m.sawyer photography

film: controlling cost and future plans

In my book, Apertures currently counts as costing an arm and a leg. It cost me $5/negative frame + $6/CD for the two high-res scans. EIGHT DOLLARS per image. Add on the cost of the film, processing, and initial low res scanning, and the cost per high res image piles up to almost $10. Simply crazy unless I’ve already sold the print.

I’m all about supporting local business, especially art-related business. But at this rate I can’t afford to shoot much film, especially when the revenue-generating dept of my business is currently called “wedding photography”.

short-term plan:

Send a few rolls to Miller’s Imaging in Kansas (one of the largest labs in the world) for processing/scanning. They’re a little bit cheaper and I’m curious to compare the results to Apertures.

medium-term plan:

1: Get a scanner. I’m thinking about the Epson V750. Not a film scanner but in the ballpark. I would not consider this scanner to be good enough for great 35mm scanning, but we’re talking about 6x7 negatives here. Maybe it doesn’t have to be that good.

2: Get black and white processing equipment. This stuff is super cheap right now. I mean almost free-cheap. The cost isn’t really what’s holding me back on this one. It’s more of a time and learning curve thing. I’ve never done any real darkroom work before. It’s a little intimidating. But my wife is going to take a film photography class next semester. She will be able to process my film then (if she enjoys it, that is). Of course this means using the camera for mostly black-and-white photography. I’ve grown more in love with color in the last couple of years but I deep-down never really stopped loving black and white. Maybe the cost savings from black and white processing at home will help subsidize sending color rolls to the lab.

medium-long term plan:

Get a nice inkjet printer and really learn printing and color management. If I ever get to selling enough prints, that is. It would have to be a high enough volume to justify obviously.

long -term plan:

Get a digital back for the RZ67 (and a new computer to handle the giant files that will ensue). Right now these cost as much as a nice car. But in a few years surely not. My hope is that a real, full 6x7 back will come to the market. I realize this is quite possibly a pipe dream. If so I may say goodbye to 6x7 and just start shooting digital 6x6 or 645. Who knows.

route 66/wichita mountains and the digital results

Well this post is terribly delayed. The trip was now two weeks ago, but I wanted to let it soak in a bit, and especially to only post the photos I ended up caring about.

This trip was a lot different than our last trip (highway 412 to New Mexico) in that this time, shooting was much more sparse, much more pensive and less spontaneous. There was a ton a driving, thinking, and silence.

Though at times the light was so flat and not too interesting, by narrowing down the photos significantly I feel like a lot of beauty was extracted.

The photos posted so far are the digital ones. Hopefully I will soon be able to post film-originated ones.

film again

I had some old Fuji Superia 400 in my freezer, and my Yashica has been sitting silently in the back room for so long. So today I loaded it up and shot for the first time in a few years. Granted it was only a few frames of my dog Beck. But it felt great. It also helped reinforce my latest decision to get a film camera.

I’ve been fiercely debating and researching film vs. digital in my head for the last 5 years, really. I’ve had heated arguments about it first from the pro-film side and then from pro-digital, and now I’m sitting in the middle, realizing that digital has come so far that it’s almost insane not to use it for many applications (best example: weddings). But film won’t seem to die, and for good reason at least as of the time of this writing.

The quality of each has its merits. Almost as if debating 24-bit digital audio vs. a phonograph, at some point the technical discussion about quality runs off the tired and worn scientific road and into the subjective wilderness. For example, you can’t simply look at megapixels to compare the resolution or sharpness of each. You can’t simply look at dynamic range response of a digital capture of a step wedge to compare tonality and range. And a lot of the old pros will acknowledge this. It’s more of a feeling. Reminds me of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

In the past it was easy enough to see the quality advantage of film over digital. Digital technology was still in its infancy (and some might argue it still is). But now the comparison gets a little tougher. Especially when you consider the newer full-frame DSLRs and moreso the latest medium format digital backs. Enlargement from these systems will probably beat medium format film in terms of cleanness and sharpness, really. And I have to imagine that at some point in the future, it may become downright silly to use film.

But for a guy in my position, film has begun to look attractive again. For one thing, I can’t afford a new full-frame camera like a 5DII, D700, or A900 (and I darn sure can’t afford a medium format digital back). But I can afford a film camera that shoots medium format with a wide angle lens, and that’s why I decided to go ahead with the Mamiya RZ67. (Trivial fact of the day: Annie Liebowitz has used them extensively.) And I really believe that at some point digital backs for an RZ67 will become affordable. At my pace, It would take a long time for the cost of development and scanning to overcome the cost of a Canon 5DII.

If the argument needed any more scale-tipping, here is a thought I had today which is inspired by Doug Menuez’s recent post about zen of film vs. digital gratification, and also inspired with a conversation I had with my friend Micah about playing poker. When you’re playing for money, you play differently. All of the sudden, each frame, or each moment, or each bid in a round of Hold ‘Em takes on a psychological value that is simply impossible to induce in a world where each moment doesn’t cost you anything. You do begin to shoot differently. If you can let go of the pain associated with money being consumed with each shutter click, the results have to be different, and maybe even better, somehow.

Don’t get me wrong, I will invariably use my trusty Canon digital gear for weddings, portraits, and stuff which actually makes me money. But I think I may have a new opened door or inspiration or at least impetus to shoot the kinds of photos I love the most with the new system.

Results coming soon, hopefully…