You're probably tired of me talking about how much I loved shooting in the square with a bunch of film cameras. Cameras like the traditional Hasselblads, the Mamiya 6, and the Rollei 6000 series. I even have a folder full of Tricks-X negatives that were made on an old Rolleiflex twin lens. I preferred the 80mm 2.8F Planar version even though I'd heard (many times) that the 75mm 3.5F Xenotar was the sharper lens...
Now I just find film annoying. Like changing your own oil filter in the driveway. But I still like the look of the square frame and the grittiness of my old black and whites developed in Rodinal 1:50. So, when I find a likely candidate to stand it as a digital "imposter" camera I'm always game to give it a try.
Today's attempts were done with the 47 megapixel Lumix S1R. I chose it because I wanted to use the 1:1 (square) crop and I still wanted to end up with over 30 megapixels of information in the files. I tweaked the L. Monochrome settings by reducing the noise reduction, choosing the green filtration, boosting the shadows a bit and pulling down the highlights by the reciprocal amount.
Remembering how much I liked shooting with the 100mm Zeiss f3.5 Planar on the old 500CM I recruited my closets equivalent, the Lumix 50mm f1.4 S Pro lens. I used f2.8 for most of the shots because that simulated my almost obsessive use of f5.6 on the medium format lens.
It was hot and sticky today and I didn't spend too much time outside in the afternoon. Walking in high humidity, when temperatures are in the 90's, is much less comfortable with a face mask on.
But I was happy with the images I ended up with. I'll do this experiment again but next time I'll invite a beautiful model to walk with me so I can photograph a person for a change. But the camera and lens? They worked well for me.
Pandemic Retail.
13 comments:
I had thought the earlier comment about a low vantage point really referred to your casual shooting about town. Try, for example, shooting that huge steel beam with the anchoring bolts from near the base, shooting up the beam. I'm just guessing there's something interesting up there, maybe not.
But don't try it with your portraits. Unless it's a shoe commercial, nothing to be gained!
Beautiful squares. Digital black and white is quite good now. I agree with you about film. I love film cameras and the look of film is still special but working with it is a major pain in the ass. I used to enjoy developing at home but these days I prefer pulling weeds in the garden to developing film. I'd rather put toothpicks in my eyes than sit down and scan negatives. I have a lovely Fuji XT-1 with a single Fuji 35mm f2 lens and the black and whites from it are terrific. The classic Chrome sim also makes me very happy. I see little reason to go back to film in 2020.
I did the same experiment a few weeks ago, taking my olympus Pen out with the screen flipped out like a WLF and with it set to B&W and 1:1
It was much comfier and quicker than lugging around the Bronica.
Still missed the satisfying clunk of the shutter though...
Mark
In my humble opinion digital film simulations never look like the real thing. I prefer either digital bw (without trying to emulate film) or shooting real bw film.
Would benefit from more contrast and more grain IMO.
Interesting exercise.
I am taking the dogs out later - my X Pro2 will be set to Acros + green and medium grain. You've moved me to grab my camera. Good job. :)
Funny. I thought they were too contrasty...
No, they're not too contrasty. The quality of these B&W images are beautiful. I love square format as well and I also am more likely to shoot abstracts as these are. However, I can certainly see why you can't wait to start including people in your frames.They are able to grab us emotionally rather than just entertain our brains!
Why shoot in black and white rather than color and then post-process to black and white?
Hi James, I think we've talked about this before here on the blog so I'll give you the condensed version:
I'm not that good at imagining, after the fact, how something will look when it's cropped or when it's converted in post processing. I prefer to get as close to "final look" as I can in camera. When I shot black and white film in a film camera (medium format) I liked being able to shoot a test Polaroid, in black and white, to confirm that I was on target in assessing how the colors would render as black and white tones. Now the camera allows me to see almost exactly how the tones will translate, but in real time.
This is tangential but some write to say that they can shoot the full 3:2 aspect ratio in camera and imagine EXACTLY how they will crop the image some time in the nebulous future, with exactitude. Not me. I want the camera to show me either frame lines or a standalone frame in the format I'm shooting for to remove the waffling about cropping after the fact. I want to replicate the way I worked with older tech, not make things more difficult for me in spite of having good, current tech at my fingertips.
Same with color versus b&w. I know that in camera profiles were not good for a long time in digital cameras and one would have more control over the final product by using color channels, etc. but now, unless you shoot Sony, the black and white profiles (Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, especially) are very good and can be tweaked to taste in the camera a menus.
Thanks for asking.
Just wondering, is cranking down the sharpness what produces that film grain look?
Lots of contrast is so '60s. These have the vibe of 50's Paris with the soft overcast.
Beautiful
I often do this with my Nikon Z6, but I use one of my old manual focus Leica or Nikkor lenses. Really completes the “Hassy vibe”.
That exercise usually results in me grabbing my Rolleiflex and then making some “real” square images. As good as digital is now (and it is very very good), film, especially black and white film, has its own esthetic which digital can’t (yet) realize. Fortunately, I enjoy both sides of the coin, as it were...
Post a Comment