C/Y mount series of optics are very popular for conversion amongst filmmakers due to their look) and of course the Leica Rs; but the relative expense and difficulty in obtaining spares and accessories is somewhat off-putting. Better to buy into a familiar, cheaper system and spend the rest on film…

120 (medium format) SLR
Though there are quite a few options in this category, the main contenders are of course the Hasselblad V and Pentax 645/ 67 systems; the former represents the higher end of the market, and the latter the lower – but we’re talking relative pricing here, as a nice Hasselblad 501C kit with waist level finder, A12 magazine and 80/2.8 will probably go for around the US$1k mark. Pentax 645 or 67 beaters can be found below $200. There are also the Mamiya RB/ RZ systems, Rollei SLX etc. but these are comparatively rarer, with the latter being quite pricy. It’s worth noting that there are Russian (Kiev) or Chinese clones for most of these; some of the parts are even interchangeable with the originals (Hasselblad prisms, notably). I make no secret of the fact that personally, I love my Hasselblad 501C – look for a future article on an introduction to the Hasselblad V system. It’s the only one of these options that can accept digital backs (though there’s a digital version of the Pentax 645 – imaginatively, the 645D.)

It’s worth noting that almost none of these cameras can be shot handheld unless you’ve got astronomically high shutter speeds or hands of stone, because the mirror slap is enormous – if you really want to make the most of the large negative, you’ll need a sturdy tripod and low-ISO film; then prepare to be surprised by the tonality and detail of the negatives, even if you’re a DSLR shooter.

120 (medium format) TLR
Your only two real options here are either a Rolleiflex of some description, or a Segaull; I wouldn’t personally go for either. There are a lot of disadvantages with TLRs – parallax, size, non-interchangeable lenses, potential alignment/ calibration issues – and only one advantage: almost no shutter vibration thanks to leaf shutters and no mirrors/ focal plane shutters, which means that the cameras are hand-holdable to very low shutter speeds. Expect to pay $1-2k for a clean Rollexiflex, or a few hundred for a new Seagull.

120 (medium format) rangefinder and compact
Here’s an interesting segment: you can still buy a lot of these cameras new. Fuji still makes both medium format rangefinders – notably the GF670 normal bellows rangefinder (which also has a Voigtlander counterpart) and the wide GF670W – as well as fixed lens, autofocus ‘point and shoots’ (GA645 and variants). They’re not small, but they’re not as bulky as the SLRs or TLRs, either. And they’re fun to use. The rangefinders have fixed lenses, and run in the $2k range; the GA series are more like $600-1k depending on condition. There’s also the older GSW series – available in 670 (6×7 negative), 680 (6×8 negative) and 690 (yep, you guessed it, 6×9 negative) flavors. They all have fixed lenses, though their predecessors – the G series – had interchangeable lenses. Expect to pay something in the $500 region for one of these.**

**Trivia: these cameras came to be known as the ‘Texas Leicas’ due to their similarity in appearance, but considerably larger size and cruder finishing.

The other major option are of course the Mamiya 6 and 7 series rangefinders. The Mamiyas are electronic, leaf-shutter (read: low vibration) cameras with some slight differences. The 6 shoots a 6×6 square negative, and allows collapsing of the lens into the body to save space; the 7 drops this feature, but produces 6×7 negatives and allows the use of a 43mm ultrawide lens. These are reputedly amongst the best lenses available for medium format, thanks to their conservative apertures and short back focus distance. Unfortunately, they’re also costly: the bodies run in the $1200-1600 range, and lenses are easily another $1000 or more apiece. 43 (for the 7), 50, 80, 150 and 210mm lenses were available. One interesting design feature is the use of a polarized viewfinder to enhance contrast, and thus improve ease of focusing.

On a closing note, the Plaubel Makina might also be worth a look – a collapsible-bellows rangefinder producing 6×7 negatives, equipped with Nikkor lenses – legend has it that after developing the camera, there was no money left over for the optics. Not a bad thing in this case, if you ask me. The downside is that these cameras have become quite collectible, and aren’t cheap – $1800 for a beater, to $3k and upwards for a mint one.

Large formats: 4×5″ and upwards
I’m not even going to go there.

Well, there you have it – film cameras in a nutshell. Personally, I’m shooting with a Hasselblad 501C, Nikon F2 Titan and Ricoh GR1V – what I consider to be a representative spread of the genre, cameras that are beautifully engineered objects, and (perhaps with exception of the GR1V) something which I hope to be enjoying for some forseeable time in the future. Unlike the current crop of DSLRs and compact digitals, there’s a very tangible tactile pleasure to using these cameras – I just don’t the same sort of emotional connection with my digital tools as I do with the fully mechanical vintage film cameras; I can only hope that some of the current manufacturers eventually understand how important this is. In the meantime – there’s no reason not to enjoy the secondary market. MT

____________

Enter the January 2012 black and white challenge – win a multispectral Sony NEX-5 B&W machine modified by yours truly!

If you enjoyed this post, please consider supporting me via Paypal (mingthein2@gmail.com). Visit our Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including Photoshop Workflow DVDs and customized Email School of Photography; or go mobile with the Photography Compendium for iPad. You can also get your gear from Amazon.comhere. Prices are the same as normal, however a small portion of your purchase value is referred back to me. Thanks!

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Filed Under: Film Diaries Tagged With: equipment, film, film cameras, film diaries, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, picking a camera, thein

Film diaries: thoughts on the viability of film in the digital age

January 22, 2013 by Ming Thein

Closet abstractions. Hasselblad 501C, 80/2.8 CF T* on Ilford Pan F

I’ve had several experiences with film. In what I consider to be my pre-photographic days, we’d shoot it on occasions for documentary purposes or while on family holidays; I took it a bit more seriously (i.e. shot a bit more) when I purchased my own camera – small was good, so I went for APS – and then discovered how horrendously expensive processing was. During my first trip to Japan in 2001, I shot eight or nine rolls of 40 – which was a huge number of images. I still remember being asked by my family – ‘why are there so many photos without people in them?’ To be honest, the processing cost turned me off just as much as the annoyingly large gap between what I saw in the scene and what came out in the prints – of course at that point I had no idea that the type of film mattered just as much as the chemistry and the printing process.

Skip to 2004, shortly after my first DSLR, I purchased a Nikon FM3A – which I couldn’t really get the hang of, and subsequently traded it in for a 12-24/4 (oh, the regret). 2005 saw another dalliance with an F2A and slide film, whose colours and visual punch I enjoyed, but whose costs I didn’t – I think at one point I was spending nearly $1,000 a month on film and processing. I did learn a lot about nailing exposure, though. Later followed an M6TTL in 2009, which I embarrassingly mis-loaded on the second roll and didn’t produce any images; I cleared the balance of film in my fridge and then gave up shortly thereafter. Here we are now in early 2013, and I’m now regularly shooting most of my personal work in black and white with a Hasselblad 501C, Nikon F2 Titan and Ricoh GR1V.

There are a few things to think about before considering film as a medium: firstly, availability of media and processing; secondly, your output medium; thirdly, your workflow; finally, limitations. I’ll cover these one by one.

Availability of media and processing

Film is very much not dead. Whilst Kodak seems to be disintegrating and continually pruning its offerings, at least its popular Portra and T-MAX are still available in various flavours. Fuji and Ilford have maintained a decent selection. I think Agfa still makes a few types, too. There’s also a lot of cheap film out of China – the infamous ‘Lucky’ brand, whose name perhaps refers to the quality of one’s results – which is good for experimentation and learning. Although it’s not as easy to get film these days – chemists don’t stock it, nor do popular tourist attraction kiosks, or even most camera shops for that matter – it isn’t that hard, either. Here in Kuala Lumpur, I’ve watched as over the last five or six years, I’ve gone from being able to buy Velvia 50 from most mass market camera shops to nearly being unable to find it at all.

Processing is probably more of an issue. There are only a small handful of decent pro labs left in Kuala Lumpur; to be honest, the results from even these places are a pale shadow of their former selves, and they weren’t even the best of the bunch back in the day. Realistically, this means that unless you have access to a decent local lab, or don’t mind mailing your films out for processing – with all of the risks that entails – you’re going to have to do it yourself. For black and white, this isn’t so hard. E6 (slide) and C41 (colour negative) films are going to be a bit more challenging as they’ll require several chemical baths at very specific temperatures.

Finding balance. Hasselblad 501C, 80/2.8 CF T* on Ilford Pan F

Workflow

Assuming you have some way to convert your exposed film into clean negatives, the next step is output: whilst you can project slides, you certainly can’t do the same with negatives, and thus either printing or scanning is required. Minilab prints these days – assuming you have a local minilab at all – are not optical. The negatives are scanned digitally and printed on your 4×6″ or 5×7″ using a dye-sublimation printer; (this is just one of the reasons why the negatives are often much better than the final prints) those files are available on a CD if you want – but note that even at 300dpi, you only need 1200×1800 pixels to make an excellent 4×6″ – most of the time, it’s going to be even less than this to increase throughput. Getting proper digital scans or optical enlargement prints is certainly an option – but both have been relegated to the realm of the specialist, with the expected accompaniment in pricing. A drum scan – again, if you can find a lab that will do one for you – costs about $40 per roll of 35mm, at least in this part of the world. Even the mail-order scanning businesses that have sprung up in the ‘States mostly use film scanners like the Nikon Coolscan or a dedicated flatbed with a lamp in the cover.

Although optically enlarged prints are probably the best way of appreciating your images, it’s simply not practical most of the time unless you plan to do it yourself. I admit that since I started shooting film again in December, I’ve not made a single optical print – firstly, my wife would kill me because of the chemical smell in the house, secondly, I don’t have an enlarger.

There is good news, however. Digital has brought most people DSLRs; couple with a good relay lens – a flat-field, high-resolution short focal length macro is ideal- these are actually ideal copying devices. 35mm film doesn’t have more than the equivalent of about 8-10MP of information; this means that pretty much any DSLR today will out resolve film. (Something like a D800E is positively overkill, but it does do a wonderful job with medium format negatives.) You can either buy a slide copying adaptor that simply screws on to the filter threads of your macro lens – perhaps with an adaptor ring or two in-between – or if you’re industrious, build yourself a stand to hold the camera perfectly perpendicular to the film you’re copying, with a diffuse light source underneath to light it. I use my macrophotography lightbox and a jig made out of Lego that clips on to the end of either the Zeiss ZF.2 2/50 Makro-Planar, or the Nikon AFS 60/2.8 G – depending on how lazy I’m feeling on the day.

Converting your DSLR ‘scans’ to output should be relatively easy. A little Photoshop action can be made to convert the negatives into positives, with the right tonal qualities; you’ll still need to do some manual dust spotting, but not much. If you get your action right, the tonal values should look great without too much – if any – extra work on your part. I’ve not done any dodging or burning or local adjustments to my negatives; they go through my action* and out again, otherwise unmolested. If I wanted the tonal qualities of digital, I’d shoot digital. Finally, don’t forget that you need to have a place to store your negatives – sleeves work just fine, though they’re becoming increasingly hard to find. My advice? Buy in bulk online.

*Some of you are probably going to ask if I’m going to make these actions available; the answer is that there’s no point because it will depend heavily on several factors: your input brightness/ contrast, the tonal response of your copying camera, and the film you’re using. The action I’ve got for the D800E and Ilford Delta 100 won’t work for a T-MAX negative copied with a 5DIII.

Your output medium

I’m writing this assuming that like most people, your output medium – i.e. for final viewing of the images – is going to be digital or some variation thereon, whether it’s online social media or on an iPad. You can even make a very nice print from a decent scan, so physical media isn’t out of the question, either. As with all images, unless your viewing medium supports the full tonal range and colour gamut of your capture medium, it’s going to be a poor representation of the original. The minute your output goes digital, just be aware that you’re going to have to deal with the restrictions induced by your monitor, colour spaces, profiling etc.

Planter boxes. Hasselblad 501C, 80/2.8 CF T* on Ilford Delta 400

Limitations

In my mind, the largest limitations have got to be colour, high ISO and resolution – with the latter two suffering in tandem. I say colour because almost all film these days is daylight balanced; even back when there were a lot of film choices, you got tungsten balanced film, and that was about it – anything else had to be corrected for with gels or filters. Of course, to get accurate colour we need to get our white balance right – and this is nigh on impossible with film. You can get pleasing colour quite easily, but not accurate colour. Anybody who complains about the retina-searing ‘vivid’ modes in camera has obviously not shot with Velvia. It gets worse: finding a good colour lab locally – at least in Malaysia – is nigh on impossible. And DIY colour developing is not something I’d like to entertain due to the complexity of the process; it might be worth doing if you shoot a lot of it, but I can’t see any hobbyist doing it in volumes to make it worthwhile. Stick to digital for colour applications.

Although there are films as fast as 3200 available, and push-processing techniques to take you into the five-digit ISO realm, the results frankly look like crap. Even at 3200, grain is the size of golfballs and you can kiss goodbye to fine detail or smooth tonal transitions; I wouldn’t want to go much higher than 800 on a 6×6 negative, personally. And even then, things get pretty ropey. Let’s be honest: in this arena, digital has long surpassed film; ISO 6400 images from the D800E have more detail and less noise than an ISO 400 medium format negative. This gets even worse when it comes to 35mm, since the negative is smaller. Of course, you could actually like the way the grain looks – I don’t mind it, but I’d rather have as little of it as possible – in which case, push away.

There’s one final fly in the ointment (silver?): I’ve been searching for a term to describe it, but the closest I can come is lack of security. There are no do-overs: if you mislead the film, you won’t have any images. If you accidentally expose the film before processing, you’re toast. If you mishandle the film while loading it into your developing tank’s spooler, you might land up with scratches or uneven developing. If your bag or room isn’t totally light-tight, then you’ll have fogging. If you are shooting high-sensitivity film, stay away from X-ray machines. If you mess up the developing, your images might not appear, or be too dark or too light. If your negatives get lost in the mail to or from the lab or scanning house, you’ve got no backup. There’s no dual card slot RAID for film. Basically, until you get the film digitised and stored in a few places, that one set of negatives are the only place your images exist, anywhere. And that makes me very, very nervous when it comes to using film for any mission-critical applications. I suppose it’s a good thing that my light meter also happens to be an RX100.

You’ll note that I haven’t said much about equipment. The reality is that there are very few 35mm film cameras being made today – I think there’s not a lot between Lomo and Leica; the proliferation of high quality compacts and various SLRs are long dead. The majority of new film cameras produced and introduced are medium and large format, where technology hasn’t really changed in the last decade – you can still buy a new Hasselblad 503CW, which for all intents and purposes is the same camera as forty years ago. (I’m quite happy with my 1995-vintage 501C, thanks.) This means that if you want anything else, you’re going to have to look at the second hand market. There’s a proliferation of choices – I’ll cover this more extensively in another article – but a similar number of pitfalls thanks to failing electronics, mechanical issues, limited availability of spares etc – not to mention many of these cameras becoming cult objects in their own right, with commensurately inexplicable prices. The good news of course is that you can get an excellent simple SLR and some lenses – say a Nikon FM2 or Canon AE-1 Program – for not a lot of money at all; less than a midrange point and shoot.

With all of these shortcomings and restrictions, you’re probably wondering why bother with film at all. Hint: it’s not about quantity, it’s about quality and the idea. I’m convinced that having just 12 or 24 or 36 shots available to you makes you both antsy (to finish the roll) and more discerning. This in turn means that you may spend more time per image processing, but you probably have better material to work with. You force yourself to see with a more critical eye, with a higher consciousness of the quality of light. And that in itself will help to make you a better photographer. There is also of course the fringe benefit of getting to play with some beautifully built machinery; I think one shouldn’t underestimate tactile pleasure in the grand scheme of things. After all – commercial work notwithstanding, for which film is not really viable except for fine art – isn’t that what photography is all about?

In short: film isn’t dead. It definitely has some limitations, and I personally wouldn’t use it for critical or demanding applications. I’m not 100% sure what I’m going to get a lot of the time because of the various unpredictabilities in tonal response, processing etc, meaning that there’s both an interesting anticipation and extra satisfaction in the process when it comes out as you envisioned, or sometimes, even better. And that’s the second major strength of shooting film: aside from the fun and satisfaction factor, the tonal map of a good B&W negative is almost impossible to duplicate with digital; one can come very, very close, but it requires a lot of work and the results still aren’t quite perfect.

____________

Visit our Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including Photoshop Workflow DVDs and customized Email School of Photography; or go mobile with the Photography Compendium for iPad. You can also get your gear from B&H and Amazon. Prices are the same as normal, however a small portion of your purchase value is referred back to me. Thanks!

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Filed Under: Articles, Film Diaries, On Photography Tagged With: analog, film, film diaries, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, photography, thein, viability of film

Film diaries: thoughts, truths and realizations

January 16, 2013 by Ming Thein

During the course of the last few months – shooting a grand total of a roll and a half, and processing one – I’ve had a few thoughts. Admittedly, these may be premature given that I haven’t even seen what came out of roll 2 yet, but I’ve already had a number of observations along the way which I thought I’d share with you all here.

Muse at work. F2T, Delta 100, 45/2.8 P

The look is very different. I think it’s very polarizing: what you gain is highlight headroom, at the expanse of shadows (to some extent). And there’s grain everywhere, even in the highlights; but it’s non-uniform, non-digital, and varies in size enough that it adds texture rather than distraction. I find that I definitely like it when the light is directional; I don’t like it at all under harsh sun/ midday especially in the tropics, because it seems you lose most of the midtone definition. Here, digital’s linearity seems to help considerably with exposure latitude.

Digital passed film resolution a long, long time ago. Even shooting fine grain film and processing it in a reasonably clean developer – Delta 100 in DDX – the grain is still very noticeable. Oddly, it doesn’t seem to affect the ultimate resolving power of the medium, but what fine details are there are somewhat indistinct compared to what can be achieved with digital (duh, due to the digital nature of the constituent medium – i.e. uniform block pixels.) I will try PANF in colder developer next time to see if that helps. The last time I shot/ scanned seriously, I came to the conclusion that there was at most somewhere between 8 and 10 MP of equivalent resolution in a good negative or slide – I don’t think that’s changed; I’m just not seeing any more of that regardless of the lens used. In fact, if I had to compare the output, I’d say Delta 100 feels much like a D700 shot at ISO 3200+, with similar tolerance for lenses. I must have messed something up in the developing, because I don’t remember Provia 100 being this grainy. Bottom line: we’re utterly spoiled by modern digital; even the RX100 handily outresolves 35mm film – if it had better dynamic range, I’d probably use this as my copying solution instead. Whoever is still complaining about resolution out to have their head seriously examined, probably with a baseball bat.

The Vase. Hasselblad 501C, 80/2.8 CF T* on Ilford Delta 400

That said, I’m seeing a very healthy amount of detail from my Hasselblad negatives: single pixel detail is being resolved at the 20MP level (the magnification limit of my ‘scans’), and I suspect that there may be about ~40MP worth of real detail in a low-ISO 6×6 negative. This makes sense, since the area is approximately four times the area of a 35mm negative.

The Noct-Nikkor has some noticeable focus shift issues wide open. Even on film, you can see the focus plane move as you stop down (or shoot wide open). I think this lens is going to have to be partnered with the D700 for future use, or a D600 with live view and an LCD magnifier.

35mm film is very forgiving of lenses. By f5.6 and sometimes even before, all of my ~50mm lenses (45P, 2/50MP, 58 Noct) all look equally sharp and pleasing. I actually prefer the 45P’s rendition wide open because its slight field curvature I feel adds to the image in the same way the 2/28 Distagon’s does. The good lenses, remain good, of course; some of that magic still comes through – the 2.8/21 Distagon comes immediately to mind – but it’s not as obvious as on a D600 body, let alone a D800E.

Graphic inverse. F2T, Delta 100, Zeiss 21/2.8

I like the negatives more than the positives sometimes. This appears to be a consequence of the scanning process (or, specifically, the D800E imposing its own tonal response curve onto the reproduction) more than anything; still, some of the really abstract, graphic images seem to work better if tone-adjusted and kept as a negative. Perhaps there’s a creative avenue to explore here…

I work faster with film than digital – even if my camera has no meter. The inability to chimp or make iterative improvements to subsequent shots means that subconsciously, you put all of your effort into getting it right the first time and being absolutely sure before you shoot: this is both efficient, and makes you better. One, or at most two, frames, and I’m on to the next shot. This definitely wasn’t the case with my previous experiences – perhaps my skill level has improved a bit since then.

Each roll is a bit like receiving an old-fashioned letter. Both in the fact that you have to open the container to see what’s inside, but more so because you aren’t 100% sure how it’s going to turn out – you remember most of the images (I suppose that’s like anticipation when you see the sender’s address) but there’s enough variables in the developing that the tone – no pun intended – of the message might not quite turn out how you’d expect – either good or bad. I suppose there’s also the aspect of ‘will-it-or-won’t-it-arrive?’ anxiety when you’re doing your own developing, too.

Zigzag. F2T, Delta 100, 58/1.2 Noct

Individual style is much more difficult to impose without lighting or postprocessing. I suppose this seems obvious in hindsight, but I’d say that 50% (or more, if you rely on filters and HDR) of an individual’s style is imprinted during the postprocessing phase. I know that personally, it affects my tonal map and color signature; the latter is gone with B&W film, and the former is highly dependent on the film type, developing and scanning process (and subsequent conversion). I’m trying to write a conversion action that takes my raw file and turns it into something approximating the image I expected at the time of shooting; it’s not easy because there are multitudinous variables. I suppose I could process each one individually, but that would defeat the point of shooting film: I actually don’t want that much control, otherwise I might as well shoot digital – there are fewer steps to achieving an output image, and far more repeatability.

I’m not really seeing any differently with 35mm, but the shots that work are not the ones I expected. I think compositionally, nothing much has changed. But I’m even more acutely aware of the quality of ambient light now; situations in which I’d make up any deficits in the scene for with postprocessing (uneven light, overly harsh light, colour casts etc.) are pretty much no-go with film. The positive upshot is that the scenes that work are simply gorgeous in tonality. I suppose this does actually affect the way you compose, since shadows always define the shape of an object.

It’s different for medium format, though: 6×6 really has a neat zen balance about it that I’m rather enjoying.

For film, bigger is definitely better. Or harder/ faster/ stronger/ whatever adjective you prefer. And if you’re going to be shooting it in old, manual, quirky cameras without meters anyway, it’s never, ever, going to be convenient – so you might as well go large. Different story with digital, of course.

I keep forgetting to remove the damn dark slide. Enough said. One of these days, I’m sure I’m going to bend or lose it when I’m in a hurry.

Developing is both simple and hard. There aren’t that many steps to it – mix chemicals, open cannister, load reel, put inside tank, seal tank; add developer and time; rinse; add fixer and time; rinse. Hang to dry. Scan, or print to taste. The trouble is, many of the critical steps are both impossible to repeat exactly one time to the next, and there are several of them. And batches of film aren’t always consistent. I’m sure there’s an art to all of these things, but that’s something much like digital processing: you can only get a feel for it through experience. Perhaps once I’ve developed enough rolls I might get some of the touch too; and maybe then I’ll write about it (i.e. when I have something worthwhile to say). Also, 120 film is considerably more difficult to load on the reels than 135; I suspect it’s because the film is both wider and seemingly slightly thinner, too.

To say a particular film has a ‘signature’ seems to be as much a fallacy as saying a particular sensor has one. The development process affects the outcome to such a large extent that I don’t think it’s possible to separate it from the outcome – i.e. it’s really not all down to the film. I certainly don’t have the experience yet, but I’m pretty sure I could make most B&W films turn out the way I expect once I have some handle on their native tonal characteristics and that of the chemistry – much like the various raw files from different cameras.

I need to figure out this drying business. By sheer dumb luck, my first roll turned out okay; the problem was drying it. I rather unwisely decided to hasten the process by wiping the film with a microfiber cloth – it worked fine for the first few frames, then really buggered up the ones at the end with streaks and scratches (presumably from something that got stuck in the cloth). Moral of the story: go buy some hydroflow agent, hang and have patience. Or maybe a rubber squeegee thingy.

Dust spotting isn’t as bad as I remember it to be. It seems that my early slides picked up a considerable amount more dust than these B&W negs – no idea why. But what used to be easily 10+ minutes of spot removal is perhaps 30s on a bad image – a very fragile-emulsion negative such as PAN-F, for instance; and one or two strokes on a clean one. Incidentally, it’s the same technique that I use for retouching dust on watches.

Highlight roll-offs are gorgeous. I suspect this is because most of the dynamic range is in the highlights – something to do with reciprocity error or perhaps the underlying photochemistry of the medium. There’s always a bit of gradation left in even the brightest zones, and nothing ever seems to truly overexpose (unless you do so by more than three or four stops).

That said, there’s not as much dynamic range as I expected. Perhaps this is not entirely accurate. The dynamic range is there, it’s just not distributed as I expected; I’m used to the extreme linearity of the D800E and its brethren, which let you basically expose to the right and be almost sure that all of the shadow information will be there. With film it appears the cost of the wonderful highlight tonality are very compressed shadows. Personally, this means to get the tonal style I’mm after, I’ll have to expose my primary subject highlights in zone 7-8 and let the rest fall where it may, but specifically look for scenes which work with heavy shadows.

How much of the tonal qualities of them D800E are being imposed on my ‘scans’? Unfortunately, without printing, there’s no real way to know – any digital conversion is going to result in some…reinterpretation, I suppose, of the original tonal values.

I doubt I can get anywhere near the same color accuracy with film. Although color films have some latitude to their working ambient light Kelvin temperatures, there’s simply no way you can have film that works at 5500K for one shot, and 4375K for the next – but you can with digital. For this reason, I’m just not going to bother with color film – for now.

Inverse (this is the negative). Hasselblad 501C, 80/2.8 CF T* on Ilford Delta 400

Ah, grain. I’ve always been of the opinion that there’s nothing wrong with it, so long as your image is in focus and your idea is clear; film has just made me recalibrate my expectations. Hell, ISO 1600 from the OM-D looks better at equivalent magnifications than ISO 100 35mm film…

So far, it’s been an interesting experiment – both creatively and in an attempt to better understand some of the technical and artistic history behind photography and why some particular images look the way they look. For instance, I now understand why most film street photography is both grainy and very high contrast; similarly, I’ve developed a new appreciation for Salgado’s developer and printer – I would still love to see his negatives though, to figure out how much of his look is down to light at the scene, how much is down to developing voodoo, and how much of it is down to skillful printing. In the meantime though, I think so long as I’m shooting with a serious focus on creative development, film is probably here to stay for me. Time to pick up more 120 for the ‘Blad; I have a feeling I won’t be doing much 35mm film shooting because it isn’t quite the creative break I wanted. 6×6, on the other hand, is absolutely magnificent. MT

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!