| Author |
Message |
    
Emtor
Tinkerer
Username: Emtor
Post Number: 8
Registered: 07-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2011 - 08:01 am: | 
|
Sometimes I need to be reminded why I put up with messing around with old cameras, particularly medium format. They're heavy, then there's converting the bathroom into a darkroom, and sploshing around with chemicals and water.
Then there's the scanning with all the problems of getting the filmstrips to lay flat, and not to mention all the repairs and tinkering the get the oldest cameras in working order.
So, why do I even bother?
Why not getting a decent DSLR instead and live a normal life?
Well, here's the reason why I bother.
The image below was shot with a Bronica ETRSi loaded with Velvia film, scanned on an Epson V750 and NOT sharpened, neither by the scanner software nor in Photoshop.
http://www.sapmigovva.net/images/bronica/velvia.jpg
Not bad at all, but it gets better with some noise reduction and sharpening in Photoshop, and the final result can be seen here:
http://www.sapmigovva.net/images/bronica/velvia_sharpened.jpg
I've had two DSLR's, a Nikon D50, and a Nikon D3000, and the raw-files from these cameras never produced anywhere near the sharpness compared to the first unsharpened image above. Those raw-files needed sharpening beyond belief to appear sharp with all the artefacts that goes with excessive sharpening. Scanned images from my two Bronicas and my Rolleicord need very modest sharpening to look great.
OK, I'll admit to the fact that you can buy a DSLR-system that produces excellent quality, but what's the price-tag on those?
Old analog cameras are cheap, often have excellent lenses and even mirror lock-up and all sorts of things that entry level and affordable DSLR's will never have.
That is why I bother. . . period! |
Paul_ron
Tinkerer
Username: Paul_ron
Post Number: 236
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2011 - 08:08 am: |
|
Cuz we are film junkies!
But for you... scanning negatives is like pushing a muscle car around to save on gas.
You really should get digital; n sell all your MF stuff to us for almost nothing?
. |
Emtor
Tinkerer
Username: Emtor
Post Number: 10
Registered: 07-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2011 - 01:35 pm: |
|
That's why I'm pushing my Lamborghini around mostly after dark, or in very remote and desolate places in broad daylight where no one can see me. -But it sure saves gas. |
Barnum
Tinkerer
Username: Barnum
Post Number: 193
Registered: 10-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2011 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Peronally I prefer taking my MGB through the lanes with its sports exhaust coming out the back end, & Elvis or Stones or similar belting out of the speakers, & to hell with the gas. Of course I never travel alone, since I have a couple of beauties with ever with me. They take a little understanding, but do respond to gentle if firm handling. Mind you, the weight of two AI bodies & kits must have some effect on performance...... |
Emtor
Tinkerer
Username: Emtor
Post Number: 11
Registered: 07-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2011 - 01:23 pm: |
|
My two Bronicas is the reason why I need to save gas. BTW Irish trad in high gear is belting out of my speakers. |
Jayd
Tinkerer
Username: Jayd
Post Number: 90
Registered: 06-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - 07:11 pm: |
|
For me it's getting away from computers and using my brain to make what I see in my mind come out in a photo. Then there is the more human native interface of optical viewfinder, a negative or slide I can hold and see with the naked eye.
And a camera that is just a tool with no mind of it's own, for me the simpler the better I've gone to liking the no on board meter RF types the best:
Kodak Retina, Koni Omega simple high quality stuff that will last more than my life time.
Yes and MF is a pain so I find myself using 35mm more.
My last reason is I have negatives and slides but how to keep image files long term ? Sadly Kodak bailed on us with the best film for archival storage :Kodakrome would last forever.
What can I say Kodak sucks: always dropping the best stuff, going for the fast buck ,but that is life.
These old cameras produce images that hold there own against if not beat the average DSLR.
Jay |
Stereopost
Tinkerer
Username: Stereopost
Post Number: 6
Registered: 07-2011
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 08:12 pm: |
|
Why? Because I CAN! I got hooked on cameras in the 1970s. I have made my own Daguerrotypes, and that's no lie. I found the art of using print paper for negatives in old cameras where there is no longer film made. Some in plate holders, the others with the paper taped into rolls of black paper and marked for the film number to be seen in the red lens of the back. One never really understands photography until you experiment with the old processes and the old cameras. You will fall in love. True, it's harder and more expensive today, more's the pity...But, one thing about the old cameras is the CONTROL! What I really love about film cameras is the ability to control depth of field. I have taken portraits and opened up the diaphragm and blurred out a distracting background, something I can't do with a digital camera. Plus, you can change lenses FAR past the ability of the limited wide-to-tele of the modern digitals. I suppose there are the ultra-expensive digitals that will do more, but on a budget, nothing beats an old film camera and a set of lenses. Nothing beats a REALLY old bellows or box camera for fun! |
|
