My replacement for the Rolleiflex is a Bronica SQA. This camera is sometimes referred to as the Hasselblad of Japan. I have not research why this is, but I expect it is related to image quality and possibly the modular design of the camera. There are several reason I took this route which I may go into later.
I did not go into this blindly; I remember the effort necessary to work with film. To those not familiar it may seem nostalgic and simple. However, the nature of the process introduces many choices and thus decisions in addition to camera settings: which film should be used? which developer? how long should the film be developed?
Hence there’s a lot more manual accounting associated with film-based photography. The meta data associated with the shot is not automatically captured in camera as is done with digital equipment; there is no date of capture; lens used; ISO; speed, etc.
Similarly the process of capturing and processing an image offers many choices which leads to a perplexing number of combinations and as an analogue process it lacks the precision of digital. To ensure consistency and repeatability especially as one deviates from the published recipes, each choice needs to be recorded.
At time of capture it will be necessary to record the relevant details not only of the settings of the camera but directions on the development: whether to develop at the time prescribed by the developer or to push or pull.
As I will receive a black and white digital scan of the negative into my process, some things in Lightroom won’t work the same way: no simulation of coloured filters for example. Meaning if I want to put more contrast into the sky I may need to use a yellow filter on camera; if I want to brighten shadows a blue filter may be required. Bottom line, there will be more decisions to be made at the time of capture.
It looks like I will be referring back The Negative (Adams) to get me started.
Leave a Reply