Tag: #believeinfilm

Link: The magic of Fuji Frontier SP-3000

Sebastian Schlüter wrote in 2018 about The magic of Fuji Frontier SP-3000.

Fuji Frontier is the product line moniker for minilab solutions from Fujifilm. In the early 2000 their minilab Fuji Frontier was the reference for film processing and printing, and one of its main attribute is that the printing phase was done digitally. Instead of optically enlarging the image, you put the source film transparency into the scanner, and it will print the images on photographic paper (RA-4 process). And the SP-3000 scanner, the latest model that was part of that minilab system, is still thought after as it produces high quality images out of the box. This was part of the magic (that can’t be distinguished from technology). Just to add how this was revolutionary, it allowed producing mini contact sheets, and it allowed printing slide film without intermediate negative or without inversible (positive) photographic paper. As a business, you could charge 5-10$ extra to store the scans used to print on a CD. Your 1 hour photolab likely used one of these, or its competitor like Noritsu, Agfa or Kodak.

One of the key point of the Frontier is that is does its work fast and automatically. Scanning is always a lengthy process and hard to tune to get good results. The Frontier integrates all of that. Other alternatives are Noritsu who offers a higher resolution, and Kodak Pakon, that requires 20+ years old Microsoft Windows XP to drive it, but is much smaller. Acquisition costs for a Frontier SP-3000 starts at CA$6,000 on the used market and the device takes a huge amount space, so does the Noritsu, and have the same requirement for maintaining the same operating system.

The film to digital workflow is either expensive, slow or poor quality. DSLR scanning provides a good DIY alternative that is reasonably priced if you already have the camera and a proper setup rival dedicated film scanner on many aspects.

Previously: How film commercial processing and scanning is done

News: Harman Phoenix now in 120

Kosmofoto tells us Harman Technology releases 120 version of Phoenix 200 film.

Harman Technology is the owner of Ilford, the well known black & white film photography brand and Kentmere. Phoenix is their brand new colour negative film. It’s an original emulsion, not a repackaging that was released in 135 format last December. The 200 ISO film is now available in 120 format.

This is great news.

The Widelux Revival Project

From 2023, The Widelux Revival Project on SilvergrainClassics.

It is about a new venture started by two members of SilvergrainClassic and Susan and Jeff Bridges (yes that Jeff Brigdes) to recreate the Widelux. Jeff Bridges started using it in 1984, bringing on set a Widelux F8 camera to shoot behind the scenes, portraits and others. And like any vintage camera, they are getting old and will fail, if they are not outright temperamental, with little options to get spare parts.

A camera viewed from the front with a lens inside a slit. On the top of the camera, various knobs and a viewfinder in the right.
Widelux F7 panoramic camera – by Kenneth C. Zirkel – CC BY-SA 4.0

The design of the Widelux is rather unusual, and its Japanese manufacturer ended production in 2000. It’s a camera with a swinging lens to shoot 126 degrees wide on 135 film, or on 120 film. Jeff Bridge’s use of it was unusual as it’s a camera aimed at landscape photography to be used on a tripod as the shot take a couple of seconds at 1/15 shutter speed. This is unlike the Fujifilm TX-1 / Hasselblad X-Pan.

The Widelux F7, using 135 film, did cost US$750 in 1988, while the Widelux 1500, using 120 film, cost US$4,500.

The German Noblex and Russian Horizon were similar in function.

Time will tell if the revival happens. This require a great deal of re-engineering and the result will probably be quite expensive, both as it is niche and likely costly to make.

The joy of (slide) film

I have been going through a back log of archiving film. I’m bad, as the most recent was 10 year old. Also that mean I haven’t shot film in 10 years. After some manual labour and digging for the metadata, I pulled the light table and went through some older archived film, including slide film. They are all in translucent archival “PrintFile” sheet, so they can be examined directly. Here is the view of the light table with such a page:

Strips of slide film (positive) on a light table viewed in a diagonal orientation. The punchy colours brings joy to the photographer.
Strips of slide film on the light table.

WOW. This is what I remember of the joy of shooting slide film: looking at the small images on the table. It’s like magic. Not even the thumbnails on the computer bring that joy. It must be the backlit transparency, the punchy colours. And I never shot slide film in medium format.

The experience

But how was it to shoot colours slide film? Even in 2000 it was expensive, more that colour negative. The rolls, the processing all more expensive, and harder to find. That put aside, it was also harder to shoot. Unlike for colour negative, inversible film (the other name of slide film) had much less latitude exposure (around ±1/2 a stop). While colour negative could easily get 2-4 stops each way and still get something usable, slide film couldn’t. And in a very contrasted scene you might have blown highlights or very dark shadows. Metering had to be much more precise and the resulting image could hardly be improved, which also made a lot of consumer point and shoots not suitable.

Slide film remained the preferred format for professional photography in publishing, until they switched to a digital workflow.

The results

Unlike negatives that needs to be printed, and for which the final results were linked to both the printing machine and its operator, slide appeared as close to the “final” product, and in the early days couldn’t even be printed as is. Slide film is the closest to JPEG SooC (Straight-out-of-Camera) in the digital world, and today, if you shoot Fujifilm camera, there are built-in the film simulations, and lot of user created settings. With the Lumix S9, the addition of LUT for stills also reinforce that trend, where cameras adopt a colour rendition model.

In the end

Now this is just nostalgia. Slide film today cost a lot, something like CA$35 a roll either in 135 (36 exposures) or 120 (I get 12 on my 6×6 TLR) and there is mostly only the new Kodak Ektachrome 100 from 2018 (after it got discontinued in 2012). I vividly remember as a roll was less than CA$10, that a price increase in 2004 triggered my purchase of my first DSLR, a Canon 20D. In retrospect I regret maybe not shooting more of it while it was still reasonable, and while these amazing Fujifilm Velvia and Provia were still relatively easily available. Some calculated the Kodachrome, the parent of all slide films, that got discontinued in 2010, cost more adjusted for inflation than Ektachrome in 2024 when it was released in 1935.

So should you shoot slide film? If you have a film camera that works well and you can measure the exposure properly, you should absolutely try. Make sure you have a way to get it processed as well. Not all labs do it.

Previously: What slide film taught me.

Rollei 35AF

Back in March 2024, Rollei announced the Rollei 35AF. A newly redesigned version of the Rollei 35 film cameras. The pre-orders will be opening 10 September 2024.

What is the Rollei 35? It’s a long line of high-end (it’s called “premium” these days) compact 35mm film camera that sold over 2 million units since the late 60s. The Rollei 35AF is a redesign, developed by MiNT over the last few years (read all the updates, it’s interesting).

With a newly designed 35mm f2.8 fixed lens, a built-in flash, it features auto-focus (hence the AF moniker), auto-exposure, and retain mostly the appearance of its predecessors. At around US$650-800, this provides a new alternative for film shooters that is less expensive than the Leica and that is not doomed to break down due to age like most vintage camera are.

The Rollei 35 AF: What is new & what is not

Official website.

News: Kodak photo businesses sold to private equity

DPReview: Kodak photo businesses sold to private equity

Well….

This is not good news. Private equity are the corporate looters. And this one is the one that removed “Co-op” from “Mountain Equipment Co-op”…

I don’t expect Kodak film product to be developing. Maybe it’s time to stock up. And when some Fujifilm are suspected to just be Kodak, I wonder about the broader impact.

NONS instant cameras

I just learned about the NONS SL42, a SLR for Instax Mini film. It’s a US$399 camera, currently out of stock. It has an passive EF mount, a light meter and shoots Instax Mini film.

After reading a few reviews from Emulsive and Phoblographer, this feel it might be a winner. The camera has its quirks, but then the Fujifilm Instax also do, differently.

So why a NONS instead of the Fujifilm cameras? Controls, controls, CONTROLS!

The Fujifilm Instax camera only have auto exposure, some with “creative” modes. Also their lens isn’t very fast, stopped down at f/12.7. With the NONS you get to have much faster and interchangeable lenses. The passive EF allow Canon EF lenses (wide open only) and, with adapter rings, you can use Nikon F, Pentax K, Contax CY and M42 lenses. These adapted lenses offer a tremendous quality for an affordable price on the used market, and with the faster aperture the possibilities are broader..

You can read an interview of the team on phoblographer.com about the design of the SL42. It explain that the number 42 isn’t about the answer to life, universe and everything, but rather because the original plan was to release a camera with a M42 mount, the screw lens mount one used on original Pentax SLR and that other camera makers adopted. It also explain why the switch to EF mount, which is the mechanical mount that presented the best versatility in term of further adaptations, and the story behind the NFE (NONS Format Extender).

I was getting excited. It’s out of stock ; turns out it’s no longer made.

The good news is that NONS decided to followup with the SL645 and SL660 cameras. While the SL645 still take Instax Mini, the SL660 takes Instax Square. At US$499 and US$599 respectively they are a bit more pricey. These new models seems to improve a lot. You pick one over the other depending on the format you want to shoot. There is even a back for Instax Square to use on an Hasselblad CM.

The idea of a more sophisticated camera that supports Instax film isn’t new.

When the Polaroid was created, the goal was to offer instant pictures at a time where even 1 hour photo was a pipe dream. So much that today the term “Polaroid” is still commonly associated with instant photography, even though the company died and later was reborn. The process was used in various areas, from identity pictures, to test shots for exposure in the studio, to document reproduction or slide show preparation. The idea of using a Polaroid on an Hasselblad isn’t some sort of sacrilegious practice, it actually was part of the workflow. Setup the shoot, test the exposure with a Polaroid back and then once everything is fine go one with using the regular film.

Instax becoming popular, the choice of Fujifilm cameras is definitely in the space of consumer: inexpensive and all automated. So alternative started to appear. For example the 2016 MINT InstantFlex TL70 is a dedicated TLR that shoot Instax Mini and comes at US$399. Also Lomography has a range of Instax cameras supporting the Lomographic style, as well as Lomo Graflok, a back for large format. While relegated into a corner product category of what I would call novelty, they represent an incredible venue for creativity associated to the medium of instant photography, and fill the niche of photographers looking for a more flexible tool.