# It has begun!  So, I'm transitioning to primarily film in a near future...



## Vtec44 (Mar 14, 2017)

And to celebrate the transition, I got my self this little puppy.  It's a Pentax 645Nii with a 75mm FA 2.8.  I also have the Pentax 67 105mm f2.4 coming along with a 67 to 645 adapter.  I've been shooting my 35mm along with my digitals as a base to match the skin tone in my photos.  So the transition isn't as drastic.  Still, at about $2 a shot it makes you slow down a lot to take a shot.  LOL


----------



## weepete (Mar 14, 2017)

Nice!


----------



## nickgillespie (Mar 14, 2017)

Awesome! Check out (or don't actually... it just feed the GAS) the Bokeh Factory on facebook. He converts all kinds of cool lenses to fit that mount.


----------



## runnah (Mar 14, 2017)

Did your rates just triple?


----------



## mmaria (Mar 14, 2017)

why? 
is there a thread where you talked about this? 
I'm just curious


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 14, 2017)

Good for you.  If you need/want a studio camera, I am thinking about selling my Fuji GX680III and a few lenses.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 14, 2017)

I like the niche marketing concept ... All Film - All the Time (AF-AT).


----------



## tirediron (Mar 14, 2017)

yeah... WHY??????????????


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 14, 2017)

Why?  Well I can't speak for other photographers but for me there are a few reasons

Skin tone:  For me, film is just better at showing more pleasant skin tone.  I can get my digital work to match but it's a lot of post work.
Highlights retention:  I can over expose 3 or 4 stops and still retain most details in highlights.  The brighter style suits me a bit better.
Medium format DOF:  Pentax 6x7 105mm f2.4, Zeiss 80mm f2, and Mamiya 80mm f1.9 are some of my favorite portrait lenses
Aesthetic:  Film suits my style better since I shoot mostly outdoor, rustic, day light, softer style.  I'm well versed with OCF but just prefer the natural light looks.
Personal:  Shooting film has actually made me a better photographer.  I'm so much more aware and deliberate now because each shot costs money.  Each shot has to be carefully thought out .  I have to not only know my equipment well, but I also have to be at the top of my game with my photography knowledge.
Business:  It's a niche and I can attract higher paying clients.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 14, 2017)

Vtec44 said:


> Why?  Well I can't speak for other photographers but for me there are a few reasons
> 
> Skin tone:  For me, film is just better at showing more pleasant skin tone.  I can get my digital work to match but it's a lot of post work.
> Highlights retention:  I can over expose 3 or 4 stops and still retain most details in highlights.  The brighter style suits me a bit better.


Okay........ but that depends soooo much on film, and even more on processing.  Given how few true professional colour labs are left, I would think that might be a bit of a risk; shooting a whole wedding only to find out that Ralph wasn't paying attention and the chemicals were ten degrees too warm, or...



Vtec44 said:


> Business:  It's a niche and I can attract higher paying clients.


 Do you have market research to support that?  I agree on the niche, but are there enough people willing to pay enough more to make it worthwhile?  Not arguing, just curious...


----------



## Designer (Mar 14, 2017)

Vtec44 said:


> Business:  It's a niche and I can attract higher paying clients.


Can they see a difference?  
How will they know?  
Will they really care?  
Why does it cost more?  
Do they get a discount because you're no longer editing on your computer?  
Any limit on the number of shots?  
Prints or transparencies or both?


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 14, 2017)

tirediron said:


> Okay........ but that depends soooo much on film, and even more on processing.  Given how few true professional colour labs are left, I would think that might be a bit of a risk; shooting a whole wedding only to find out that Ralph wasn't paying attention and the chemicals were ten degrees too warm, or...



Goodman Film Lab, Richard Photo Lab, and The Find Lab are 3 professional labs that I use.



Vtec44 said:


> Do you have market research to support that?  I agree on the niche, but are there enough people willing to pay enough more to make it worthwhile?  Not arguing, just curious...



This is based on the 2 years of my own research.  Sites like Wedding Wire & The Knot cater to different clients and market.  The budget chart they have there is way off for even my current pricing.  The visitors there won't pay for my current work.  I'm connected with various venues and vendors and I'm going for the smaller boutique market .  No, your normal 3-4k bride will not know the difference.  When you get to 6k+ clients, they're different.  People are shelling out 10k+ for film photographers in my area.  Jose Villa charges 20k+ 

I'm still shooting digital as a backup.  Nothing beats 6400 ISO at night!


----------



## tirediron (Mar 14, 2017)

Fair enough... I hope it goes well!


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 14, 2017)

tirediron said:


> Fair enough... I hope it goes well!



Me too!  I'll post again in a year to see how it goes.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 14, 2017)

mmaria said:


> why?
> is there a thread where you talked about this?
> I'm just curious



The "why's" , It has begun!  So, I'm transitioning to primarily film in a near future... .


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 14, 2017)

runnah said:


> Did your rates just triple?



I wish but not at the moment lol. When I first started, being where I am now was out of reach.  Well I have reached what I thought was  impossible a few years ago so gotta keep on moving forward.


----------



## mmaria (Mar 15, 2017)

you sound like you know what you're doing and what you're doing sounds good.

I wish you all the luck!


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 15, 2017)

mmaria said:


> you sound like you know what you're doing and what you're doing sounds good.
> 
> I wish you all the luck!



Thanks!!!


----------



## loonatic45414 (Mar 17, 2017)

I love film. Tried digital, no thanks. Painting didn't go away after film was invented. Film won't go away either.  

Anyone can take a digital picture.  I have met people who can barely tell one end of the camera from the other, yet making money with it.  Doing film right takes talent.

Before people start getting offended, I'm not talking about anyone here. But if the shoe fits....

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349 (Mar 17, 2017)




----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 18, 2017)

Well I certainly don't want to start any drama LOL  What people with their business is not really my business.  I'm just excited for the next phase of my photography business.  It hasn't been easy but I can now finally breath and enjoy the fruits of my labor


----------



## table1349 (Mar 18, 2017)

Vtec44 said:


> Well I certainly don't want to start any drama LOL  What people with their business is not really my business.  I'm just excited for the next phase of my photography business.  It hasn't been easy but I can now finally breath and enjoy the fruits of my labor


Trust us, it isn't you.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 18, 2017)

Just curious of a couple of things since you seem to have researched your market.

Why did you choose to transition to medium format? Why not go on up to a large format?
Why Pentax 645. It's a great camera, that you can pickup at a bargain basement price, but there are other higher end models out there?
Do you plan on doing your own processing at some point (at least B&W)?


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 19, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Just curious of a couple of things since you seem to have researched your market.
> 
> Why did you choose to transition to medium format? Why not go on up to a large format?
> Why Pentax 645. It's a great camera, that you can pickup at a bargain basement price, but there are other higher end models out there?
> Do you plan on doing your own processing at some point (at least B&W)?



1.  I picked 6x45 size out of all the medium format sizes for several factors.  It's more popular for one thing so lots of camera choices.  You can get more out of a 120mm roll of film (16 vs 10 for a typical 6x7).  The aspect ratio is closer to 35mm (not as close as 6x9 but close enough and you get more shots).  Large format is somewhat impractical for my work since I shoot mostly weddings and a few portraits.

2.  I was deciding between 3 camera brands:  Contax, Mamiya, and Pentax.  At the end, I went with the Pentax 645 system because it's more modern, more reliable, and better lens selection.  Contax brand doesn't exist anymore and it's expensive to repair their cameras because of the lack of parts.  Mamiya has manufacturing inconsistency and the quality is questionable so I don't want to deal getting a bad copy.  I got the Pentax 645nii  specifically because it's newer than the the original 645 and the 645n.  There's virtually no difference between the 645n and the 645nii other than the mirror lock up function and some data imprinting on the actual film slides.   The auto focus system is more accurate compare to the other brands.  I mostly use manual focus but it's nice to have it.   Audible focus confirmation is very usable for me especially in manual focus mode.  I have an adapter for the camera to use Pentax 67 lenses, including the well known 90mm f2.8 and the 105 f2.4.  The lenses are also compatible with Pentax digital medium format cameras, so it would be very practical if I ever want to add a digital MF camera to my tool box.  I'm also planning to eventually add the Pentax 67ii to take advantage of the lenses at the native focal length.

3.  At this time I'm not planning to process my own film.   The modern professional labs are so consistent and all have great customer service.  I can setup a color profile with all of the labs to maintain consistency on all my scanned negatives.  So it's makes more business sense to outsource.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 19, 2017)

Vtec44 said:


> You can get more out of a 120mm roll of film



Been many moons since I fooled with film,  what about the selection of film (120 or sheet), is that an issue? Or likely to become one in the future? I'm asking because I've toyed with the idea of getting back to film, and have looked at medium and large format. 

I never processed color, but did a ton of B&W, which I found very satisfying, and and an integral part of the creative process.


----------



## loonatic45414 (Mar 19, 2017)

I would like to add that you can get an adapter to use the Zeiss lenses made for Hasselblad too. EBay has them starting at $30-$35.

I'm not wholly familiar with the Pentax 645, does it have a focal plane shutter or does it use a leaf shutter in the lens? Having used a P6x7 extensively, if you're using those lenses (the 105 is a gem), then you must have a shutter on the body.

I only mention this because you can get some awesome Zeiss glass for the hassy cheap since you can use those with busted leaf shutters.

I use Metz flashes for events. You'll definitely need a good flash set up.

I love large format but you've nailed the right setup for what you're wanting to do. Go forth & conquer.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 19, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > You can get more out of a 120mm roll of film
> ...



As of now, Kodak and Fuji have no plans on discontinuing the Portra and Fuji Pro 400h series.  They're just too popular especially medium format as a sizable high end wedding photographers are using them.  Fuji actually is increasing the production because of demand.  So I'd say the 120mm film will be around for at least the next 5-10 years.




> I never processed color, but did a ton of B&W, which I found very satisfying, and and an integral part of the creative process.



If I have more time I would love to process my own film.  Running a small business takes a lot of time so it's just more efficient for me to outsource.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 19, 2017)

loonatic45414 said:


> I would like to add that you can get an adapter to use the Zeiss lenses made for Hasselblad too. EBay has them starting at $30-$35.
> 
> I'm not wholly familiar with the Pentax 645, does it have a focal plane shutter or does it use a leaf shutter in the lens? Having used a P6x7 extensively, if you're using those lenses (the 105 is a gem), then you must have a shutter on the body.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the tip!  The Pentax 645 series has focal plane shutter so I'll be on a look out for some cheap Zeiss glasses


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Mar 19, 2017)

Is this in the same vein as "it sounds better on vinyl"?


----------



## table1349 (Mar 19, 2017)

No, it's a photography thing:

Why I Shoot Film as a Wedding Photographer
Why I’ve Gone Back To Shooting Film...And Why You Should Too 
Why I Use Film | New York Film Wedding Photographer

Been shooting film for 45+ years and still do when what I am doing is important enough to me.  Since I shoot for me now I get to decide what is important enough and what isn't.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 19, 2017)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Is this in the same vein as "it sounds better on vinyl"?



There are certain things film can do that digital can't, and vise versa.  It's purely technical, not personal opinion.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Mar 19, 2017)

Vtec44 said:


> crzyfotopeeple said:
> 
> 
> > Is this in the same vein as "it sounds better on vinyl"?
> ...


Can't all things film  be done digitally? Or is there really a difference. Processing vs Lightroom. One is analog (chemicals) and one is bits of data recorded to a "source"
I would venture if you tested this theory with images from both mediums, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who could tell the difference.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 19, 2017)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > crzyfotopeeple said:
> ...


Short answer, No.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 19, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Short answer, No.



Even a digital back on a large format?


----------



## table1349 (Mar 19, 2017)

No.


smoke665 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Short answer, No.
> ...



No.  A high resolution MF film such as Adox CMS 20 is capable of resolving 800 line pairs per mm. In other words, this is a potential 400 megapixel result.  Scanning that image to digital will reduce the overall result.

Large format high resolution film has an even greater advantage.

In the 35mm world things are pretty much even quality wise.  Once you go bigger film is still better.


----------



## loonatic45414 (Mar 20, 2017)

Medium and Large in film format are MUCH better.

It can be argued whether 35mm film is technically better than digital, but it's different. It can be smooth, it can be gritty. It's more work, but I find the results more appealing.


----------



## limr (Mar 20, 2017)

(Awwww, sweet kitty!  Also a great shot.)

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt that @Vtec44 intended this to descend into yet another film v digital thread. Let the horse rest in peace.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 20, 2017)

@limr , yep no drama.  I shoot both and business is good so I can't complain


----------



## Optimum Clarity (Apr 10, 2017)

Vtec44 said:


> Jose Villa charges 20k+


Don't take this as an insult, but is it possible people pay him 20k+ because of his skill and not because he uses film?
Is it possible he could charge the same amount for images shot in digital?
I seriously doubt people pay 10 times more to any photographer that shoots film instead of digital.

Perhaps you need more practice with digital (shooting and processing) to achieve the best possible results that will rival film.

Take more time to compose each shot, and slow down and shoot it as if it were film and you were spending 50.00 per shot and not digital.


----------



## Cody'sCaptures (Apr 10, 2017)

I would think he kicked your dog the way some of you are responding.. lol.. good luck! can't wait to see some of the results, watered down into a digital format of course [emoji38]

Zenfolio | Captures By Cody


----------



## limr (Apr 10, 2017)

What on earth is the point shooting digital as if it were film and making it look like film if he can (and wants to) just shoot film to begin with? That's just a tail wagging the dog.


----------



## Optimum Clarity (Apr 10, 2017)

limr said:


> What on earth is the point shooting digital as if it were film and making it look like film if he can (and wants to) just shoot film to begin with? That's just a tail wagging the dog.


If that comment was about my comment of shooting digital as if it were film, I don't mean to look like film, I meant use the same methods to shoot it.
I don't know why anyone would want their digital images to look like they are film images either.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 11, 2017)

Optimum Clarity said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Jose Villa charges 20k+
> ...



People pay 20k for Jose Villa because his name is Jose Villa, regardless of what he shoots.  LOL



> Perhaps you need more practice with digital (shooting and processing) to achieve the best possible results that will rival film.
> 
> Take more time to compose each shot, and slow down and shoot it as if it were film and you were spending 50.00 per shot and not digital.



Why would you assume that I need more practice with editing and shooting digital to get the  same result as film?    What result are we referring to?


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 11, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Short answer, No.
> ...



A digital sensor behaves differently than film.  As of now, the technology is not there yet to have the ability to retain highlights as well as film.   A digital back regardless of size will have the same issue. 

On a more subjective note, skin tone on film is more pleasant.


----------



## Optimum Clarity (Apr 11, 2017)

Vtec44 said:


> Optimum Clarity said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...


Exactly, he gets what he charges and can because of his talent, You will not become him shooting film. That's the point.


Why would you assume that I need more practice with editing and shooting digital to get the  same result as film?    What result are we referring to?

The results you say you can get from film and cannot get with digital, even though a lot of photographers can get those same results with digital.
I assume you are not satisfied with the results you get from digital and so that's what I was referring to.

Not trying to offend anyone, just being realistic.

In my experience a good photographer, skilled in processing both film and digital can get the same level of quality with either method.
That's not to say all photographers can achieve this high level of quality with any medium they use as it's obvious some need to use film and some need to use digital to get the best results.

YMMV

In any case. I wish you all the luck in the world. Godspeed.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 12, 2017)

Optimum Clarity said:


> Exactly, he gets what he charges and can because of his talent, You will not become him shooting film. That's the point.



Where did I mention my skills will automatically jump just because I shoot film?  I'm totally confused. LOL



> The results you say you can get from film and cannot get with digital, even though a lot of photographers can get those same results with digital.
> I assume you are not satisfied with the results you get from digital and so that's what I was referring to.



Did you even read my reasons why?  




> Not trying to offend anyone, just being realistic.
> 
> *In my experience a good photographer, skilled in processing both film and digital can get the same level of quality with either method.*
> That's not to say all photographers can achieve this high level of quality with any medium they use as it's obvious some need to use film and some need to use digital to get the best results.
> ...



I'm not offended.  I don't think you know what you're talking about. 



> In any case. I wish you all the luck in the world. Godspeed.



Thanks!!


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 12, 2017)

@Vtec44 I think I realize more of where your coming from. I was doing a lot of B&W back in the early 70's, so some of my memory of film has faded.  Yesterday was playing around with Nik Collection trying to learn to use it, and discovered the emulate film button. When I clicked through the options it brought back memories of how much different each film was. Digital may get really close, but there are things film still hold an advantage on.


----------



## Optimum Clarity (Apr 12, 2017)

Vtec44 said:


> Optimum Clarity said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, he gets what he charges and can because of his talent, You will not become him shooting film. That's the point.
> ...



Don't be confused, you said skin tones are more pleasant looking to you when you shoot film. To me that is a shortcoming in your ability to get the skin tones you seek in digital.



> Did you even read my reasons why?



And while I did read your reasons, or rather what you believe are the reasons, I do not agree that you are 100% correct in your assessment of the digital format or of it's total capabilities in the hands of a master which leads me to believe you need to work on your personal level of expertise by continuing to practice. 



> It hasn't been easy but I can now finally breath _(sp)_ and enjoy the fruits of my labor



Never feel like it's time to reap the rewards of what you have accomplished so far, that's a recipe for stagnation and decline rather than improvement.



> I'm not offended.  I don't think you know what you're talking about.



We have that in common at least.


----------



## JonA_CT (Apr 12, 2017)

Optimum Clarity said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Optimum Clarity said:
> ...



He's posted  a bunch of photos in the last couple months showing off the tones that he likes from his film. Maybe you could take a look at some of those photos, and then show us how you might post-process to get it to match those tones. I'd really like to see your workflow for something like that, since you seem to be an expert on these things. That's what makes these forums great...pros sharing their secrets occasionally.


----------



## Optimum Clarity (Apr 12, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> He's posted  a bunch of photos in the last couple months showing off the tones that he likes from his film. Maybe you could take a look at some of those photos, and then show us how you might post-process to get it to match those tones. I'd really like to see your workflow for something like that, since you seem to be an expert on these things. That's what makes these forums great...pros sharing their secrets occasionally.


Perhaps I will do that someday when I have the time, but there are a lot of sources on the net to show you a lot of the things I do already, the information is already out there and anything I add will most likely be just duplicating already available information since software that is available for anyone to use can do the same things in different ways, no proprietary software that I created is needed although it does make it quicker.
Demonstrating the software I made for my own workflow will not help in any way as it is not available to the general public and not for sale.

Use google or bing, they are your friends to help do things you want to with software you buy.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 12, 2017)

Optimum Clarity said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > He's posted  a bunch of photos in the last couple months showing off the tones that he likes from his film. Maybe you could take a look at some of those photos, and then show us how you might post-process to get it to match those tones. I'd really like to see your workflow for something like that, since you seem to be an expert on these things. That's what makes these forums great...pros sharing their secrets occasionally.
> ...


As they say, "The proof is in the pudding".  I for one am very interested in someone who has the means to create custom software, even if it's not something I can access, and even more so, to see the quality of the results it produces.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 12, 2017)

Optimum Clarity said:


> Don't be confused, you said skin tones are more pleasant looking to you when you shoot film. To me that is a shortcoming in your ability to get the skin tones you seek in digital.



Why would I spend time trying to get digital skin tone to match film, when I can just shoot film?  I can match it pretty well, by why waste time when you can just get it right in 1 shot?  LOL



> And while I did read your reasons, or rather what you believe are the reasons, I do not agree that you are 100% correct in your assessment of the digital format or of it's total capabilities in the hands of a master which leads me to believe you need to work on your personal level of expertise by continuing to practice.



I shoot both, I edit both, people pay me to do both.  I post my work regularly.  I've edited over 400,000 of my own photos in the last 4 years alone.  Gotta love forum trolls who have  nothing to show.  There seem to be at least one a year who just pop up with nothing to show for but somehow is an expert.  LOL



> Never feel like it's time to reap the rewards of what you have accomplished so far, that's a recipe for stagnation and decline rather than improvement.



Guess what, I enjoy the fruits of my labor all the time.




> We have that in common at least.



Post up some of your amazing work, or sit down and learn from other people.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 12, 2017)

Optimum Clarity said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > He's posted  a bunch of photos in the last couple months showing off the tones that he likes from his film. Maybe you could take a look at some of those photos, and then show us how you might post-process to get it to match those tones. I'd really like to see your workflow for something like that, since you seem to be an expert on these things. That's what makes these forums great...pros sharing their secrets occasionally.
> ...


----------



## Overread (Apr 12, 2017)

For clarities purposes a formerly banned user has just been banned and removed from the site for ban evasion and general trolling of the site.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 12, 2017)

Was starting to suspect he/she was a reincarnation of a certain previous user with multiple personalities.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 12, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Was starting to suspect he/she was a reincarnation of a certain previous user with multiple personalities.



yes indeed. 
thanks for clarifying that @Overread. i probably should have included that in my post.


----------

