Success

I finally managed to get out and take some photos with my new camera. My original plan was to go shoot at the museum last Sunday. But I got sick Saturday evening and I've been in bed all week. I finally got well enough to go out this morning, but the museum website said that the museum is closed till March for renovation. Arrrrg! The photo gods must be conspiring against me. Undaunted, I went instead to the university and shot two rolls of Tmax 400 @ 6x7. Shooting film is different from shooting digital. It took about an hour to shoot just 20 photos today. If I was shooting digital I'd fire off 20 shots in the first 10 minutes. This camera really forces you to slow down. When I got home and developed the two rolls, plus the roll of 6x4.5 that I shot while I was sick. I used D-76 at 1:1 dilution for 12.5 minutes. The first two rolls I processed normally. I presoaked the third roll for five minutes before I put in the developer. They turned out OK, although the ones I shot today look a bit overexposed. I can't tell the difference between the presoaked roll and the non-presoaked. Prehapse I'll see the difference when I do the print.

Selective Color

I've added a new page to BWD called Selective Color. Most selective color methods I've seen uses brute force selection and solid color layer to add coloring. While it results in very vivid colors with a sharp distinction between the colored and uncolored parts of the image, I've always found those types of images rather unnatural. My method uses Color Range selection and curves toning to achieve what I think is a more organic look. Try it out and tell me what you think.

Shut in

I've been in bed for the past two days fighting a cold. On Saturday I went and finalized my membership in the darkroom co-op. Afterwards, I went to a camera store downtown to pick up some supplies. The store is in a rather seedy part of town. Or it used to be seedy. I remember back in the late 80s, the neighborhood was nothing but cheap hotels, porno shops, arcades, and pawnshops. I know, because I used to hang out there in my early twenties (tales from my wasted youth). It's been really cleaned up since. In fact, it's a rather pleasant place now, with new shops and restaurants. Some of the old arcades I used to hang out in are still there, but the porno shops are gone.

It was raining pretty heavily. I had an umbrella, but I neglected to use it, for which I'm now paying. I was planning on going to the museum on Sunday so that I can finally use my camera, but no dice. I stayed home and did still lifes when I could get out of bed.

Anyway, this store is supposed to be one of the better ones in town. They've been at the same location since 1959. This was my first time there, and I'm glad I went. They have a huge selection of used equipment. In fact it feels kind of like a museum. I went and got some chemicals, a development tank, and a couple of reels so I can develop film at home. The sales guy I talked to was very helpful. On the way out I spotted a used RZ67. Boy, am I glad I got the Bronica instead. The Mamiya was huge, at least 20% bigger than the GS-1. I was undecided for a long time between the RZ and GS. The deciding factor was the size. Although I like almost everything about the RZ, I also hate schlepping heavy gear. I knew that if I got the RZ it will probably stay home and never get used. After seeing the RZ I knew that it wouldn't have been a wise use of my money.

Fumbling with film

The camera finally arrived today. It is sweet. It took me all afternoon to figure out how all the bits and pieces work. I love using the waist level finder. The old film guys will probably laugh, but it reminds me of my old Sony 828. The left-right reversed image is really hard to get used to, though, and I find it really hard to focus. I have to use the diopter. It has a split view focusing screen, which is fantastic. The last time I saw that was on my dad's Nikon SLR.

I managed to waste an entire roll right off the bat. I was loading it into the 67 back. I wasn't paying attention and I missed the start arrow. I kept winding until I started seeing emulsion. Oops! I closed the back and wound the film. It was now frame 3. I took a couple of photos and then I accidentally opened the back. Oops again! I wound past my goof. It was now frame 7. I took another shot and then I remembered that I have to manually meter. Opps #3. I took a proper meter reading with my Sekonic 508, which also arrived today. It's now frame 8. I took two properly metered photos of my backpack and that was it. I think I'll just use this roll to practice loading the development reel. I just wish it hadn't cost me $9 (that's how much I paid for this film).

Film for its own sake

I went and checked out the darkroom co-op today. It's in a rather bleak part of town, but it's easily accessible by transit and the price is right. They have three darkrooms, a wet room, and a color printer. I also spent four hours in a black and white darkroom refresher course. It was a one on one session with the operator of the co-op. We developed a roll of 35mm black and white film and did a black and white print. I also got a crash course in how to operate the enlarger. This one was more sophisticated than the one I used to use in high school. I also learned how to use the grain focuser, which was a new thing for me.

It was amazing how quickly everything came back. I suppose it helped that I did a bit of brushing up before I went there. I found some Youtube videos on developing negatives which I watched before I went. I had also forgotten how much fun it is to work in the darkroom. During the last week or so my mindset has shifted a bit, and this trip back to the darkroom has confirmed it.

I started this project as a means to creating better Photoshop actions for black and white digital conversion. I'm now starting to re-appreciate film photography for its own sake, rather than just as a means to a digital end.

Bronica GS-1

I finally decided on a camera: the Bronica GS-1. In the end it came down to either the GS-1 or the Mamiya RZ67 Pro II. The Pentax fell out of the running early. Just about every review and discussion I read about the Pentax mentioned the shutter bounce problem. The way to prevent it is to use a heavy tripod. To my mind that kind of defeats the purpose of Pentax's SLR style. Neither the Mamiya or the Bronica suffers from shutter bounce. The most attractive draw of the Mamiya is the fact that Mamiya still supports their cameras. The fact that Mamiya has a clear plan to support digital backs for both the RZ and RB was very enticing. But the purpose of this project is to dive into film photography. It is not to put together another digital outfit. If I want to shoot digital I'll use my Canon 5D. I had to compare the two systems based on other merits. I decided that the Bronica is probably better suited to my style of shooting. Also the outfit I bought is about half the price of a compatible Mamiya outfit.

To celebrate I went to my local camera shop to buy some film. The only black and white 120 film they had was Tmax 100 and Tmax 400. I bought two roles of 400 at $8.99 each. I'm going to have to find a cheaper source of film.

Film Renaissance?

Since I started photography, my online hangout of choice has been dgrin.com. I consider it my home on the web. Dgrin welcomes all photographers, but its emphasis is overwhelmingly digital. Since I started my quest for film, I've also been lurking in apug.org. Apug is strictly film. The two sites are polar opposites on the digital/film divide. And most vocal advocates on either side seem to be the old guard; the guys who've been doing this for thirty plus years.

On the digital side you have guys who're glad to ditch film and everything associated with it: the chemicals, the cost, the slow turn around time, etc. They love the new technology, the fast processing, and the ability to shoot thousands of frames at no cost. On the other side you have guys hanging on to film like grim death. They don't like the new technology, they don't understand it, they think it leads to lazy photography, and they think the quality of digital is inferior to film. The two sides stare at each other across no-mans-land, one side fearing the death of film and the other side thinking it can't come soon enough. Meanwhile, us amateurs are scratching our heads wondering what the war's about.

The rumors of film's demise are greatly exaggerated. In fact, I think film is about to undergo a renaissance, and it will be lead by amateur digital photographers.

The thing that's always kept me from pursuing photography was the high barrier to entry. Not only was the equipment expensive, so were the supplies and processing. The learning curve was steep and slow. Mistakes were costly. Digital has much lower barriers to entry. Although the equipment is no less expensive, the immediate feedback that digital provides flattens the learning curve considerably. There are no processing costs, no supplies to buy, and mistakes cost nothing.

However, while entry level DSLRs are relatively inexpensive, the costs quickly escalates once you get past entry level. A high end amateur DSLR body costs around $3000 and a top end pro model around $7000. Medium format digital is completely out of reach, with medium format digital backs costing around $30,000. Digital large format is still the realm of the super-exotic. There are no instant-read large format backs, and scanning backs cost as much as medium format digital backs.

Most amateurs will stick with what they have, making incremental upgrades. Some will bite the bullet and invest in more expensive kit. Others, however, will move into film world. I know of several dgrin members, myself included, who are interested in film, especially large format. I can only speak for myself, but I think they're interested in film for the same reasons I am. First, it's new to them. A lot of digital shooters are neophiles, and they dig new stuff, even if its over a hundred years old. Second, they're not necessarily interested in the fastest workflow. They want to take the best photos they can, with the best gear they can afford, for the lowest price. Used film gear fits that perfectly. Third, digital is still limited to point&shoots and DSLRs. If you want to explore large format photography, film is still the only affordable way to do it. Finally, they're fascinated by the process. Digital photography is just like any other electronic gizmo. You press a button and it magically does what it's supposed to. Digital cameras fall into the same electronic fog with the ipod, iphone, video game consoles, laptops, blackberries, etc. Film cameras are different. The fact that you can do something as complicated as photography by purely mechanical and chemical processes is fascinating. Personally, I find the fact that a pro camera like the RB67 can be purely mechanical with no electronic or digital controls to be completely mindblowing.

I think you'll see more and more amateur digital photographers take advantage of the current availability of inexpensive, pro grade film equipment. Film will never go back to being the medium of choice for professional photographers. However, I think film still has a long life in the amateur world.

Film to digital

I've been forming my strategy for analyzing film for a while. Afterall, no one is going to spend the time, money and effort of starting such a major project without some kind of plan. However, my knowledge of film and film scanning is limited. The plan will no doubt undergo revisions as I progress through it. I'll be posting intermediate results periodically on this blog.

The basic plan to capture three parameters for a given film and process:

1. color conversion
2. contrast profile
3. grain

Color conversion will capture which colors get converted to which shade of gray. This info will probably be translated into a curve or Photoshop B&W layer. The contrast profile will measure the amout of contrast. I'm still not sure how to do that. Probably scan film shot at different exposures and mapping it to a curve. The grain will try to digitize the grain structure of the film. I'm not sure if the scanner I'm planning on getting will be good enough to capture grain. I may have to get it drum scanned.

Choosing a camera

I've been searching for a film camera for about two weeks now. At first I thought I'd just get a cheap used SLR like a Rebel. That way I don't have to spend a lot of money, and I can use my existing Canon lenses. However, like so many other things in my life, once I start investigating something I tend to become obsessed. Things quickly start to get out of hand. I quickly dumped the idea of getting the Rebel and opted instead for an EOS 3. But then I realized that, since I already have a digital SLR I don't need a film SLR. It would be redundant. If I'm going to shoot film I might as well pick a different format. Medium format was the obvious choice. Bigger film format might also give more accurate results. So which camera to choose? I decided to skip the weirder formats like 6x9 and concentrate on either 645, 6x6, or 6x7. The answer seemed pretty obvious: 6x7. If I get a 6x7 camera I can always get a 645 or 6x6 back for it, or crop down. And as far as 6x7 goes there seems to be only four realistic choices: Mamiya RB67 Pro SD, Mamiya RZ67 Pro II, Bronica GS-1, or Pentax 67. This is where I'm at now. I keep going back and forth between these four cameras. They're all about the same price on the used market, although the Pentax 67ii is much more expensive. They all seem to have their strengths. For this project I'm going to be doing a lot of studio type photos, shooting color charts, still lifes, etc. That would indicate either a Mamiya or the Bronica. However, in real life I do most of my shooting outdoors. That would indicate either the Bronica or the Pentax. The Bronica seems to fit my style better than either the Mamiya or the Pentax, but Mamiya and Pentax have better choice of lenses. There also seems to be more Mamiya gear on the used market than Bronica gear. Also, Mamiya and Pentax are still in business, Bronica is not.

Diving into film

I haven't added anything significant to BWD in quite a while. The reason is that I've kind of run out of ideas. Building the site up to now has been pretty easy. Most of the information on this site is readily available elsewhere on the Internet. I've simply brought it together in one site and organized it in, hopefully, a coherent way. I was thinking of doing a page on contrast control, but that information has already been covered in Curves and Levels adjustment.

I wanted to do a page on simulating film response. I found some info on how to set the channel mixer to mimic the response of various types of film. If you're really interested here are the channel mixer RGB values for various types of film:

Agfa 200X: 18,41,41
Agfapan 25: 25,39,36
Agfapan 100: 21,40,39
Agfapan 400: 20,41,39

Ilford Delta 100: 21,42,37
Ilford Delta 400: 22,42,36
Ilford Delta 400 Pro: 31,36,33

Ilford FP4: 28,41,31
Ilford HP5: 23,37,40
Ilford Pan F: 33,36,31
Ilford SFX: 36,31,33
Ilford XP2 Super: 21,42,37

Kodak Tmax 100: 24,37,39
Kodak Tmax 400: 27,36,37
Kodak Tri-X: 25,35,40

I've tried them out and, to be honest, the differences are so subtle as to be almost meaningless. Also, the more I thought about these numbers the more questions I had. Where did these numbers come from? Did they come from the film manufacturer? Did someone actually scan negatives?

I wanted to see if these numbers were accurate so I started digging. I couldn't find any info so I started researching black and white film processing. I quickly realized that these numbers are essentially meaningless. Accurate film simulation is not just a function of what type of film one uses. More important is the darkroom process. The type of developer, whether push/pull processing was used, even the temperature of the developer. All these factors determine the look of just the negative. Then there's the final print and the size of the enlargement, which affects the size of visible grain. The more I read about b&w film processing, the more I realized that I can't just read about this. If I'm to put together any useful information about simulating film, I'm going to have to step into the darkroom.

The problem is, the last time I shot film was probably 5 years ago. That was before I got into photography as a hobby. I was using p&s cameras, consumer grade film and one hour processing. I don't even have a film SLR. And the last time I was in a darkroom was back in high school, over 20 years ago. As far a film goes I'm basically starting from scratch.

I'm currently looking to get a film camera. I'll probably get a used medium format. The used market right now is flooded with medium format, and I found some pretty good outfits pretty cheap. I also found a local darkroom co-op where I can book darkroom time. They also offer beginners classes on b&w processing. I'm also looking to get a scanner to scan the negatives and prints. I think this will be an interesting long term project.