Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: hobbsr on January 05, 2009, 11:40:27 pm
-
Hi All,
I know this might not be the best place to ask but I respect the users here and wanted to get some wider views on the topic. You are most likely asking why? Well I focus on higher end wedding and portraits and over the past couple of years the number of files and workflow of the digital world is really becoming a bit of a problem. I have an very long IT background so it is not a matter of me not knowing the technology and the required steps, I have also tried all the major tools and spent a lot of time training myself to get the best result. So how does this relate to the film question? Well I currently use D3's and the H3D systems and on the Nikon front the next step is to upgrade at some stage to the D3x, which of course will add much larger files to my already growing disk space and many many external drives. My thoughts of late have been how do I reduce the time spent in my workflow and how do I differentiate my services, I do realise these are two very different questions but I think that film my provide a common answer? I have already taken one step to use the H3D for my "hero shots" as a way to step up in the market place as only a handful at most shot these days on medium format.
So is returning to film the answer? shoot on the weekend, drop of the film to the lab and pick-up proofs later in the week. Of course I would then utilise the full colour service of the lab and get high res scan for album design or prints as most of the labs here only now print from scans. I then can return to handing proofs to my clients as an end product.
I have started to test a Contax 645 vs my D3 and of course you could say the D3 films are better, I was looking for other and better understandings of the argument for and against shooting film in this day and age. I see the following pro/con's:
Pro's:
1. Film equipment is cheaper (generally) and will last much longer than any current digital purchase
2. Workflow as in using and being in front of the computer is reduced by moving back to proofs and scans from the lab
3. Not many people will be using such systems therefore a market differentiation
4. No more white balance issues
5. Images will have a different feel to them
Con's:
1. How long will film be around?
2. How many labs will offer the services to support this?
3. How much will these products and services increase as demand reduces? BW film seems to be increasing in the European market but what about 35mm or 120/220 colour neg?
4. Still need to have scans and maybe will still end up doing post on them?
5. Not many film system in production? Contax is great but a dead end road so will need to buy up spares
6. Having to go back and make sure exposure is correct? of course I do that now but I know I got it because I can see it?
Anyway I will be very interested what you all think of these elements to the debate as well as how many if anybody is using film in their business and why have they stayed with it and not gone digital? Does anybody feel that film will come back for the very reasons I have stated briefly here.
Lastly, I think that Ansel Adams said it the best "The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance" I think too much today is spent looking deep into pixels and not understanding or producing prints, I know I am guilty of this! That is another reason I think that for all my needs the print from film will be of the highest quality and the different to a D3 or D3x very hard to see?
Regards
Rodney
-
I sometimes have nostalgic urges towards film. They last until I realize how much of a hassle it really is. To start with your list of Pros where I think you are off.
1) Film will last longer than digital. The only thing that is different in your H3 is the back. This can last for ages but most of us choose, for whatever reason, to buy a new one every several years. There are many backs that are considered to be from the dark ages that are still functioning fine and producing the same results as when brand new.
2) Workflow, now you will be waiting for the Lab and putting part of your workflow in their hands. Sure it means you don't do some of the work anymore but part of the results is in other peoples hands
3) Excellent point.
4) I think you are thinking the wrong way around here. WB issues mostly derive from mixed light sources or other difficult lighting. Film suffers as much from this and doesn't have the ability to alter WB setting or the make different ones for different parts of the images and blend them in (sure it can be done but in most cases that means bringing the film to digital )
5) Excellent point but this is doable with digital as well. I think part of this feeling comes from the sense of 'surprise/magic' that comes from film. Naturally it has an already 'developed feel' that simply isn't there in digital. I can certainly understand it can be much more convenient for people to use film to get there if they simply cannot come to good results with digital.
As for your cons. I think film will be around still for a very long time. As a niche maybe but it will. There are far too many people that still use film and would not want to do otherwise. Most other cons you mention are valid as well.
The question is simply whether you feel good with it. I can understand this because now and than I think about the same thing. In the end I never do it because I am sure I will buy a really nice scanner and get the images to digital anyway in the end, etc.. etc.. etc.. For me the choice remains digital. I know people that will never give up film but some of them even use digital alongside by now. OTOH, I also know several people that took up film next to digital. In most cases that was for personal projects, it was always for the magic/unpredictability and the mood/feel/tone/etc of film (which I agree is still lovely and hard to be matched by digital though not impossible).
If you really feel film is the way to go, go ahead but be careful nostalgia can be a dangerous emotion
Do you have the H3D(not the II) which I thought can still carry a film back?
-
Another thing worth considering about film is that it may lose practical consistency over time. Back when thousands of pros were using it in every major city, the labs had good reasons, and sufficent volume, to make sure the materials and processing were consistent and repeatable. As commercial film use declines, eventually we may reach the point where it will be difficult to get film processed with accurate color balance in many areas. Not such a big deal for black and white, or those who process their own color. Or, maybe the film manufacturers themselves won't be able to produce consistent batches to shoot with in the first place.
I wonder if there's some sort of "critical mass" effect where there needs to be a certain volume of users to support the industry, and that as soon as the amount of buyers dips below whatever that number might be, the whole film business as we know it will collapse over night.
Sure, there are still people making daguerotypes, but homebrewed film may or may not be a viable model for typical working pros.
-
Hi All,
I know this might not be the best place to ask but I respect the users here and wanted to get some wider views on the topic. You are most likely asking why? Well I focus on higher end wedding and portraits and over the past couple of years the number of files and workflow of the digital world is really becoming a bit of a problem. I have an very long IT background so it is not a matter of me not knowing the technology and the required steps, I have also tried all the major tools and spent a lot of time training myself to get the best result. So how does this relate to the film question? Well I currently use D3's and the H3D systems and on the Nikon front the next step is to upgrade at some stage to the D3x, which of course will add much larger files to my already growing disk space and many many external drives. My thoughts of late have been how do I reduce the time spent in my workflow and how do I differentiate my services, I do realise these are two very different questions but I think that film my provide a common answer? I have already taken one step to use the H3D for my "hero shots" as a way to step up in the market place as only a handful at most shot these days on medium format.
So is returning to film the answer? shoot on the weekend, drop of the film to the lab and pick-up proofs later in the week. Of course I would then utilise the full colour service of the lab and get high res scan for album design or prints as most of the labs here only now print from scans. I then can return to handing proofs to my clients as an end product.
I have started to test a Contax 645 vs my D3 and of course you could say the D3 films are better, I was looking for other and better understandings of the argument for and against shooting film in this day and age. I see the following pro/con's:
Pro's:
1. Film equipment is cheaper (generally) and will last much longer than any current digital purchase
2. Workflow as in using and being in front of the computer is reduced by moving back to proofs and scans from the lab
3. Not many people will be using such systems therefore a market differentiation
4. No more white balance issues
5. Images will have a different feel to them
Con's:
1. How long will film be around?
2. How many labs will offer the services to support this?
3. How much will these products and services increase as demand reduces? BW film seems to be increasing in the European market but what about 35mm or 120/220 colour neg?
4. Still need to have scans and maybe will still end up doing post on them?
5. Not many film system in production? Contax is great but a dead end road so will need to buy up spares
6. Having to go back and make sure exposure is correct? of course I do that now but I know I got it because I can see it?
Anyway I will be very interested what you all think of these elements to the debate as well as how many if anybody is using film in their business and why have they stayed with it and not gone digital? Does anybody feel that film will come back for the very reasons I have stated briefly here.
Lastly, I think that Ansel Adams said it the best "The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance" I think too much today is spent looking deep into pixels and not understanding or producing prints, I know I am guilty of this! That is another reason I think that for all my needs the print from film will be of the highest quality and the different to a D3 or D3x very hard to see?
Regards
Rodney
Rodney,
You may wish to make same post on apug or other film based forum such as photonet medium format forums and see what reply you will get
Photography is my hobby. Film is still beautiful and results from DSLRs frequent lack in image quality for large prints. When on a stroll among some photo galleries in Shanghai last weekend, sure some with digital galleries captured my eyes, but the one that did so most was one with B&W large format prints made the traditional way...
You are right, many of us are pixel peeping and we are all getting sold on new technology, not the least in forums of endless discussions of what gear is incremental better... Film was good, and was in many ways also more simple for high quality images but nowadays it is more diffficult to use film due shortage of labs supporting it, yet it depends on where we live and how many of us who still used it.
As an amateur digital is also far more expensive. I went medium format digital because DSLRs simply cannot match as pleasing rendering as film.
I just bought a 4x5, now that would be something to offer for wedding... a highly traditional pose as memory???... a 4x5 slide that would last 300 years... digital files will not... unless endless back-up...
Film better be around for long lasting! I still like film .
Anders
-
I use Contax 645 bodies with film backs and MFDB, and a Nikon DSLR (already sold 35mm F6/FM3a).
From my experience
1. Film images look different than DSLR and MFDB, and are great just directly from the camera. This is the most important difference.
2. Film images require minimal adjustment in Photoshop when exposure is correct. This is another important difference.
3. Production time for studio works is not very different. Film needs development and long scanning, with a very bit adjustment in Photoshop. Digital needs long time in Photoshop and forces to learn and try new digital techniques in Photoshop, this is a new profession which require computer skills and can be outsourced, but not for free.
4. Film is cheap. Film does cost per frame and development. Digital requires all modern software, hardware, upgrades, etc. Film equipment can last for years, while owners of digital equipment, especially DSLR, will want to upgrade. That's why I don't buy new DSLR.
5. MFDB is superb, but slow to work with. MFDB and 120 films is a great combo. No DSLR is needed, if you don't shoot actions.
I scan with calibrated Nikon 9000 and images look absolutely superb to my eyes. Film development is the headache; I need to drive to another city to develop slide film.
Today in studio I use MFDB tethered to Macbook. Outdoors I take 120 films. MFDB will kill film. DSLR is a junk in comparison.
-
MFDB will kill film. DSLR is a junk in comparison.
I don't think it's fair to say DSLR is junk in comparison. I shoot with both a MFDB (P20+/Mamiya AFD2) and a DSLR (Canon 1D Mk2). I use them both for their strengths. A previous post hinted at this earlier, but each has a benefit, and for example...when I'm shooting live theatre, my MFDB may as well be a paper weight. There's no way it can keep up with the speed of my Mark2 in a dark theatre. So, in that context, *it* is junk next to my DSLR in comparison.
This is a thing that I think many people miss in the digital vs. film debate. There really isn't an apples to apples comparison. Digital Photography is a different medium than film photography and like any artistic medium, it has strengths and weaknesses, but the right tool in the right hands is a very powerful thing. Like any new technology (and it's odd to say that given how long digital cameras have been around now) people instantly look for the cons. I remember vividly sticking my nose right down into a print and thinking...I can see the dots...this isn't that great. Then I remember the moment that I held a film print and a digital print up together in a realistic viewing situation, and had a really hard time telling them apart. And, before anyone flames me for this...yes a 6x7 neg blown up to 20x30 will be hard to match with a 35mm DSLR (although, the new 22MP Canon offerings are probably gonna get close). But, again...not apples to apples, and digital printing has come light years from where it used to be...not just the cameras. If you are aiming for a 20x30 print, a 35mm film neg is going to be pushing it too. I guess all this is a long winded way to say, that while film vs. digital debates are fun and stimulating, there's zealots of both sides of the argument, and neither side is 100% correct...yet.
I do agree with you that film will die out, but not because of MFDB. I think film is doomed because of the digital point and shoot market. All those vacation pictures that used to be processed on film, are now on CF and SD cards. That's a HUGE chunk of market share that pretty much leaves only the Pro market using film anymore, which is also dwindling as pros come around to the work flow benefits of digital (and let's face it...the quality of pro digital gear is now really quite exceptional).
Anyway...that's my 2 cents.
-
I do agree with you that film will die out, but not because of MFDB. I think film is doomed because of the digital point and shoot market. All those vacation pictures that used to be processed on film, are now on CF and SD cards. That's a HUGE chunk of market share that pretty much leaves only the Pro market using film anymore, which is also dwindling as pros come around to the work flow benefits of digital (and let's face it...the quality of pro digital gear is now really quite exceptional).
Anyway...that's my 2 cents.
Indeed certain films are dying and have died... but hopefully good ones will continue to be produced.
As example B&W film did not die with color neg or color slides. If we take record albums they died because CDs were a superior technology. Digital photos are not such superior to film, but like you say they are different and appear different. Unlike with music... we do find the noise (grain) in prints from film appealing ...
And... I hope I am right in above...
Anders
-
I don't think it's fair to say DSLR is junk in comparison. I shoot with both a MFDB (P20+/Mamiya AFD2) and a DSLR (Canon 1D Mk2). I use them both for their strengths. A previous post hinted at this earlier, but each has a benefit, and for example...when I'm shooting live theatre, my MFDB may as well be a paper weight. There's no way it can keep up with the speed of my Mark2 in a dark theatre. So, in that context, *it* is junk next to my DSLR in comparison.
This is a thing that I think many people miss in the digital vs. film debate. There really isn't an apples to apples comparison. Digital Photography is a different medium than film photography and like any artistic medium, it has strengths and weaknesses, but the right tool in the right hands is a very powerful thing. Like any new technology (and it's odd to say that given how long digital cameras have been around now) people instantly look for the cons. I remember vividly sticking my nose right down into a print and thinking...I can see the dots...this isn't that great. Then I remember the moment that I held a film print and a digital print up together in a realistic viewing situation, and had a really hard time telling them apart. And, before anyone flames me for this...yes a 6x7 neg blown up to 20x30 will be hard to match with a 35mm DSLR (although, the new 22MP Canon offerings are probably gonna get close). But, again...not apples to apples, and digital printing has come light years from where it used to be...not just the cameras. If you are aiming for a 20x30 print, a 35mm film neg is going to be pushing it too. I guess all this is a long winded way to say, that while film vs. digital debates are fun and stimulating, there's zealots of both sides of the argument, and neither side is 100% correct...yet.
I do agree with you that film will die out, but not because of MFDB. I think film is doomed because of the digital point and shoot market. All those vacation pictures that used to be processed on film, are now on CF and SD cards. That's a HUGE chunk of market share that pretty much leaves only the Pro market using film anymore, which is also dwindling as pros come around to the work flow benefits of digital (and let's face it...the quality of pro digital gear is now really quite exceptional).
Anyway...that's my 2 cents.
I think film sales have actually increased over the last year or so.I don't think film will go away in the next few years, B&W will be around for ever. Fuji have just made a folding 6x7 camera, I presume they intend to make something to feed it. I've been buying LF equipment, it's so cheap now the latest being an old brass shutter-less lens from about 1890 and I just spent a load of money getting my Makina 67 serviced, oh yes and I buy old box cameras to use all for fun of course. Commercially I shoot digital it makes more sense for my work and turn around needed, I still prefer my film images.
This question is getting asked more and more of late, maybe we just getting a bit disillusioned with the brave new world and all it's baggage.
Kevin.
-
Hi All,
A couple of extra points:
1. My D3 is a wonderful camera and enables the ability to shoot where with film you would have some real issues to get the same quality if at all get the image without very fast BW film, so as posted above these are different tools for different applications and it is not trying to compare so much as both capture technologies have their own strengths.
2. I have investigated using my H3D with the film back and was advised that in a firmware revision the H3D will be locked from working with the film backs? Also the cost of a H2F as a new body and the backs is a little stupid compared to what you can buy, I am a very big Hasselblad fan but I don't understand the logic to that pricing. So this really stops me using my great lens that I have with the H3D.
Thanks
-
I use H2F with CF digital backs. The way to go with H2F is to buy the body separate from the film backs etc. I do agree the pricing structure of the 'kit' is kind of stupid. Another option is to buy a second hand H1 and have it upgraded to H2F.
I thought the H3D can use film back regardless of the firmware upgrades, eg. use film backs even with the latest firmware update (in that case you wouldn't even have to look at the H2F). The H3DII cannot use film backs anymore.
I might be mistaken with this so maybe one of the Hasselblad guys can chime in here.
-
If we take record albums they died because CDs were a superior technology. Digital photos are not such superior to film, but like you say they are different and appear different. Unlike with music... we do find the noise (grain) in prints from film appealing ...
Record Albums did not "die" Record Albums continue to be sold, and are view by many to be superior to CD's. The analogy is reasonably appropriate. Both film and vinyl records continue to exist, but only represent a small fraction of the market compared to their digital counterparts, and both have active and vocal support groups that consider them to be better than digital. I would further indicate that the claimed superiority of both analog forms is due to the way way it "renders" or the way it looks, sounds, or feels, rather than any quantitative measure (there may be things we just don't know how to measure, or what to measure). For both, they are "different" (smoother, more real, etc.) in a way that is "better", but we can't specifically, accurately, or quantitatively tell you why (mind you they are probably closer to an explanation with vinyl records than with film -- probably because the vinyl-CD wars have been going on for 20 years longer than the film-DSLR war).
-
I love digital but if there is one thing I wish my DB had, and this has been said before, it's in-camera simulated film types. That way you could decide already at the shoot what kind of look you want, cut down on post production time, and still have the ability to change your mind later. It's amazing that no camera or DB manufacturer (to my knowledge) has picked up on this.
-
I love digital but if there is one thing I wish my DB had, and this has been said before, it's in-camera simulated film types. That way you could decide already at the shoot what kind of look you want, cut down on post production time, and still have the ability to change your mind later. It's amazing that no camera or DB manufacturer (to my knowledge) has picked up on this.
Picture styles in Canon Cameras can be edited to your own taste and are a fairly good way of getting an instant result. Depends on what film looks you like as to how useful they are for you. I have my 5D set to do a rich slide film with crushed blacks, a Tri-Xy look and a murky sepia.
But I usually end up using a RAW file not the JPEGs as the look I apply in camera is more of a reminder of how I was thinking at time of shoot. But you can add a look very quickly to images in ACR or Lightroom via presets.
-
Film needs an expensive scanner to get proper quality. I occasionally shoot with my Mamiya RZ67 and Seagull TLR and using my flatbed the scans are of lower quality than my Canon 1Ds Mark II even if I scan at 3600dpi and then downres the 60MP scan to less than 20MP. Scanning is also very time consuming and becomes tedious when making multiple passes. Keep in mind that a decent film scanner costs about $2000 and more if you want ultimate scanning results.
Without having made a comparison I would assume the 20MP+ backs and probably DSLR are very close in resolution to a good 6x7 film scan. With the cost of buying a top class scanner in mind and the time needed for the development and scans I think running a business on film is not a good idea. I'd rather seek for a used MF digital kit or 20MP+ DSLR for my business. I will still however use my film equipment for fun.
-
I love digital but if there is one thing I wish my DB had, and this has been said before, it's in-camera simulated film types. That way you could decide already at the shoot what kind of look you want, cut down on post production time, and still have the ability to change your mind later. It's amazing that no camera or DB manufacturer (to my knowledge) has picked up on this.
A digital sensor does not render the same or as consistent as film does. That said I sometimes use www.rawfilmstyles.com for my Aptus 65 (and others) which are presets for CS3 Camera Raw that "simulate" film settings. At moment that website does not come up for me, but I do hope they still are fine and in business because I do like that product! You can try to email info@rawfilmstyles.com if website does not come up. Nope it does not give you film... but it is a shortcut to certain renderings which you may otherwise not be able to reach... at least that is what I found for my photos.
Back to films... apart from Tri-X... lets not forget color slide films such as MAGICAL Fuji Velvia 50 for landscape.... or Provia 100 & 400... surely they must remain for all eternity
About scanning, when shooting 35mm slides I used a Minolta DiMage SE 5400... that was tedious... because so many frames on 35. With larger formats one tend to shoot less number of frames and at higher yield ratio, simply because the gear makes you slow down and plan better. Images from the DiMage still blew my mind away... much more than the D200 I had ever did. Lets remember that scanner technology also develops... that is one attraction with film, that in future we will be able to get much more from those slides ...
Anders
-
A digital sensor does not render the same or as consistent as film does. That said I sometimes use www.rawfilmstyles.com for my Aptus 65 (and others) which are presets for CS3 Camera Raw that "simulate" film settings. At moment that website does not come up for me, but I do hope they still are fine and in business because I do like that product! You can try to email info@rawfilmstyles.com if website does not come up. Nope it does not give you film... but it is a shortcut to certain renderings which you may otherwise not be able to reach... at least that is what I found for my photos.
Web domain has expired, so it may be presumed Raw Film Styles also has. Nothing to stop one playing around with ACR/LR and developing your own presets, that's what I do. You also get abetter understanding of how things work that way too.
About scanning, when shooting 35mm slides I used a Minolta DiMage SE 5400... that was tedious... because so many frames on 35. With larger formats one tend to shoot less number of frames and at higher yield ratio, simply because the gear makes you slow down and plan better. Images from the DiMage still blew my mind away... much more than the D200 I had ever did. Lets remember that scanner technology also develops... that is one attraction with film, that in future we will be able to get much more from those slides ...
God, I hated scanning, really hated it, but slide scanners stopped being developed some years back as the film market collapsed - just when scanners were starting to get good. Flat bed scanners have improved a lot though, not sure how they compare to dedicated film scaners. I have a lot of old work I should scan in, but the thought of it
-
I know the feeling
I started with film, then studied electronics and informatics, and saw the rise of digital.
Today I use BOTH
DSLR when it has to be fast, cheap or even throw-away photography (when no film cost in budget foreseen ...) and in low light conditions
But I have to admit that at weddings DSLR is a bless for speed and combined with a good zoom lens a live- saver.
I get enlargements done by a lab on durst lambda from a nikon D200 to 1m w 70cm with great results!
MF BW film, when I want traditional black and white (Mamiya RZ and Hasselblad 503CW with Fuji ACROS 100 in Rodinal) then print on Baryta paper with selenium toning (jummy)
MF slides and negs (for the LOOK it has) but processing yourself is EXPENSIVE (chemicals only last 3 weeks !!!)
Only interesting when making prints with an ENLARGER (scanning looses the LOOK in my opinion, or one spends hours at PS to get in back))
MF DB (started with P20, and now H3DII MS) amazing, you cannot get that out of film.
It's different, but it is WOW !
LF (4x5 and 8x10) of NO COMPARE when making black and whites of landscapes and portraits, then go gum bichromate or Platinum paladium) this is another dimension
So for me digital is just another brush, another colour on my palet !
Digital printing, I use epsons, but consider using the GEMINI package (amazing quality, and ease of use)
As for digital storage ...today disks do not cost that much.
You need to foresee that in 5 years from now, you will have to convert to other formats and migrate other computer platforms. no escape.
In the future, labs will assist you with this.
Labs will process raws for you, and put it on their servers and storage.
You will access by Internet, do you thing, then send it out to print in a lab, somewhere in the World, and will be send to you by mail.(or directly to your client)
Thing is, try to stay an ARTIST, with all the film and digital around.
Use it wise !
-
There are a lot of top notch wedding photographers still using film, so it's not that ridiculous of an idea. Jose Villa is probably the best example I can think of.
One thing you'll have to consider if switching back to film is your pricing and profit margin. Your digital camera upgrades probably come every three or four years if you're not too gear-happy and are kind of a big lump-sum expense, whereas with film, you're probably looking at something close to $45-55 dollars per roll for purchase, process, proof, scan, and delivery (if you're not local to a good lab). So if you're one of those photographers that rail off 1500-2000 shots during a wedding, you'll coughing up quite a bit of cash for each event. You may also need to beef up your insurance if something happens to the film after the wedding.
I bring this up because I've started shooting primarily with film again, after doing digital for the last 5 years and not really *loving* it. Luckily most magazines are okay with it as long as it's part of the signature look when hiring the photographer, but I can't say I'm able to get away with as much profit per shoot as I used to.
-
There are a lot of top notch wedding photographers still using film, so it's not that ridiculous of an idea. Jose Villa is probably the best example I can think of.
One thing you'll have to consider if switching back to film is your pricing and profit margin. Your digital camera upgrades probably come every three or four years if you're not too gear-happy and are kind of a big lump-sum expense, whereas with film, you're probably looking at something close to $45-55 dollars per roll for purchase, process, proof, scan, and delivery (if you're not local to a good lab). So if you're one of those photographers that rail off 1500-2000 shots during a wedding, you'll coughing up quite a bit of cash for each event. You may also need to beef up your insurance if something happens to the film after the wedding.
I bring this up because I've started shooting primarily with film again, after doing digital for the last 5 years and not really *loving* it. Luckily most magazines are okay with it as long as it's part of the signature look when hiring the photographer, but I can't say I'm able to get away with as much profit per shoot as I used to.
My actual cost for a roll is between $16 and $25. I mark it up from there, but not much, as most of my clients have accounts with labs. This is purchase, process, and contacts. From that point on the client deals with scanning, usually from the same lab that did the contacts.
-
My actual cost for a roll is between $16 and $25. I mark it up from there, but not much, as most of my clients have accounts with labs. This is purchase, process, and contacts. From that point on the client deals with scanning, usually from the same lab that did the contacts.
I guess it's different in every market. I'm basing on LA's prices from Samy's which is $6.59/roll of 220 Fuji 160S and Icon which is $28 process/proof, then there's the $47 scan fee for a full roll of 220 in the 6-10mb quality range. Sh*t adds up, but damn it looks good.
-
I use both, my head says Digital and my heart says Film. Each time i return from a stock shoot of 1-2 months i have the unenviable task of editing a few thousand digital images, then have a further month post processing which i despise. Post could be done quicker however if it was worth shooting in the first place it's worth maximising the image in post, and that takes time. My film images from the same stock trip however are much easier to edit and look good right off the contact sheet and this is a real pleasure, i shoot less, am more considered, and generally a better photographer. I also much prefer the 6x7 format of my Pentax to my 1DS3 which again allows me to compose better and achieve a different look.
The real difference however is in the feel of the images, having spent the last week in post with 1DS3 images from a shoot in December i have been happy with much of what i have been able to produce, but as usual after a day with my printer yesterday working on some 6x7 Portra colour negs shot on the Pentax from the same shoot things always get put into perspective. Negs were hand printed to perfection then flatbed scanned in a custom built Epson 10000XL scanner (no glass/silverfast software) and reworked in photoshop, drop dead gorgeous!!!
Horses for courses, the Canon will still produce much of my stock work, but the albeit very slow film process will still be used, as this is where my heart lies, and the extra bit of magic.
-
I use both, my head says Digital and my heart says Film. Each time i return from a stock shoot of 1-2 months i have the unenviable task of editing a few thousand digital images, then have a further month post processing which i despise. Post could be done quicker however if it was worth shooting in the first place it's worth maximising the image in post, and that takes time. My film images from the same stock trip however are much easier to edit and look good right off the contact sheet and this is a real pleasure, i shoot less, am more considered, and generally a better photographer. I also much prefer the 6x7 format of my Pentax to my 1DS3 which again allows me to compose better and achieve a different look.
The real difference however is in the feel of the images, having spent the last week in post with 1DS3 images from a shoot in December i have been happy with much of what i have been able to produce, but as usual after a day with my printer yesterday working on some 6x7 Portra colour negs shot on the Pentax from the same shoot things always get put into perspective. Negs were hand printed to perfection then flatbed scanned in a custom built Epson 10000XL scanner (no glass/silverfast software) and reworked in photoshop, drop dead gorgeous!!!
Horses for courses, the Canon will still produce much of my stock work, but the albeit very slow film process will still be used, as this is where my heart lies, and the extra bit of magic.
Hi Gary,
Any chance to post a sample image? I know it is hard to get the real impact but I would love to see.
Thanks
-
Very Interesting,
I am printing an exhibition at the moment which consists of
9 prints 120cm x 150cm all scanned 8" x 10" neg and
1 print Pano stitch from MFDB.
Same 'numbers' on screen for both but the 'data' from both is responding differently. Particularly separation of tones and colour contrast. In theory they should respond the same in print if the numbers are the same? They don't appear to, however...
I love the film 'quality' but the digital system provides a scene that the film cannot - and I tried stitching 8x10 scans and it did not work...
BTW I shoot only digital for commissioned jobs and mostly film for my exhibition work.
Murray
-
I guess it's different in every market. I'm basing on LA's prices from Samy's which is $6.59/roll of 220 Fuji 160S and Icon which is $28 process/proof, then there's the $47 scan fee for a full roll of 220 in the 6-10mb quality range. Sh*t adds up, but damn it looks good.
Good to know about LA. My cost structure is based on 120 color film and no scanning. Roughly $4 a roll, $4 for processing, and $8 for contacts (if I print them). Black and white is really cheap if you process it yourself.
What's funny to me is that pixel peeping a scanned piece of film is disturbing. It looks like something is wrong with the film, camera, scanner etc., especially compared to digital. But when you make a print, its the reverse, at least without a lot of post for the digital file.
-
Good to know about LA. My cost structure is based on 120 color film and no scanning. Roughly $4 a roll, $4 for processing, and $8 for contacts (if I print them). Black and white is really cheap if you process it yourself.
What's funny to me is that pixel peeping a scanned piece of film is disturbing. It looks like something is wrong with the film, camera, scanner etc., especially compared to digital. But when you make a print, its the reverse, at least without a lot of post for the digital file.
you can make a digital file always look like film but you have to be brave.
blocking the shadows, adding cross color shifts, limiting the color gamut and adding grain and blur is a tough task not everybody is able to do.
the only thing i like and use often is grain it can change the appearance of a print rather strong and lead to a greater perceptual sharpness.
-
I too use both, but honestly using film less and less... I still enjoy B&W capture on film, but my 'nostalgia' toward color film emulsions is waning; just yesterday I had a request for a print from one of my older MF film captures...
The original was a Provia transparency, and a very long exposure to boot -- 6 minutes. Anyway, at the time I of course exposed and filtered for the reciprocity and the image was as good as one could make it at the time. However there is a pronounced color response shift that is tough to deal with even with a quality scan. With my digital camera, I would have first made the same exposure in 90 seconds and next, I would not have the weird color response to deal with. I realize this is an extreme capture case, but even in most 'normally' exposed film cases, I am dealing with a negative color response issue in post processing.
A small FWIW,
-
you can make a digital file always look like film but you have to be brave.
blocking the shadows, adding cross color shifts, limiting the color gamut and adding grain and blur is a tough task not everybody is able to do.
the only thing i like and use often is grain it can change the appearance of a print rather strong and lead to a greater perceptual sharpness.
True that, which is why so much digital work looks too clean to me, at least for my editorial and personal work. I think film looks better in print. I'm talking negative film. I'd rather look at some of Sarah Moon's underexposed, blury Type 55 prints than, say, a digital print from a photographer I like, well, lets just say Michael Thompson. I like Michael's stuff. Good prints from a Chromira machine. Nice stuff. I still like my Sarah Moon prints better, all scratched and dark and blury.
The only film that I've used that blocks shadows is Velvia, but most chomes do that. Not sure about color gamut. I know digital can be more accurate than film, no doubt.
In truthe, I've never really been convinced by digital. The Dalsa chips are great. The P30 is awesome. Great files, but I never warmed to it. I'm not trying to argue or change anyone's mind, but a lot of digital work, my commercial work included, seems to have an aesthetic that appeals to anal retentive adolescent boys, striving for perfection at 200%. It reminds me of the that horrific movie "The Transporter". Martial arts, guns, waxing the perfect black paint of the Audi. Gilding the lilly, so to speak. That is not to say that there isn't great digital work out there, I'm not saying that at all. I just think that the nature of digital lends itself to perfection seeking, which is never really attainable, which is why all the boys, mostly, want the latest and the greatest. I think Digital RULES for landscapes and architechture, products, etc. This is where all that perfection and resolution pays off. If I shot buildings and landscapes I would be all digital.
-
you can make a digital file always look like film but you have to be brave.
blocking the shadows, adding cross color shifts, limiting the color gamut and adding grain and blur is a tough task not everybody is able to do.
the only thing i like and use often is grain it can change the appearance of a print rather strong and lead to a greater perceptual sharpness.
I hear this all the time from digital shooters who have abandoned film, sorry but IMO it is simply rubbish. The ugly way that ANY digital camera captures the transition of highlights in no way resembles film's characteristics. Try shooting a 30 second city nightscape with digital, even with clever double processing, it just looks ugly by comparison.
I'm with TMARK on this, give me a lovely Type 55 image over anything shot with the technically excellent P backs. As an example, this weekend i visited the Leibovitz retrospective in London, and for me the most compelling work was her polaroids printed large, her least compelling work was the recent digital shoot of the Queen.
-
I hear this all the time from digital shooters who have abandoned film, sorry but IMO it is simply rubbish. The ugly way that ANY digital camera captures the transition of highlights in no way resembles film's characteristics. Try shooting a 30 second city nightscape with digital, even with clever double processing, it just looks ugly by comparison.
there are to ways to see it - if you need correct color reproduction forget film i'm old enough to remember how bad some films respond to certain colors. and even with the best controlled e6
or c-41 process you get cross colors shifts with every type of film ! some like it but it is a failure, anyway creativity has no borders so if this is the look you like go for it. what you see as better transition in the highlight area is mostly caused by film grain - noise. it is an illusion nothing more.
-
there are to ways to see it - if you need correct color reproduction forget film i'm old enough to remember how bad some films respond to certain colors. and even with the best controlled e6
or c-41 process you get cross colors shifts with every type of film ! some like it but it is a failure, anyway creativity has no borders so if this is the look you like go for it. what you see as better transition in the highlight area is mostly caused by film grain - noise. it is an illusion nothing more.
Then you are indeed kidding yourself, if YOU can't see clipped highlights and abrupt transitions then i'm afraid the discussion ends here.
-
. Try shooting a 30 second city nightscape with digital, even with clever double processing, it just looks ugly by comparison.
This is a 90 second shot from my digital back, taken as the fog rolled in about an hour after sunset. It is processed just like any other of my raw files in C1 and only C1 was used to generate this, no CS at all. It looks a bit rough due to the jpeg reduction (and C1 does not have the best jpeg rendering engine), so there's a crop included too. I don't think it looks too bad at all:
(http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/recentcf029770.jpg)
Here's the actual pixel crop from the end of the pier in the distance at the right side of the image. (I pulled the full 16-bit tiff into CS to make this jpeg crop, but no other processing was done.) I guess one could argue the rendering of the point source lights, but again, they look good to me...:
(http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/long_exposure_crop.jpg)
FWIW this was an ISO 100 shot with no added NR run.
Cheers,
-
True that, which is why so much digital work looks too clean to me, at least for my editorial and personal work. I think film looks better in print. I'm talking negative film. I'd rather look at some of Sarah Moon's underexposed, blury Type 55 prints than, say, a digital print from a photographer I like, well, lets just say Michael Thompson. I like Michael's stuff. Good prints from a Chromira machine. Nice stuff. I still like my Sarah Moon prints better, all scratched and dark and blury.
The only film that I've used that blocks shadows is Velvia, but most chomes do that. Not sure about color gamut. I know digital can be more accurate than film, no doubt.
This why film is so alluring, it isn't perfect. Whereas digital or video [which is only moving digital] show things that look more like real life. I also dislike the bland perfectionisn of many digital images. The totally grain free image with weird skin highlights due to the awkward on/off transition you get with bright areas in digital, makes people look like shop dummies - not attractive. I always hated the look of video and when digital looks like that, I find it repulsive.
Having said that I cannot remember when I last used film. I have a stack left in fridge - will I ever use it, I doubt it somehow? Not unless I get a pain free film scanner.
I sometimes write actions/presets to try and make my shot look like films I liked, Tri-X in Acuspeed, Provia 100+ 400, Agfa 1000RS or like say lith prints.
-
Hobbsr, I'd like to ask you a question please first. Why?
Do you think that you need to have better pictures then your D3 and/or H3D can offer? I guess I'm saying does the D3 and H3D not offer amazing quality, even quality enough that in your talented hands and eye should blow away the competition? I'm not being a smarty pants by any means, I mean it. You mention that you want to upgrade to the D3x soon, again why?
The additional Megapixels will not give you any higher quality image, I can't see any advantage in the MP's helping in any larger size that you would need for print. To me, and I have a long history as a fiber optic engineer, Dynamic Range is EVERYTHING but yet, the D3x does not offer a difference in DR over the D3.
This of course is coming from a guy that just added a Mamiya AFD-III w/ a leaf 65s back to his existing D700. There, there is a HUGE DR delta whereas the Leaf is a full 11 stops of DR. I was once a gear junkie until I really studied my art and what I wanted. I too am think of going back to film by adding a 120 back to the Mamiya but that is for sport. And I don't feel that we will loose film during our lifetime however we will see less labs. I can tell you that I know A&I is commited to 120 that will last thru my lifetime so I'm just fine with that.
So, why?
Best of luck.
Tom
-
Hobbsr, I'd like to ask you a question please first. Why?
Do you think that you need to have better pictures then your D3 and/or H3D can offer? I guess I'm saying does the D3 and H3D not offer amazing quality, even quality enough that in your talented hands and eye should blow away the competition? I'm not being a smarty pants by any means, I mean it. You mention that you want to upgrade to the D3x soon, again why?
The additional Megapixels will not give you any higher quality image, I can't see any advantage in the MP's helping in any larger size that you would need for print. To me, and I have a long history as a fiber optic engineer, Dynamic Range is EVERYTHING but yet, the D3x does not offer a difference in DR over the D3.
This of course is coming from a guy that just added a Mamiya AFD-III w/ a leaf 65s back to his existing D700. There, there is a HUGE DR delta whereas the Leaf is a full 11 stops of DR. I was once a gear junkie until I really studied my art and what I wanted. I too am think of going back to film by adding a 120 back to the Mamiya but that is for sport. And I don't feel that we will loose film during our lifetime however we will see less labs. I can tell you that I know A&I is commited to 120 that will last thru my lifetime so I'm just fine with that.
So, why?
Best of luck.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your post and my name is Rodney. It is a very good question, why indeed! Let me see if I can explain?
Let me start by saying the D3 and the H3D provide amazing image quality and I fee are two of the best systems and have enabled my photography to go to another level, now with that said what is the issue that seems to be burning within to start threads and discussions like this? Maybe the best word is "soul" I think in the above posts there are some key aspects that is driving this investigation into film. Digital is too perfect, too clean, too good! Film with all its characteristics is not and that is why we feel different about the image and the print. Yes we can play around and try to make our digital files look like film but as some have said it is not the same and can never be the same. Digital is a different capture method with it's own characteristics and I am not saying they are bad or better or even worse they are different.
I see photography as a craft and a science and with digital maybe we have swung a little too much to the science with the many many discussions about technology. Also with the vast increase in consumer digital cameras the black box of photography has been blown open so the quest is to be different to do things that they can not, produce images they can not. In the wedding game these days it is not uncommon to have D700 and D3's next you and with the same lens so many of the images will be the same as mine. Now of course they can not see the same way as me and maybe the post work will increase the different but never the less more and more these days the camera will help them take a good image.
So I see the areas that we as photographers need to excel are in lighting and the type of images we create hence the reason to go back to film. This then also leads to the workflow changes and as mentioned above it means giving a part of my workflow back to the lab and this is a very valid a key point. It also seems to be about $AUD 35 for a 120 roll process and scanned to approx. 18mb files corrected. This is starting to be a bit of a ramble but there is alot to cover with how photography as a business and a craft stays valid for portrait and wedding market. I will be increasing my base package to $6k this year and to add value I need to produce very different and compelling services and end products I see this for me in images that feel and look different (hence the film) and being the only one at a wedding with a contax 645 or G2 or Rollei 6008? lastly the print and moving more and more to fine art prints that are signed signature prints.
The bottom line is as some few use film the advantage is to use it to be different the advantage is the emotion not so much the technical side. In the end people buy images and they do that because they move them and have an emotional effect not because they are sharp of shot on a D3x or P30. Weddings are not logical we sell for the emotion.
I hope that makes some sense? shooting with film and the systems I speak of is just trying to swing a little bit back to the craft and mystery that photography once was when photographers showed up with the Hasselblad and tripod. I have learnt many things from my IT background and consulting days and that is people do not pay for things that they feel are commodity, digital just like dell to PC's dell are aspects that make these elements more commodity so the price goes down and the value limited, photographers need to understand how to drive their value up instead of cost down. If people can not see the value then they will not buy and if they think what they shoot on there camera is the same as what you show them then it will not be around very much longer.
Regards
Rodney
-
You touch upon a thing here that is commonplace to every photographer in every area. It is a matter of perception of our clients. Some of our clients believe making/taking an image is simply a matter of buying some equipment and pushing a button. These types of clients nowadays will always feel our services are too expensive and better done by themselves or the next person that is willing to do it (almost) for free. I fear that moving to film will not win over these people.
Yes, it is true with digital the magic of the black box has disappeared for everyone including the people that used to pay for that.
I think that people that are willing to pay premium for wedding photography will do so regardless whether you shoot digital or film. These people appear to have diminished in numbers but I think the reality is that far more people actually didn't feel photography wasn't worth it in the first place. Now with digital the lid has been taken of the mistery of the 'black box' and people have other options. OTOH, the arrival of digital also meant a lot more demand for images ranging from low-end to high-end.
Having said that if it does make you feel good to use film and you feel that you deliver the best and most creative quality you should definitely do so. If you can also market that effictively as a unique selling point to your clients it would be perfect as well. OTOH if you can market that you can also do the same with your digital product
-
I hear this all the time from digital shooters who have abandoned film, sorry but IMO it is simply rubbish. The ugly way that ANY digital camera captures the transition of highlights in no way resembles film's characteristics. Try shooting a 30 second city nightscape with digital, even with clever double processing, it just looks ugly by comparison.
I'm with TMARK on this, give me a lovely Type 55 image over anything shot with the technically excellent P backs. As an example, this weekend i visited the Leibovitz retrospective in London, and for me the most compelling work was her polaroids printed large, her least compelling work was the recent digital shoot of the Queen.
I rarely shoot with film now but thinking about Kodak 160NC gives me the goosebumps.
Recently I've been seeing digital achieving more of a gentle feel with the tonalities, especially with my recent 5D MkII set on Saturation -3 and Contrast -3. The whites turned out much less harsh than my 1Ds MkII.
I think that part of the differences you see in the usage of film vs digital also is partly attributed to workflow. For most of my situations now I require the use of digital but shooting film makes your brain work in a different, slower way, plus the different sizing of film vs the standard 645 sizing of MFDBs creates a different experience of course.
-
Then you are indeed kidding yourself, if YOU can't see clipped highlights and abrupt transitions then i'm afraid the discussion ends here.
with film you always have a layer of fog-noise over the highlights caused by the process and the film base. you see it as better transition in real its a film problem.
i don't know what camera or back you use and how you expose and process your images but maybe there lies your problem.
-
You touch upon a thing here that is commonplace to every photographer in every area. It is a matter of perception of our clients. Some of our clients believe making/taking an image is simply a matter of buying some equipment and pushing a button. These types of clients nowadays will always feel our services are too expensive and better done by themselves or the next person that is willing to do it (almost) for free. I fear that moving to film will not win over these people.
Yes, it is true with digital the magic of the black box has disappeared for everyone including the people that used to pay for that.
I think that people that are willing to pay premium for wedding photography will do so regardless whether you shoot digital or film. These people appear to have diminished in numbers but I think the reality is that far more people actually didn't feel photography wasn't worth it in the first place. Now with digital the lid has been taken of the mistery of the 'black box' and people have other options. OTOH, the arrival of digital also meant a lot more demand for images ranging from low-end to high-end.
Having said that if it does make you feel good to use film and you feel that you deliver the best and most creative quality you should definitely do so. If you can also market that effictively as a unique selling point to your clients it would be perfect as well. OTOH if you can market that you can also do the same with your digital product
You make a good point about clients perception and by no means am i suggesting that film has some magic answers, nor that it is an attempt to convince people of the value of photography if they are not already convinced. I think the key as with any luxury items and brands is the perception of value that we create and in that as with handmade/luxury items is where the film angle could and can assist as a point of differentiation in the marketplace. As it does assist in giving a different potential feel and look to your images that makes you different on another level to what is being created by digital it also and I think this is a key point gives you a story to your value. My potential clients will understand the difference if you explain and show how the image is different, just as at the moment I can show the different in a MF H3D image oppose to a D3 image.
Rodney
-
Well Rodney, I understand a lot better now and what you discuss does make sense. I think it's a shame that you cannot put a 120/220 back on the H3D, at least I think you cannot. I know on the H1 I could swap out the digi back for a film back. But the H1 never got the love it deserved.
Well, this may be too easy just for me to say, but I've gotten great results when using Alien Skin's Film plugin. Have you tried that at all. I found their Tri-x 400, FujiFilm and Ilford to be remarkably bang on. But nothing, even film bodies, came close to my Hassey 500 c/m with tri-x or Ilford.
I'm also wondering if it is not only the Digi camera that is "too clean" but could it be the Digi lenses you are using? Would an adapter and an ol' Zeiss change? Just a thought.
Perhaps you won't get your answer until you get a hold of a MF film camera, sling it at your next wedding and shoot the same scene side by side, no matter the settings because they have to be different. Not only view the results side by side but review them both before and after scanning side by side and then you can judge the benefit v. the "time / hassel / investment" issue.
Best of luck.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your post and my name is Rodney. It is a very good question, why indeed! Let me see if I can explain?
Let me start by saying the D3 and the H3D provide amazing image quality and I fee are two of the best systems and have enabled my photography to go to another level, now with that said what is the issue that seems to be burning within to start threads and discussions like this? Maybe the best word is "soul" I think in the above posts there are some key aspects that is driving this investigation into film. Digital is too perfect, too clean, too good! Film with all its characteristics is not and that is why we feel different about the image and the print. Yes we can play around and try to make our digital files look like film but as some have said it is not the same and can never be the same. Digital is a different capture method with it's own characteristics and I am not saying they are bad or better or even worse they are different.
I see photography as a craft and a science and with digital maybe we have swung a little too much to the science with the many many discussions about technology. Also with the vast increase in consumer digital cameras the black box of photography has been blown open so the quest is to be different to do things that they can not, produce images they can not. In the wedding game these days it is not uncommon to have D700 and D3's next you and with the same lens so many of the images will be the same as mine. Now of course they can not see the same way as me and maybe the post work will increase the different but never the less more and more these days the camera will help them take a good image.
So I see the areas that we as photographers need to excel are in lighting and the type of images we create hence the reason to go back to film. This then also leads to the workflow changes and as mentioned above it means giving a part of my workflow back to the lab and this is a very valid a key point. It also seems to be about $AUD 35 for a 120 roll process and scanned to approx. 18mb files corrected. This is starting to be a bit of a ramble but there is alot to cover with how photography as a business and a craft stays valid for portrait and wedding market. I will be increasing my base package to $6k this year and to add value I need to produce very different and compelling services and end products I see this for me in images that feel and look different (hence the film) and being the only one at a wedding with a contax 645 or G2 or Rollei 6008? lastly the print and moving more and more to fine art prints that are signed signature prints.
The bottom line is as some few use film the advantage is to use it to be different the advantage is the emotion not so much the technical side. In the end people buy images and they do that because they move them and have an emotional effect not because they are sharp of shot on a D3x or P30. Weddings are not logical we sell for the emotion.
I hope that makes some sense? shooting with film and the systems I speak of is just trying to swing a little bit back to the craft and mystery that photography once was when photographers showed up with the Hasselblad and tripod. I have learnt many things from my IT background and consulting days and that is people do not pay for things that they feel are commodity, digital just like dell to PC's dell are aspects that make these elements more commodity so the price goes down and the value limited, photographers need to understand how to drive their value up instead of cost down. If people can not see the value then they will not buy and if they think what they shoot on there camera is the same as what you show them then it will not be around very much longer.
Regards
Rodney
-
You know, the only people that care about this stuff are photographers. Clients sure don't. The people who look at our work don't. The only thing that matters is if your images connect with the client emotionally. If you're shooting medium format at a wedding, you're missing so many shots. The client doesn't care if you capture 100 megapixels of the family shots. They just want a photo with everyone's eye's open and people smiling.
In the end people buy images and they do that because they move them and have an emotional effect not because they are sharp of shot on a D3x or P30. Weddings are not logical we sell for the emotion.
I agree. But then you say this:
shooting with film and the systems I speak of is just trying to swing a little bit back to the craft and mystery that photography once was when photographers showed up with the Hasselblad and tripod
Yeah, but those images sucked. Nobody wants those static wedding shots. They want images with life and fun - whether you're shooting with film or digital doesn't matter if the images don't have life to them. A boring shot is still a boring shot whether it's 6, 8, 12, 22, 60 megapixels, provia, velvia, tmax, tri-x, portra or even type 55 (may it rest in peace).
My potential clients will understand the difference if you explain and show how the image is different, just as at the moment I can show the different in a MF H3D image oppose to a D3 image.
No they won't. If you have to explain it, the battle is lost.
John
-
You know, the only people that care about this stuff are photographers. Clients sure don't. The people who look at our work don't. The only thing that matters is if your images connect with the client emotionally. If you're shooting medium format at a wedding, you're missing so many shots. The client doesn't care if you capture 100 megapixels of the family shots. They just want a photo with everyone's eye's open and people smiling.
I agree. But then you say this:
Yeah, but those images sucked. Nobody wants those static wedding shots. They want images with life and fun - whether you're shooting with film or digital doesn't matter if the images don't have life to them. A boring shot is still a boring shot whether it's 6, 8, 12, 22, 60 megapixels, provia, velvia, tmax, tri-x, portra or even type 55 (may it rest in peace).
No they won't. If you have to explain it, the battle is lost.
John
Hi John,
Thanks' you for your comments I just wanted to let you know by no means was I suggesting going back to those static shots! I think you misunderstood the point, I totally agree we need to create compelling images regardless of format. On your last point I think that it always helps that we use every opportunity to educate our clients.
Rodney
-
Hi All,
Does anybody here shot film? If so what are you shooting and what film types do you like the best?
Thanks again for all the comments
-
Hi All,
Does anybody here shot film? If so what are you shooting and what film types do you like the best?
Thanks again for all the comments
Hi! I just can´t stop loving film... For me, digital has not even come close to the natural feel of colours and contrast of a 120 roll fuji reala or kodak portra
even though I´m a king in Raw-processing and Photoshop.
Digital works.. but there´s no warm magic, it´s dead ice cold. *brrr*
And all this shit about digital almost or having the dynamic range of negative film?! Why is this lie spreading through the internet?!
I can never lift the shadows with my D3-files so that it´s starts looking like film.. I can get close, but only on iso 200 and alot of noise reduction.
People that don´t think that film has the same quality often don´t know how to expose negative-film or how to correctly scan a well exposed negative.
/Danne
-
Hi All,
Does anybody here shot film? If so what are you shooting and what film types do you like the best?
Thanks again for all the comments
Fuji color slides:-
Landscape - Fuji Velvia 50 ISO is MAGIC .
Other - Fuji Provia 100 + Provia 400, Provia 400 can be pused +1, +2 and I think also +3 per memory.
B&W negs:-
I am keen to try the famous Tri-X
-
Some people like to cook their food in an oven, some like using a microwave. It's all a matter of taste and the need for convenience.
-
some illustration...
(http://www.davidolivier.net/newsletter/img003.jpg)
the girls, my wife actually, shot with Olga, scanned with a crappy stuff, just for archive like contact... nothing to do at all with digital... but hell I like the mood of it.
(http://www.davidolivier.net/newsletter/julien005.jpg)
the guy, shot with Pentax 67 - 90mm - scanned with the same hardware...
-
with film you always have a layer of fog-noise over the highlights caused by the process and the film base. you see it as better transition in real its a film problem.
i don't know what camera or back you use and how you expose and process your images but maybe there lies your problem.
Canon 1DS3 processed in Capture 4.1, and before that Phase P20 in Capture, very carefully exposed.... not my problem i'm afraid, just a problem with digital. Jack Fleshers example for me shows the problem very well although i know Jack thinks it's not too bad, just i think it looks not too good.
-
Hi! I just can´t stop loving film... For me, digital has not even come close to the natural feel of colours and contrast of a 120 roll fuji reala or kodak portra
even though I´m a king in Raw-processing and Photoshop.
Digital works.. but there´s no warm magic, it´s dead ice cold. *brrr*
And all this shit about digital almost or having the dynamic range of negative film?! Why is this lie spreading through the internet?!
I can never lift the shadows with my D3-files so that it´s starts looking like film.. I can get close, but only on iso 200 and alot of noise reduction.
People that don´t think that film has the same quality often don´t know how to expose negative-film or how to correctly scan a well exposed negative.
/Danne
Agreed!
So much digital bullshit perpetuated on this site as well as many others. Give me my Pentax 67 with Portra 160NC/VC any day over ANY digital device.
-
Jack Fleshers example for me shows the problem very well although i know Jack thinks it's not too bad, just i think it looks not too good.
Might help us (or at least me) understand your view if you state specifically what you don't like in my image and where film would render it differently
Thanks in advance!
-
some illustration...
(http://www.davidolivier.net/newsletter/img003.jpg)
the girls, my wife actually, shot with Olga, scanned with a crappy stuff, just for archive like contact... nothing to do at all with digital... but hell I like the mood of it.
(http://www.davidolivier.net/newsletter/julien005.jpg)
the guy, shot with Pentax 67 - 90mm - scanned with the same hardware...
The shot of your wife is really fantastic. It has an energy and spontinaity to it, its almost a fleeting moment, like a snippet from a Joyce novel.
-
The shot of your wife is really fantastic. It has an energy and spontinaity to it, its almost a fleeting moment, like a snippet from a Joyce novel.
Thank you... I appreciate...
And your comments - "spontinaity" - make my point that I did not really expressed... that tool - Olga - far from any quality standard, just let you go, nothing to worry about, the "no-fancy" thing just free my mind...
Mood... and digits can't make it, no matter what...
d
-
I shot all these images in 4 hours in Jerusalem with Contax 645 and 35mm Distagon lens. Scanned with Nikon 9000. I resized from 50 mega pixels to 22-25 mega pixels.
This is a long exposure, about 1 minute on tripod, no flash fired. Kodak EPP ISO 100 Slide Film. Full frame, no crop.
It was very dark in the room. I mean really very dark, the light come only from a small door on the left. The man thought I shoot the window and seat still.
(http://forum.selldesk.com/forum/upload/images/Evgeny/jerusalem_july_2008/kopt05.jpg)
Here is another long exposure, approx 30 seconds on tripod. The light come from behind the camera. Full frame, no crop
(http://forum.selldesk.com/forum/upload/images/Evgeny/jerusalem_july_2008/jesus01.jpg)
I shot these two images outdoors. I cropped this image a bit
(http://forum.selldesk.com/forum/upload/images/Evgeny/jerusalem_july_2008/kopt01.jpg)
This is a crop from a big image to frame the man as I want to see it. So what, it looks great in my opinion
(http://forum.selldesk.com/forum/upload/images/Evgeny/jerusalem_july_2008/kopt03.jpg)
This is a Kodak black and whte film, and same camera and lens. I used a long exposure, approx 2-3 minutes
(http://forum.selldesk.com/forum/upload/images/Evgeny/jerusalem_july_2008/christ01.jpg)
Another long exposure
(http://forum.selldesk.com/forum/upload/images/Evgeny/jerusalem_july_2008/christ02.jpg)
So, film is not died, but I go another city to develop...
-
Hi All,
As I have been testing the Contax and the Rollei I thought I would add a few images, sorry the content is nothing that great! The first shot is from the Contax which I used for one roll during an engagement session, this was with the 80mm wide open on Portra 160NC. The other two images are from my RB67 on Provia 400F and were shot this morning handheld just for the fun of it and boy I am falling in love with 6x7......
These files are the proof scans from the lab.
-
some illustration...
(http://www.davidolivier.net/newsletter/img003.jpg)
the girls, my wife actually, shot with Olga, scanned with a crappy stuff, just for archive like contact... nothing to do at all with digital... but hell I like the mood of it.
the guy, shot with Pentax 67 - 90mm - scanned with the same hardware...
When I see these film to digital conversations they are never apples to apples, heck they're not even apples to oranges.
Somebody posts a grainy holga shot (which I like) or a nc100 hasselblad square image pushed two stops in the bright sunlight and says film has the look that digital doesn't. On the other hand the next thread will be about somebody comparing at 200% a Nikon D3, vs a D3x, vs, a P45, etc. saying nothing shows detail and smoothness like the (you can fill in the blanks here).
Basically we have two standards for image capture. With film we talk about romance, the "look" feel and texture that only film can deliver and with digital everyone compares detail, smoothness, lack of artifacts.
I've shot digital for a long time now and honestly the most film like looks I get from digital come from the smaller megapixel cameras, the original canon 1ds, the p21, Aptus 22, Leica M8 (processed in photoshop) because they weren't overly smooth and do have artifacts, especailly when pushed pass their standard low iso.
I don't have a lot of pixel conversations with clients anymore and actually when presenting to a new AD or client, the images they are positive are shot with film are the cameras I mentioned above, the images they are positive are digital are the 1ds3 and the p30+, because at their intended iso they are smoother, have less grit and though at 200% on a monitor may seem technically superior they lose some of the romance of the older digital cameras and probably film.
This image was shot with a 1ds1, used tungsten, screwed up the blue channels and shot on it's iso limit and to a client, they say, oh yea, that's film.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/1H/image/3lingeriebg449.jpg)
Now saying that if I shoot a cosmetic ad or an large in-store poster I'll probably shoot the highest megapixel camera I own, just because somewhere deep in my brain I get that thought of pixels do matter, but in reality I think the overly smooth, overly detailed look does lose some romance.
I do know that scene, lighting dependent that digital reacts differently than "some" films. An open lit room with a yellowed wood floor will kick up a monotone overly yellow look that much more noticeable than film, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.
It doesn't mean that digital can't look or mimick any film, it just means that with film we had a starting point that was preset by the film maker and with digital we have a roll your own look.
But with film we did accept things that we never would with digital. Noise( grain clumps) in shadows and blue skies were normal, even in larger formats, skin tones that changed color were also the norm, we just assumed that is the way film was so we let it go. We hold digital to a much higher standard than film and usually those standards have nothing to do with art of the photograph, just the technical details.
At some stage you just have to drop back and think, it really doesn't matter if I have 20 more mpx. or .7 of a stop more dr. It's just the final image that matters and overly detailed, overly smooth and sharp will get more comments of "oh it's digital", than something with texture, collapsed shadows and some blow out in the highlights.
It's funny when I shoot for myself, it's usually with cameras that don't have more than 18mpx (if that) though when it's commercial work, I shoot at the highest pixel count possible, though it's usually the personal work that gets us booked.
So film vs. digital. Except in a few instances I don't see a difference as long as I take the thought of more megapixels out of my head.
-
Nice think about those filmic 1Ds Classic cameras is that they can be had used for about $1400 these days, and new for under $2000!
-
Thanks James for your insights.
I think the process over the pass few weeks has really been a key learning process for me. I never really shot film professionally opting mainly to move with digital from the start, I did shoot film but just not for work. Over the past few weeks I have now shot test rolls on the Contax 645, Rollei 6008 and the Rb67 the end result is that I really enjoy shooting film!
It has made me slow down and think about the shot I want to create it also made me stop looking at the back of the camera and look in front of it!
The two main driving forces for me are firstly to add another element to different my services in the market, the second is to reduce and improve my workflow. I am lucky that most of the main labs locally are still running daily processing and seem even process, scam and proof in a day. The prices for these services are reasonable and so is the currently cost of 120 film and of course always have options to import from B&H in bulk.
From a system point of few, the best option to add film capability to my current kit is to go with the Contax 645 it simply a joy to use and the lens are great. I am also still curious about the Rollei and using 6x6 the big bonus was how much I enjoyed walking around with a RB67 and hand holding frames using Provia 400F the images look great!
So the bottom line is I still love my Hasselblad H3D 31 for MF digital, and D3's on the digital side and will look now to move my wedding collections and portrait towards film. So will need to redesign my collections and pricing to reflect my new approach and all we can do is watch this space I will let you know how it works. I see that there is a big future for film and hope that more of us can rediscover it.
Rodney
-
Thanks James for your insights.
I think the process over the pass few weeks has really been a key learning process for me. I never really shot film professionally opting mainly to move with digital from the start, I did shoot film but just not for work. Over the past few weeks I have now shot test rolls on the Contax 645, Rollei 6008 and the Rb67 the end result is that I really enjoy shooting film!
It has made me slow down and think about the shot I want to create it also made me stop looking at the back of the camera and look in front of it!
The two main driving forces for me are firstly to add another element to different my services in the market, the second is to reduce and improve my workflow. I am lucky that most of the main labs locally are still running daily processing and seem even process, scam and proof in a day. The prices for these services are reasonable and so is the currently cost of 120 film and of course always have options to import from B&H in bulk.
From a system point of few, the best option to add film capability to my current kit is to go with the Contax 645 it simply a joy to use and the lens are great. I am also still curious about the Rollei and using 6x6 the big bonus was how much I enjoyed walking around with a RB67 and hand holding frames using Provia 400F the images look great!
So the bottom line is I still love my Hasselblad H3D 31 for MF digital, and D3's on the digital side and will look now to move my wedding collections and portrait towards film. So will need to redesign my collections and pricing to reflect my new approach and all we can do is watch this space I will let you know how it works. I see that there is a big future for film and hope that more of us can rediscover it.
Rodney
I would love to get back to a film based or any type of workflow that was less hands off by me and more hands on by someone else, but in my world, it just won't happen. It's not just digital capture, it's digital post that has changed the way we work, that and client expectations.
For the last 4 years I don't think I have actually used one complete window scene that was not changed, modified, or replaced. I've rented $9,000 locations across from central park just for the view and we still change the window scene, because we can.
Same thing with cleaning up backgrounds, swapping heads, expressions, it's just part of the process and since photoshop the toothpaste is out of the tube I doubt if we can go back to saying here's the photograph, no retouching, no changing, just take it as is.
I just finished a project that is going to delivery this week. It probably has 10 rounds of retouching, some major some minor and once you get so deeply immersed in the post work I (and everyone) forgets about the format, the capture device and the camera. It's just find the right shot (usually multiple shots) composite and put it together for the desired effect.
I know photographers that swear by film and also shoot digital and 98% of the time I just can't tell the difference. They think they can and since it's their photograph I have to respect that, but overall I think someone that shoots a square hasselblad and nc100 would get the same exact effect if they taped the sensor of a p21 down to square, plopped it on a contax with a waste level finder and covered up the lcd.
I don't think there would be almost an difference in the final image, but once again they do, so there you have it.
In fact we all (myself included) keep asking for better lcd's or better 30" monitor tethering, but I personally believe the best lcd was the old imacon back that didn't show anythng but frame count and exposure.
I can hardly remember a time when clients actually assumed you had the shot rather than see it .4 seconds after the capture.
I do understand that overall with digital we have lost the big cameras. Someone stated a thread that said what is medium format and I assume at this stage in digital medium format is probably anything that is 20 to 30 megapixels, large format is anything 33 to 50 but once again since all the format sizes are smaller than 645 which is the smallest of the film days medium format, there really isn't that much of a difference whether you shoot a H series, a Contax or an RZ. The people that do will swear by them but after a dozen rounds of post production I doubt if there is any difference anyone can tell.
The most telling part of your comment was that "I really enjoy shooting film". That says it all and since 95% of the photograph is emotion I can respect that you feel that way.
I personally don't miss polaroid proofs on set, or waiting for film tests, but I do miss the lifestyle I had with film, vs. digital. With film polaroid was a nightmare expecially in changing light, or for that matter just be sure you had the shot with film meant we either overshot, or sweated bullets hoping we got it. Then there was that gut wrenching phone call that came from the lab about a leaky film back, or a roll that was pushed 2 stops instead of 1/2 a stop. Those things I do not miss.
Then again with film I actually went outside after a shoot, drove across Hollywood and had lunch waiting for the snips or the contact sheets. Now all of us hunker down in dark rooms and work 2.6 hours in post production for every hour shot.
So yes in a lot of ways I do understand film, but the world has changed and it's not changing back.
But show me the person that knows if this is film or digital capture and I'll show you someone who worries too much.
(http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictures/039rr_beauty.jpg)
-
What is interesting is that digital has given us true control over our images so that the final picture we had in mind when we hit that shutter release is the one which we will have at the end of the day. We could hand over everything to a tech or an assistant and not bother looking till we have the proofs in hand, but let's be honest, how many of us are at all ready to relinquish the processing stage completely? If we were then the labs would still be as strong as ever and we would all be sipping that coffee in a bar while we waited like in the old days. As such I think that for all the control digital has given us, the fact that we have decided that the control has to be overseen personally is the culprit for the end of the film lifestyle, we are to blame, not the medium. As a mentor of mine once said back in the infancy of digital when the 1Ds was taking the world by storm - if we were'nt all so anal retentive about having to have control at every stage of the process then we would be back shooting film! Digital has given more control, perhaps too much control, to the photographer - but only because that's the way we want it. Once you've had the control it's very hard to go back to relinquishing it to others again. Heck I used to manage a lab and when I went pro photographer I thought my pro lab was the bees knees, from a pro printers persepctive. Now I shudder to look at those photos, they are so 'default' compared to how even my proofs look today. I've taken control to achieve the look that I intended when I pulled that trigger. That is my fault though and no one elses..
-
As you might have guessed, I still use film.
Velvia and its cousins are very good, of course. I really miss the older Kodachrome and similar films, but whatcha goinna do? I find that TMax is a bit better than Tri-X for B/W though. It has a bit more grain to it, but it has exceptional dynamic range. Stupidly forgiving as well. Nothing that I've ever shot with color is as clean as this, except for maybe Velvia 50. And it's not even as good as black and while film gets by a long shot.
The Ilford Pan-F 50 is much better, though, and just as easy to find. I really think that medium format begs for black and white. And it's one area where the results are still noticeably better than anything digital. I have a photo from my sister's wedding shot on b/w 120 film (6x7 camera) that looks perfect. Timeless and amazing. She was baffled when I requested almost all black and white out of the photos - until she saw the prints in person.
-
One of the reasons that you will see a clear (or not see) difference between Most digital and film is that 'most' digital cameras have a anti-aliasing filter, which, without a single doubt, removes a great deal of detail of your shot and gives it this false sense of "clean and sharpness" that most can tell it's a digital image.
I say "most" digital bodies have the AA filter because a number of the medium format digital backs do not and they are wonderful if you can afford them and I say most people can tell that's it's a digital because those among us that are young have been "trained" to see nothing but digital as the Normal picture so it's what they know.
Also, I've seen someone here boo the Dynamic Range. It's not just a blind statement. The DR is just not there with most dSLR's today as it is with film and it has NOTHING to do with megapixels. Do a bit of homework on DR for different camera bodies and you will see a difference. But again, a number of the new med format digi backs have a DR of 12 and over and are simply stunning. Also, how do I define a Medium Format digital camera. Simple: Sensor Size as compared to 35mm Sensor size of a dSLR just as I would with film bodies. The new, larger Medium Format Backs have a much larger sensor size then 35mm dSLR's but are also used for Large Format view Cameras so the question really is: What is now Large Format?
One more note, the OP asked a ligit question, specifically asked for no wars, now to write comments in your responses that are clearly "war" driven and to have to curse in them is really showing your age not your ability to understand what your speaking of.
Thx
-
Heh. No "war" intended from me. Just that with a typical Bayer pattern's issues, and the fact that dedicated b&w digital backs are essentially unobtanium, black and white is one area that film still excels. Now, if you are talking color, then it's a whole other game as to which is better for a specific purpose.
And b&w film is a snap to develop and enlarge yourself. It can even end up being less costly this way than digital in some cases. So it's not *quite* dead yet...
-
Hi All,
Does anybody here shot film? If so what are you shooting and what film types do you like the best?
Thanks again for all the comments
I was deeply into film until I foolishly gave in to the digital propaganda and bought myself a Canon dSLR set up. Ok, it got the sort of pictures that my old Bronicas couldn't get (zoomy action shots, that sort of thing) but I realised that I had stopped taking pictures like this-
(http://www.justinseye.com/Glerid-Boats-1-web.jpg)
Even though I have upgraded to a Mamiya ZD I'm still underwhelmed, so I've just ordered in a load of new film and chemicals and am heading off back in time.
My favourite film is Ilford Pan F developed in LC10. See the above.
Justin.
-
in fact film is the real digital media it can not record an analog signal like a ccd. film is a raster image of black or color spots nothing more and very similar to an stochastic raster print.
in my view digital technology only reveals that a lot of photographers have no creativity or artistic vision this makes film attractive for them. some here may still be familiar with the zone system
and know how hard it was to control tonality and contrast if you had not been satisfied with the standard processing but this effort made the work of adams and other so special and not because they simply used film.
-
Some people like to cook their food in an oven, some like using a microwave. It's all a matter of taste and the need for convenience.
So slide film is like a microwave, you simply push button and collect results from lab, as opposed to the complex and time consuming digital workflow.
-
I was deeply into film until I foolishly gave in to the digital propaganda and bought myself a Canon dSLR set up. Ok, it got the sort of pictures that my old Bronicas couldn't get (zoomy action shots, that sort of thing) but I realised that I had stopped taking pictures like this-
(http://www.justinseye.com/Glerid-Boats-1-web.jpg)
I love the look of old cameras/film too.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3104/3205007964_88cf2d589d_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/3043622081_f170d6f889.jpg)
Taken on a Ricoh GX200!
-
justinr and jjj:
Just awesome photos guys. See, if that's was tried to be done on digital it would look too sharp, there's just something different, I can't explain it.
I love the look of old cameras/film too.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3104/3205007964_88cf2d589d_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/3043622081_f170d6f889.jpg)
Taken on a Ricoh GX200!
-
Just awesome photos guys. See, if that's was tried to be done on digital it would look too sharp, there's just something different, I can't explain it.
In response to showing the Cottage picture on another forum I was told it could all be reproduced in PS by doing this, tweaking that and shaking seven dead snakes heads over the printer on a night of the full moon. And I thought to myself, why the ***k bother when you can just pull the real thing out of the camera in the first place!
Justin.
-
In response to showing the Cottage picture on another forum I was told it could all be reproduced in PS by doing this, tweaking that and shaking seven dead snakes heads over the printer on a night of the full moon. And I thought to myself, why the ***k bother when you can just pull the real thing out of the camera in the first place!
Not if you've got the wrong speed film in camera or you want black and white and you are using colour. Or you miss shot whilst changing films or film snaps/fails to load or you forget to put it in, lab screws up... - had all those happen - I cannot take a shot without the card in my DSLR - very handy. Though cards failing are a digital issue.
I love the look of film, but I do not idealise it or forget the numerous drawbacks.
Most of the attributes of an image are due to composition, lighting and post processing - film or digital.
Besides with actions, plugins and presets it's a doddle to match film looks in the daytime and with no dead reptiles needed. Also you didn't just pull film out of camera and have a finished result, unless using polaroid. If shoting B+W it took even longer to get the result than using colour, if we are not counting time to travel to lab and back twice. I spent many an hour in a smelly darkroom getting the best out of an image. I can do it as well in a fraction of the time now and a second copy is no time or effort to produce unlike with film.
-
justinr and jjj:
Just awesome photos guys. See, if that's was tried to be done on digital it would look too sharp, there's just something different, I can't explain it.
Gotcha - mine were shot on a digital camera. A pocket one to boot. It even says so underneath shots. So
It's how you use the camera, not the camera that is important. And I wouldn't have got those shots with film as I normally only used colour in my pocket film camera [Olympus XA] and the top one is impossible with a pocket film camera as it is a very, very close focus shot and you wouldn't even be able to look through viewfinder either - I used LCD screen to compose. Impossible with a SLR film or digital, due to angle of shot. Second one probably not possible with film either, as it's a 24mm [equivalent] angle of view on a pocket camera.
A little tip - if you want less sharp shots, use a lower shuttter speed, even works with digital!
-
I agree with the poster who said what matters is an emotional connection...
and also I too agree that only (mostly) photographers even discuss film vs digi..
the advantages of digi over film are too many to list - especially for the working pro.
the advantages of film over digi are more apparent to the shooter who is a romantic nostalgic (for a few rolls)..or the person trying to sell the idea that silver prints and 'analogue' film make things more 'arty' and therefore worthwhile "collecting as art'..
most stuff you read on the internet is pretty self serving really - and you would have to expect that to be the case.
fortunately for anyone serious and concerned about their nostalgia or romantic episode..- it doesn't take much to get over the film fetish - no more than 10-20 rolls of TRX in my case anyway!
-
Not if you've got the wrong speed film in camera or you want black and white and you are using colour. Or you miss shot whilst changing films or film snaps/fails to load or you forget to put it in, lab screws up... - had all those happen - I cannot take a shot without the card in my DSLR - very handy. Though cards failing are a digital issue.
I love the look of film, but I do not idealise it or forget the numerous drawbacks.
Most of the attributes of an image are due to composition, lighting and post processing - film or digital.
Besides with actions, plugins and presets it's a doddle to match film looks in the daytime and with no dead reptiles needed. Also you didn't just pull film out of camera and have a finished result, unless using polaroid. If shoting B+W it took even longer to get the result than using colour, if we are not counting time to travel to lab and back twice. I spent many an hour in a smelly darkroom getting the best out of an image. I can do it as well in a fraction of the time now and a second copy is no time or effort to produce unlike with film.
It is all about your approach to the craft. If it's simply a question grabbing any sort of image then having some fun back on the PC with it then that's fine, enjoy yourself, but I don't see that as being the same thing at all as actually presenting visual evidence that you have experienced or interacted with a particular environment or situation and through a choice of film and camera settings have recorded that moment in a manner that you feel best expresses it. If you can only wonder at this then you'll probably never understand it. Messing about with plugins or presets is very superficial to my mind and as for the immediate gratification of an instant copy then that undermines the very essence of photography as being an art, for if I produce a series of mono prints in the darkroom then each will be an individual object in its own right, no two will be the same thank God. Digital is all about endless and accurate reproduction of an image that has been presented to the camera, it's what it does very well and does best, and why it's used so extensively, but that doesn't mean to say it's better than film, only different.
Actually I'm quite happy to see the world go digital for it leaves a greater space for those who appreciate a more considered method of portraying this world and its activities. As for having a proclivity for film it is nothing compared to the swivel eyed digital fetish that is so often on display. If you don't 'get' film then fair enough, but nobody makes themselves appear any superior by knocking it, for that too is incredibly self serving.
Justin. (using both digital and film)
-
It is all about your approach to the craft. If it's simply a question grabbing any sort of image then having some fun back on the PC with it then that's fine, enjoy yourself, but I don't see that as being the same thing at all as actually presenting visual evidence that you have experienced or interacted with a particular environment or situation and through a choice of film and camera settings have recorded that moment in a manner that you feel best expresses it
Whoah, that's rude, patronising, innacurate, pretentious and based on false assumptions! Nice one!
If you can only wonder at this then you'll probably never understand it.
And that's simply rude and patronising.
I used to spend time in the darkroom just like I now spent time in PS/LR. There's no fundamental difference in the basic process, you take an image captured by a camera and make the best job you can of it, except I can do a better job with a computer. I used to love darkroom work and was pretty good at it - I used to get asked who did my printing, when showing my folio around. Many photographers outsourced their B+W printing to specialist printers then. Despite that, after trying PS back in 94, I never went in a smelly darkroom again. My DeVere 504 currently gathers dust in a friend's warehouse.
Messing about with plugins or presets is very superficial to my mind...
I don't actually use plugins BTW, but would be tempted to do so if they improved my workflow, as presets/actions I've created already do. But doing so is no different at all from using a film, which fundamentally is only a preset and the developing process you then choose is the same as an action.
...and as for the immediate gratification of an instant copy then that undermines the very essence of photography as being an art,..
Wow it does, that'll come as a suprise to many. Not that has anything to do whether something is 'Art'.
.... for if I produce a series of mono prints in the darkroom then each will be an individual object in its own right, no two will be the same thank God.
I can also easily make each print slightly different when printing digitally, will that somehow make the prints better or more worthwhile? Besides doing mass reproductions of prints or paintings is pretty easy and was done for many years before digital existed.
Digital is all about endless and accurate reproduction of an image that has been presented to the camera....,
No it isn't. It's simply the modern method of capturing an image used by a huge variety of people.
....it's what it does very well and does best, and why it's used so extensively, but that doesn't mean to say it's better than film, only different.
If it's only different, why do you dismiss it so nastily and those who use it so rudely? Actually I would say it is better than film in most ways. Hence the fact that film is now rarely used by most photographers. The only drawback I've come across is the increased weight of digital kit and dependence on electricity.
Actually I'm quite happy to see the world go digital for it leaves a greater space for those who appreciate a more considered method of portraying this world and its activities. As for having a proclivity for film it is nothing compared to the swivel eyed digital fetish that is so often on display. If you don't 'get' film then fair enough, but nobody makes themselves appear any superior by knocking it, for that too is incredibly self serving.
Wow, how hypocritical is that paragraph?!?
BTW, I wasn't even knocking film, as I said how much I liked the look of film. But as I can do the same thing better with digital, I continue to leave my many rolls of unused film in the fridge.
The fact that a film fan thought my digital shots were done on film as they had that special undefinable film look, only underlines it's the photographer that makes the images not the equipment or medium. The considered approach is also down to the photographer, not the capture medium. And who's to say the slower photographer takes better pictures anyway. Plus if you compare a digital view camera versus a 35mm film camera, who's the more considered photographer then.
The only thing that matters is the final image, no-one bar photographers really cares how it was shot and on what equipment.
There's not much point me even using film anyway as most of the interesting films/developers I liked, vanished a while back, even before the digital revolution.
-
Couple of things here-
1. My reply was in general to a couple of postings.
2. I'm constantly surprised at just how touchy some people can be when their beloved digital is questioned. Far more so than film fans when their preferred medium comes under fire. Why so sensitive?
Justin.
-
Couple of things here-
1. My reply was in general to a couple of postings.
So, does that excuse rudeness then?
2. I'm constantly surprised at just how touchy some people can be when their beloved digital is questioned. Far more so than film fans when their preferred medium comes under fire. Why so sensitive?
I'm not being sensitive about digital Vs film. I simply found your silly comments rude, patronising and full of pretentious nonsense, they just happened to be about film. You were the one being so very defensive about film and so very dismissive about digital, whilst simply showing how little you know about photography in the process.
I notice you completely ignored all of the points I raised, such as the similarities regarding using a specific film and using presets for instance.
-
So, does that excuse rudeness then?
I'm not being sensitive about digital Vs film. I simply found your silly comments rude, patronising and full of pretentious nonsense, they just happened to be about film. You were the one being so very defensive about film and so very dismissive about digital, whilst simply showing how little you know about photography in the process.
I notice you completely ignored all of the points I raised, such as the similarities regarding using a specific film and using presets for instance.
JJJ - "Hear Hear" to everything you've said. I couldn't have said it better myself, partly because I was laughing so hard at the post you commented on. It was either that or cry.
But I'm very glad we can have everybody's opinion, even if I disagree with them.
Bill
-
I simply found your silly comments rude, patronising and full of pretentious nonsense, they just happened to be about film. You were the one being so very defensive about film and so very dismissive about digital, whilst simply showing how little you know about photography in the process.
As the man said, I couldn't put it better myself, for the sentiments expressed above apply just as much to your posting. but having used both digital and film on a pro and enthusiast basis and tried to explain why my love for film remains I see no reason to indulge you in a pointless argument. I've stated my case, if you don't like it, tough, I'm simply not bothered. Others may or may not agree with me, but I'm not particularly worried about that either, each to their own.
If you are offended and patronised by my remarks then it's best I leave you to nurse your sweet sensitivities. Oh BTW, when people, in any subject, fall back on the defence 'You don't know anything about........' what they are usually saying is 'I can't stand people disagreeing with me' I'd be careful about deploying that argument too often.
Justin.
-
As the man said...
whilst laughing at you if you note.
...I couldn't put it better myself, for the sentiments expressed above apply just as much to your posting.
Actually they don't as I didn't make the spurious claims you did. Just because I disagree with you or show your views to be flawed does not make me rude or patronising.
but having used both digital and film on a pro and enthusiast basis and tried to explain why my love for film remains I see no reason to indulge you in a pointless argument.
No it's not pointless, it's an interesting debate and I've also used film and digital on a pro + enthusiast basis. Plus if it's pointless, why have you posted in the thread? I don't mind if you love film, not a problem to me. But you seem to think film is inherently or morally superior for some bizarre reason. I just pointed out that actually there is no real difference in photography if you shoot digital or film. And some that the things you like about film have almost exact parallels in the digital workflow, but you demean the digital versions and you simply ignore these points.
I've stated my case, if you don't like it, tough, I'm simply not bothered. Others may or may not agree with me, but I'm not particularly worried about that either, each to their own.
So you prepared to state your opinion, but have no interest in another viewpoint. Nice! You must be a lovely to chat to down the pub!
If you are offended and patronised by my remarks then it's best I leave you to nurse your sweet sensitivities.
I'm not offended by your rudeness, I think you are funny. Doesn't mean you aren't being rude though.
Oh BTW, when people, in any subject, fall back on the defence 'You don't know anything about........' what they are usually saying is 'I can't stand people disagreeing with me' I'd be careful about deploying that argument too often.
Or alternatively they are simply being accurate because they do actually know what they are talking about. Your odd pronouncements only showed how little you knew/how pretentious you are with regard to photography, not how clever you are. Hence my saying how little you knew - it was based on the evidence you presented with your funny little claims that held water about as well as sugar colander.
Have you ever come across the concept of irony? You actually admit that you have no interest in other's opinions, yet say [erroneously] that I don't like people disagreeing with me. Doesn't bother me at all if people do, the world would be very boring if everyone agreed with me. I enjoy an intelligent debate, it can open one's mind and make you think about what you really know or understand and you learn stuff as a result. But you have to be openminded and willing to engage in a debate to do so.
Why won't you even debate the idea that using a specific film is no different from using a specific preset on your RAW files or a camera preset on your JPEGs? Particularly if it duplicates a specific film look.
-
Why won't you even debate the idea that using a specific film is no different from using a specific preset on your RAW files or a camera preset on your JPEGs? Particularly if it duplicates a specific film look.
Because I have a life, I suggest you get one too.
Justin.
-
Why won't you even debate the idea that using a specific film is no different from using a specific preset on your RAW files or a camera preset on your JPEGs? Particularly if it duplicates a specific film look.
Because I have a life, I suggest you get one too.
I have a life thanks. I also have a spine, I recommend you invest in one. Also handy for when using camera:lol:
The expression, 'all mouth no trousers' springs to mind.
Besides can you not see the contradiction of the fact you continue to post saying that you are too busy to debate, yet you still have time to be demeaning? Now, if you actually had such a life that was so full and more worthwhile, you wouldn't have time for that either.
-
I have a life thanks. I also have a spine, I recommend you invest in one. Also handy for when using camera:lol:
The expression, 'all mouth no trousers' springs to mind.
Besides can you not see the contradiction of the fact you continue to post saying that you are too busy to debate, yet you still have time to be demeaning? Now, if you actually had such a life that was so full and more worthwhile, you wouldn't have time for that either.
Whatever.
Justin.
-
jjj
Whilst you have been twittering aimlessly away tonight I have just developed 3 different speed films from 3 different cameras and here is the result from an 1930's Agfa using Ilford HP5 developed in LC29-
(http://www.justinseye.com/Kilfinane-Dec-08-wbsz.jpg)
Maybe not the most stunning of pictures and I doubt that I will do anything more with it, but I have only cropped it after being scanned, no other adjustments were necessary and just to complete the package I used an analogue meter when shooting.
I've rather enjoyed myself this evening.
Justin.
-
I've rather enjoyed myself this evening.
Justin.
You can go blind from that.
(This is what happens when I click the wrong forum.)
-
Hobbsr, why don't you just shut this thread down, it's useless and not reflecting of the (well most of) the LL peeps.
Thx
-
jjj
Whilst you have been twittering aimlessly away tonight I have just developed 3 different speed films from 3 different cameras and here is the result from an 1930's Agfa using Ilford HP5 developed in LC29-
-
Hobbsr, why don't you just shut this thread down, it's useless and not reflecting of the (well most of) the LL peeps.
Thx
But I thought you liked my 'film' photography?
-
Hobbsr, why don't you just shut this thread down, it's useless and not reflecting of the (well most of) the LL peeps.
Thx
I'd second that.
Justin.
-
I'd second that.
Justin.
Dalethorne was also a big fan of censoring alternative views, so are you Justin or are you Dale?
-
As mention above thanks for the insights but I think it is now a good time to shut this topic off.
-
jjj
I've rather enjoyed myself this evening.
Justin.
I think that is it for me to with film, pure enjoyment. Commercial I shoot digi, for fun its film. I don't care if I would have got the same with digi and Photoshop, I like the hands on feeling and thinking with film. I like the imposed limits of film, I like the clunky wind up equipment. I like heavy LF cameras and an upside down image, I like using old lenses, I like only being able to take a limited number before the film runs out.
Digital is like fishing with a hand grenade.
Kevin
-
Digital is like fishing with a hand grenade.
Kevin
[/quote]
Saves you having to fillet the fish, though (the grenade); with digi photography you have to do a hell of a lot more filleting...
Rob C
-
Digital is like fishing with a hand grenade.
Nonsense - with film you sometimes had to overshoot to make sure you got the shot. Often you can shoot less with digital as you know for sure you got the shot. Though there are plenty of talentless machine gun photographers around who did rubbish work with film as well.
I had an idea for a dance photo last year and did a few practice shots to work out timing, which were OK, but lacked something. I then added a second person, took one shot of the new set up and that was it, got it in one. Didn't bother shooting any more of that set up.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/2845517481_55f381c403_o.jpg)
As for spending time working on image - this is actually a JPEG straight out of camera with just a lampost in background removed in a few seconds- which would be much harder and time consuming to do with film.
Besides when doing dance photography it is very useful to be able to show the subject what they or I am doing 'wrong', to help fine tune the shot, again you end up taking less shots.
Also with some people you have to waste a bunch of shots to get them relaxed, some photogrpahers shot away with out film to get subject warmed up, potentialy missing a good shot, now you can shoot immediatley and not worry about warming up costs.