Hey Kirk, Any tips for focusing on the contax 645? Thanks.
Shoot at f2.8 unless you ‘really-really-must-shoot-at-f2-all-the-time’ or you will die. F2 is a great look on the Contax 645 w/80mm lens, but it borders on the optical limits of what is possible with a lens. The depth of filed is as thin as a piece of paper and it is very hard to know if you are in 100% focus.
If you insist on shooting at f2 (which I use only for close-up portraits) you must get a Maxwell Screen. They cost about $300-400 but are worth every penny. The difference is night and day and you will start nailing focus almost every time at f2.
Hello Kirk! First off, you are so awesome for being so generous to the photography community and we all thank you! I'm so close to pulling the trigger on buying a Frontier scanner, but the company Im looking at has only the SP3000 ($6500) or the SP2000, but not the SP2500. Is there a big difference between the 2500 and 2000, and for someone who had no experience with these scanners, how is the ease of setup and use. Thanks!
Get the SP3000 if you can. It is worth it.
Two reasons: 1 .ICE - removes dust/scratches automagically, 2. SCAN SIZE - Much larger, things look so much better, way less grain, (35mm looks flippin’ awesome on the SP3000.)
Just save up and get the SP3000 if you are serious about saving money and taking control over your film and getting a consistent look.
$6500 seems steep … I paid $5500 for mine delivered to my doorstep.
For starters, as everyone else who has commented, I'm a fan. Your film images are lush and gorgeous. Secondly, thank you for taking the time to answer these questions from folks seeking to improve. It's beyond kind of you to share knowledge. Now my question: if I rate Fuji Pro 400 at 200 for sake of trying to get that pastel look, when I drop the roll off at the lab, do I tell them to pull film or process normally? Confused about this bit so any clarity would appreciated. Thxs!
Why thank you!
So - Fuji 400H - rate it at *100* not 200 unless you have to.
I actually call it Fuji 100H in my head when I think about that film.
When you drop it off at the lab don’t say anything. Except that you like your images scanned a little more high-key. Hopefully they get it. Or just point them to some example images so they know what to scan for.
If you shoot Fuji400H as though it were ISO100, you will create the necessary conditions for the look you are after.
Hey Kirk! Love your work! I wanted to hear your thoughts on the Leica M6! Have you ever shot this in weddings or do you just use it for personal work? And do you use any other 35mm film cameras other than the M6? If so how do they compare? And is Medium Format film really that much better than 35mm? Okay I asked too many questions. Cheers~!
I’ll do my best to answer this tsunami of questions :) The Leica M6 is one of, if not, THE most perfect cameras ever made.
One reason: it feels good to hold and use and it has no extra bullcrap. It is made to SHOOT PHOTOS. It is the essence of photography boiled down to the bare minimum. And I LOVE THAT. I FREAKING LOVE THAT. Especially in this day and age where we are tricked into upgrading our perfectly good digital cameras for even more complicated digital cameras that do ZERO to improve our actual photography (because photography is about what happens in YOUR MIND and HEART and not contained in, or determined by, a metal box.)
Other 35mm cameras?
I shoot a Fuji Klasse S and more recently a Ricoh GRs (both point and shoot cameras) and that does it for my 35mm work.
Medium format is sweet too, but I find myself shooting mostly 35mm for non-client work.
I think of it this way: 35mm is like sketching and Medium Format is like painting a big oil painting. I *prefer* the grittiness and realness of 35mm for day to day stuff. But that is just me. In the end it depends on the project. I shoot almost all my portraits with medium format. And all my non-directed portrait and life/photojournalism with 35mm. Go figure.
please explain the thought of rating the film lower than the box rate - David
Rating film lower (ie. rating ISO400 speed film at ISO320) is a way to intentionally overexpose your film. Most color negative film benefits from some overexposure. It brings out the shadow detail while the highlight detail is preserved.
I always tell people new to shooting color negative film to err on the side of overexposing the hell out of it rather than risk underexposure.
The only issue, is that with most Kodak color negative film, you start to get a lot of yellow as you overexpose. Most of this yellow can be corrected out in the scanning process and I regularly and intentionally overexpose all of my Kodak film.
Fuji film on the other hand, does NOT go yellow when overexposed - and film like Fuji 400H doesn’t even really look that great until it is shot way overexposed - like at ISO100.
Part of this too is a matter of taste. You can get vastly different looks from the same film stock depending on: how you expose it, the light you are shooting in, and how it is handled during scanning.
I really think I want to take the plunge and purchase a scanner instead of sending my film away to be scanned. Can I get a good set up for under 10k total, and what do I need? I know I'd like a Fuji Frontier scanner for a start. What else?
Easily. $10K? You could build a functioning film lab for that much.
A Fuji Frontier SP3000 (with ICE) is about $5500. A Super Sidekick film processor is another $1200 The rest of the stuff: drying cabinet, chemicals, etc. is under $500
what is the point of shooting film if you also shoot digital to make your digital files "look like film". what is the point of shooting film, if you only scan your film, show your images digitally, and then go straight to printing digitally in your books? why not..just shoot digitally, and add your VSCO like portra filter?
I shoot film because I like the process so much more. It makes me such a better photographer: more alert and connected with what I am shooting, and more in the moment. Checking the back of the screen over and over is something I can’t help but do with digital, and I feel this draws me out of the moment. I miss so many good shots having the deal with all the wonderful useless features that a modern DSLR provides.
Secondly, I shoot film because of the look. I love the tone, the feel, the grain and the color of film over digital - which to me is way too sterile and perfect to be interesting. My presets DO make digital files look 99% like film scans, but in order to get that level of matching I need to have a film scan as a reference when making adjustments. A film scan gives you the right beacon to point your efforts towards when working with a digital file.
Third? Film is just more fun. The whole process of it. The crazy selection of lenses and camera bodies, each with a little different feel and purpose. You have to try film, really try it, to understand. And then you will be hooked.