On face value these days it would seem that it digital is the only way forward with photography. How many of us ask this question simple question: what is the final output of the image? It’s likely that this answer will be a print, well for anyone who is half serious about photography – but how often are digital files ever printed? Moreover if printing is the final destination a decent quality digital camera costs a few grand when compared with an entire 35mm setup which can be had for a few hundred – top lenses included. So perhaps 35mm is a good starting point –its cheap, and the resolution can be even higher than digital if one chooses to use slow speed b&w films. A lot of film addicts remain convinced that the best images come from these often far-out difficult to source slow films, with odd developer combinations, development timed to the nearest second and exposed to the nearest 1/20 of a stop. And while this may be true – i cannot help but think these guys have thrown a few basic principles out the window such as simple scientific method – this kind of accuracy is really excessive – not to mention the lack of repeatability! Chances are too you are buying a product that is already on a very short rope, and probably costs the earth. Not only are these products difficult to source, but require a lot of testing to get it ‘just so’ – yet another cost! Then there is the quality - generally with a mainstream larger film supplier they will be ISO 9001 quality certified – meaning you get film of a more consistent quality every time. Not to mention if you are out and about you stand half a chance of being able to buy a few rolls, or if you cannot be bothered to develop the results you stand a greater chance of finding a lab that is experienced with your particular choice of film.
So how do you get quality from film if 35mm is either difficult / complicated / expensive with slow speed films, and digital is now beating all the higher iso regular stuff? Trouble is most people into these kind of films use scanning as their means to make a print – yet another cost – either to buy a scanner that will cut it quality wise – or to pay a lab that will no doubt charge according to the file size. If you are going down this route – you might as well cut the middle ground and buy a digital. Otherwise wet darkroom becomes a very viable alternative when you consider that for around $100 of consumables and about the same in second hand equipment you can make around 20-50 high quality prints. That’s pretty cheap, when you consider the cost of scanning and printing digitally. Not to mention the quality is usually better. But how to improve this quality? This is really rather simple – more surface area.
At present with a massive switch to digital by the pros a few years ago, a medium format outfit can be had for about $USD300-500. Not expensive really if you spent your film testing / scanning budget on that and gave up testing! A few more things about the ‘professional’ format – there is good reason why it carries this name. With films having the capacity for 8-16 pictures – each film really is about the perfect length, no chance of forgetting what was on the film as typically happens with 35mm. Not only that, but due to the modular nature of most MF systems, it is possible to change film type mid-roll by simply changing the film back. Also contrary to popular opinion that there is not much kit to lug around - 3 primes and a body is less kit than the typical digital/35mm bloke who carries 2-3 zooms, spare batteries and a flash. Its also less likely to be nicked.
In the darkroom there are more advantages to be had over 35mm.MF negs can easily be contact printed onto 10x8” paper unlike 35mm, not to mention you can actually see what is on the neg pretty easily. Also the format is ‘right’– 35mm is 3:2 – not the most desirable format for a final print, while 645, and 6x7 fits nicely into 4:5. This means when you are taking 35mm you are drawn into composing to the less than optimal frame.
So at this point in the argument you may think I am about to dive in and spruik for large format. Not so. While I personally love LF, there is little major advantages to be had over MF – the equipment is a lot heavier and demands a tripod for any kind of shooting. Enlargements require more expensive enlargers, and sorting out film is a whole other battle.
At the end of the day taking good pictures usually has far more to do with talent, timing and lighting than anything else. Use what you got – but if you wanna get the best results for your hard earned in black and white prints – i reckon you cannot look past MF.
No comments:
Post a Comment