Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Justinr on August 30, 2016, 05:53:34 pm
-
I was never ecstatic about switching to digital, yes the world keeps turning and it had to happen but somehow I felt we were losing something, maybe it was the soul of photography for it was never quite the same with a digi, perhaps it just too easy or too perfect, I'm done with arguing over it. But the hankering lingered and so it was that I eschewed the electron and packed only my trusty old Pentax ESII and meter on this years trip to France. I had four rolls of film left over from 10 years ago so I just went with that and settled into the old habits and boy did it ever feel good! I wasn't worried about anything actually coming out, if I got some images then it was a bonus especially as the chemicals were of a similar age, yet the magic still worked and here are four I pulled out from what I have scanned so far -
-
Great stuff. I love digital photography. I don't buy for a second that anything is sacrificed in digital photography. The image is what we make of it. I believe things like "soul", "heart", "essence" and other such intangibles come from the photographer, not the gear.
And yet, I just bought another batch of chemicals after not processing my own film for 6 or 7 years. Why? Nostalgia is part of it. Also, I like the process. I also like my film cameras and hate to see them collecting dust. I've bought some TMax and some Ilford Pan F Plus and some Neopan Acros. Looking forward to messing around with film again.
Like you, I will probably be using film in low pressure situations. If I get a shot, great; if not, no big deal. I expect my success rate per shutter click to be quite low and the expense per keeper to be quite high. I doubt any keepers I get will rival any of my digital keepers. But I still like it. No justification required.
If I get results as good as yours I will be thrilled!
-
Great stuff. I love digital photography. I don't buy for a second that anything is sacrificed in digital photography. The image is what we make of it. I believe things like "soul", "heart", "essence" and other such intangibles come from the photographer, not the gear.
And yet, I just bought another batch of chemicals after not processing my own film for 6 or 7 years. Why? Nostalgia is part of it. Also, I like the process. I also like my film cameras and hate to see them collecting dust. I've bought some TMax and some Ilford Pan F Plus and some Neopan Acros. Looking forward to messing around with film again.
Like you, I will probably be using film in low pressure situations. If I get a shot, great; if not, no big deal. I expect my success rate per shutter click to be quite low and the expense per keeper to be quite high. I doubt any keepers I get will rival any of my digital keepers. But I still like it. No justification required.
If I get results as good as yours I will be thrilled!
Many thanks for the comments, it's appreciated and it's good to now that there are others who still value the approach that using film requires and the rewards it can bring. We are, I rather like to think, experiencing something of a new appreciation of film for I have heard whispering from various people in the media that it possesses qualities that digital does not, it's imperfections probably being a major one. Interestingly our daughter was working at a US summer camp where they teach photography to the youngsters and it's all done on film.
I rather feel that the percentage of keepers will rise considerably because less photos will be taken and more thought put into each one. I have another 14 of the band that I have placed in a gallery from about 25 taken, although I can't put the link up just yet.
I have added a few more from the trip. The group enjoying a picnic have chosen the top of the U-Boat pens at St Nazaire as the ideal spot and given its function and history of construction by forced/slave labour I'm not at all sure whether this should be considered bizzare or not.
-
I rather feel that the percentage of keepers will rise considerably because less photos will be taken and more thought put into each one.
This is only true when you have plenty of time. :)
-
I really like the 4th one from the first batch - the skateboarder. Nothing wrong with nostalgia. I switch between medium format film for contemplative landscapes and P&S digital for travel, vacations, get togethers and make slide shows for HDTV's. Both work and I enjoy both processes. Diversity is good.
-
This is only true when you have plenty of time. :)
Isn't that what holidays are about?
This was one of the reasons for switching back to film for the trip, I was going to have the time to start absorbing and reflecting rather than be under pressure to produce a result in a given time frame (as you pointed out earlier) which is where digital and its instant playback can be such an advantage.
The other reason being that I really couldn't be bothered to hump a digital and batteries and charger and spare cards and carrying case and lenses and so on about with me! One SLR with a 50mm lens, a meter (I confess, that bit was digital) and a few rolls of film fitted very nicely into a small carrying case and was a fraction of the weight and bulk I would normally carry around with me which is handy when you are on a bike.
-
I really like the 4th one from the first batch - the skateboarder. Nothing wrong with nostalgia. I switch between medium format film for contemplative landscapes and P&S digital for travel, vacations, get togethers and make slide shows for HDTV's. Both work and I enjoy both processes. Diversity is good.
Quite so, and stepping out of the box and looking back can so often refresh the interest and identify the ruts into which you might have fallen.
The skateboarder was taken inside the U-boat pens on Ilford 3200 which didn't cope with its age quite as well as the Kodak TX400. Looking at the rest of the roll it seemed to have lost its sensitivity over time.
-
Whatever rocks one's boat, as they say. I shot film for 20 years, slide film mostly. Thanks heavens for digital sensors, makes life a lot easier.
And I still enjoy photograph as much as I did with film. It helps that I have not changed my shooting habits; I still think before tripping the shutter.
-
Digital photography helped improve my skills far faster than film. You shoot more. You find out what you did right or wrong quickly. This leads to faster learning, in my case anyway.
In any case, my film and chemicals are supposed to show up today if the tropical storm does not delay things. I'll get my Nikon FA loaded with Pan F and my N80 loaded with TMax 400.
Now all I need is something to shoot and the time to do it.............the real commodity in my photographic life.
-
I was never ecstatic about switching to digital, yes the world keeps turning and it had to happen but somehow I felt we were losing something. . .
Yes. We lost a lot. We lost having to spend hours and hours and hours in a darkroom working with recalcitrant equipment. We lost our perpetual faint smell of developer and acetic acid. We lost waiting hours for prints to wash, and hours for prints to dry. We also lost that fun rinsing and cleanup job after a printing session.
The alternative was to turn our work over to a "shop," like the one I used in Vietnam and which I suspect was using Dektol on my Tri-X. You then could sort through the stack of prints, which included all your screwups.
We also lost the thrill of pushing Tri-X or Ilford HP4 to ASA 1600 (that was before ISO, which is the same thing but is now "international"), and watching the delicate detail in the lows disappear. With digital you don't have to "push" any longer, and therefore you can't demonstrate how advanced you are as a photographer.
It's a sorry world without all that, but somehow I'm finding I can stand it.
-
Here you go Russ.
I have to say I agree... but for some people, the constraints of film seem to inspire them in some way. Then again, they jump off the chemical train pretty soon: once the film is developed it's onto the scanner.
https://www.format.com/magazine/features/photography/film-photography-is-horrible
-
Hi,
I think that the chemical darkroom is a fascinating experience for young people who have grown up with digital photography.
For me, digital photography came as liberation and it really arrived once I have seen half a picture coming out an Epson Stylus Photo a friend has bought. I was not waiting for the other half, was already on the phone ordering my own Epson Stylus Photo EX.
Best regards
Erik
Yes. We lost a lot. We lost having to spend hours and hours and hours in a darkroom working with recalcitrant equipment. We lost our perpetual faint smell of developer and acetic acid. We lost waiting hours for prints to wash, and hours for prints to dry. We also lost that fun rinsing and cleanup job after a printing session.
The alternative was to turn our work over to a "shop," like the one I used in Vietnam and which I suspect was using Dektol on my Tri-X. You then could sort through the stack of prints, which included all your screwups.
We also lost the thrill of pushing Tri-X or Ilford HP4 to ASA 1600 (that was before ISO, which is the same thing but is now "international"), and watching the delicate detail in the lows disappear. With digital you don't have to "push" any longer, and therefore you can't demonstrate how advanced you are as a photographer.
It's a sorry world without all that, but somehow I'm finding I can stand it.
-
Yes. We lost a lot. We lost having to spend hours and hours and hours in a darkroom working with recalcitrant equipment. We lost our perpetual faint smell of developer and acetic acid. We lost waiting hours for prints to wash, and hours for prints to dry. We also lost that fun rinsing and cleanup job after a printing session.
The alternative was to turn our work over to a "shop," like the one I used in Vietnam and which I suspect was using Dektol on my Tri-X. You then could sort through the stack of prints, which included all your screwups.
We also lost the thrill of pushing Tri-X or Ilford HP4 to ASA 1600 (that was before ISO, which is the same thing but is now "international"), and watching the delicate detail in the lows disappear. With digital you don't have to "push" any longer, and therefore you can't demonstrate how advanced you are as a photographer.
It's a sorry world without all that, but somehow I'm finding I can stand it.
I think you may have mistaken my OP as advocating a return to film for all purposes, far from it. I see it as an art form, to me it expresses where digital represents, but that's just me and probably a few others. I have in front of me a magazine for which I write a regular column, in this issue it is headed by a photo of a John Deere that is far clearer, crisper and more colourful (richer) than anything I achieved with film and the process of obtaining and transmitting it to the editor was far simpler. Why would I want to change that?*
Sometimes though I do rather get the impression that the digi fanatics are terrified that film does actually contain qualities of expression that digital lacks and they'll queue up to make groundless accusations based on what they think is being said. Why so sensitive?
*It was one of these but only click on this link if you are either a John Deere fan or have absolutely nothing else to do! -
http://www.inkplusimages.com/JDslideshow/index.html
-
Re. printing: for me, getting my hands on a proper photo-quality printer (the same Epson Erik mentions) was a far bigger deal than getting my first electronic camera. With that printer and a relatively inexpensive Kodak film scanner I dove head-first into color processing & printing. The camera, along with its many successors, was and largely still is just a means of skipping the film developing & scanning stages.
I've mentioned before here that æsthetically, for me, nothing beats a well-exposed color transparency or b&w negative. So I do use film from time to time. But getting it from the camera into quantized form is a PITA I can only endure after mostly forgetting what the process is like. :)
-Dave-
-
Hi,
I think that the chemical darkroom is a fascinating experience for young people who have grown up with digital photography.
For me, digital photography came as liberation and it really arrived once I have seen half a picture coming out an Epson Stylus Photo a friend has bought. I was not waiting for the other half, was already on the phone ordering my own Epson Stylus Photo EX.
Best regards
Erik
Not just young people, I actually enjoy the process which as far as I can gather makes me a bit of a weirdo, but I'm cool with that.
-
Here you go Russ.
I have to say I agree... but for some people, the constraints of film seem to inspire them in some way. Then again, they jump off the chemical train pretty soon: once the film is developed it's onto the scanner.
https://www.format.com/magazine/features/photography/film-photography-is-horrible
The greater part of the difference between the two lies in the capture of the image by film. Sure, I scanned those negatives and they'd be different pictures altogether if I wet printed them, but the start of the journey had been made on a random crystalline structure not a strict array of pixels.
-
In the early days of digital (the 2.74 mpx Nikon D1) the random grain structure in film made it by far the superior method of capturing images. But now we have enough pixels that randomness makes little, if any, difference.
In spite of what I wrote earlier, Justin, I enjoyed working in my darkroom -- except for the necessary cleanup. I didn't even mind smelling like stop bath. But once we got past the D2X I became a 100% digital enthusiast. With the most recent equipment I have the ability to capture and print images I could only imagine capturing with film.
-
I learned photography the old school. Bought 15 meter film reels and filled my own cassettes, developed the film and printed in a darkroom.
Made all the mistakes there are to make and learned too little from them to become good at it.
But I think it provided a very good foundation that I still benefit from today while shooting digital.
The two thing that got me hooked on digital are immediate feedback (so immediate possibilities to correct a mistake) and consistency (even two back-to-back produced prints still looked slightly different after drying, I never managed to get two prints produced on different days to really look the same).
But you are right, neither digital nor film are better, they're just different media with different strength and weaknesses. I still run a film through my old cameras once in a while and develop them myself. But after that it's scanning and digital workflow to finish it off since I no longer have a darkroom and enlarger. I don't think I'll ever build my own darkroom again, it was a great experience but today I would probably find it too much work for too little benefit, even though seeing the print emerge in the developer is a unique experience.
-
In the early days of digital (the 2.74 mpx Nikon D1) the random grain structure in film made it by far the superior method of capturing images. But now we have enough pixels that randomness makes little, if any, difference.
In spite of what I wrote earlier, Justin, I enjoyed working in my darkroom -- except for the necessary cleanup. I didn't even mind smelling like stop bath. But once we got past the D2X I became a 100% digital enthusiast. With the most recent equipment I have the ability to capture and print images I could only imagine capturing with film.
It is the randomness which infers that quality of expression in my view, and this is the first I have heard of randomness granting film a superior ability to capture images I must admit.
Film lost the battle when Canon bought out their first 5m pixel camera according to BJP way back in 2004/5(?). I remember the comparison they did with the finest Fuji slide film of the time and regretfully declared digital the new master. To me the epiphany came when I saw up close the results from the Kodak 14N which were mind blowing at the time but precision is not always the sole criterion in judging an image.
-
Actually, serious digital started with the Casio 3000QV, in 2000. Here's a shot from my Casio in that year. The thing had 3.34 mpx, and it was enough unless you were after wall-sized photos. At the time it came out it was a revelation. It blew away everything else in the digital world. I do have a couple 16 x 20's from the Casio hanging on my walls. This is one of them. At this point film still could beat the pants off of digital. But if you were after color, film was a difficult operation unless you were satisfied with transparencies.
-
It's strange how much feeling gets projected into something that is only an intermediary stage. Unless you are viewing transparencies, no one actually sees the film; they see the final print, of course, which is true even with trannies most of the time.
I once bought into the idea that film slows you down, causing you to think more, but it isn't true. I understand that constraints often make one work harder to achieve one's goals, but really, it's one's individual approach that counts. I take longer to set up my 4x5, with lens choice! film holders and tripod, but I'm doing the same "looking" now when I hand hold my RX10iii. I just don't take the same " technical time" to make the photograph. There are PHD* options for those who "need" them or are unwilling to learn, but I can turn them off, too.
Where it really counts is the final print. I love the way I can process digital files into final prints, but also recognize that much of what I've learned came from my darkroom days. Can one be as good a printer without that darkroom experience? Definitely, yes, but I'm not sure I would be, given the temptation of all the push button options available in many consumer apps. Perhaps it's why I like Lightroom so much - there are very few PHD options. It works as well as you learn it.
*PHD = push here dummy
-
Actually, serious digital started with the Casio 3000QV, in 2000. Here's a shot from my Casio in that year. The thing had 3.34 mpx, and it was enough unless you were after wall-sized photos. At the time it came out it was a revelation. It blew away everything else in the digital world. I do have a couple 16 x 20's from the Casio hanging on my walls. This is one of them. At this point film still could beat the pants off of digital. But if you were after color, film was a difficult operation unless you were satisfied with transparencies.
Casio, now there's a blast from the past! We had one come free with a PC we bought about 17 or 18 years ago and was about 0.65mp, yet it would take a photo that would print reasonably well at postcard size but it never really grabbed our interest, it might still be tucked away in the loft somewhere although I doubt that it could be used without software from a similar era.
-
It's strange how much feeling gets projected into something that is only an intermediary stage. Unless you are viewing transparencies, no one actually sees the film; they see the final print, of course, which is true even with trannies most of the time.
I once bought into the idea that film slows you down, causing you to think more, but it isn't true. I understand that constraints often make one work harder to achieve one's goals, but really, it's one's individual approach that counts. I take longer to set up my 4x5, with lens choice! film holders and tripod, but I'm doing the same "looking" now when I hand hold my RX10iii. I just don't take the same " technical time" to make the photograph. There are PHD* options for those who "need" them or are unwilling to learn, but I can turn them off, too.
Where it really counts is the final print. I love the way I can process digital files into final prints, but also recognize that much of what I've learned came from my darkroom days. Can one be as good a printer without that darkroom experience? Definitely, yes, but I'm not sure I would be, given the temptation of all the push button options available in many consumer apps. Perhaps it's why I like Lightroom so much - there are very few PHD options. It works as well as you learn it.
*PHD = push here dummy
That will vary between individuals, I certainly took a lot more time planning and looking for shots when using film and people were a lot more patient because they appreciated the process. Not now with digital, it's all expected to be done and dusted in seconds.
-
That will vary between individuals, I certainly took a lot more time planning and looking for shots when using film and people were a lot more patient because they appreciated the process. Not now with digital, it's all expected to be done and dusted in seconds.
unquote Justin
I see a lot of posts stating this point but doesn't have to be that way? If someone has the patience to shoot film slowly then why don't they have the patience to shoot digital slowly? If you want to shoot digital slowly then get an old Canon G2 camera. Marketed about 11 years ago and a Raw image took 5 seconds to write to the card. That is slow?
-
Not now with digital, it's all expected to be done and dusted in seconds.
I think it more depends on your style and the subject you're shooting.
For instance I attended a week long landscape workshop and shot from a tripod with a cable release. I framed and composed the images carefully, checked exposure, waited for good light etc. which all take time and certainly no shots were done and dusted in seconds.
On the other hand, shooting a wedding with film in "the old days" required you to be quick, have multiple bodies around and keep snapping to make sure you caught all the right moments. So the taking of pictures was done in seconds, only development and printing took more time.
-
That will vary between individuals, I certainly took a lot more time planning and looking for shots when using film and people were a lot more patient because they appreciated the process. Not now with digital, it's all expected to be done and dusted in seconds.
unquote Justin
I see a lot of posts stating this point but doesn't have to be that way? If someone has the patience to shoot film slowly then why don't they have the patience to shoot digital slowly? If you want to shoot digital slowly then get an old Canon G2 camera. Marketed about 11 years ago and a Raw image took 5 seconds to write to the card. That is slow?
Not at all. For instance the picture of the cyclists above was in fact the Tour de France passing by, I had stumbled across it by accident and had plenty of time to plan a shot, over two hours in fact yet they took about ten seconds to pass! I got about five exposures of the actual race itself in that time.
I have noticed a big difference in wedding photography since the advent of digital, photos are so much part of everyday life nowadays that having them taken as part of the wedding day ritual is longer the big deal that it was and hanging around waiting for the photographer to do his stuff is just not as acceptable to guests as it once was, or maybe that's just Ireland.
-
I have noticed a big difference in wedding photography since the advent of digital, photos are so much part of everyday life nowadays that having them taken as part of the wedding day ritual is longer the big deal that it was and hanging around waiting for the photographer to do his stuff is just not as acceptable to guests as it once was, or maybe that's just Ireland.
Is that digital vs. film, or is it just that life in general became a lot faster. I recently watched some TV series from 25 years ago that I remembered to be good. Now I find them slow with too long discussions and crawling to the plot.
-
Is that digital vs. film, or is it just that life in general became a lot faster. I recently watched some TV series from 25 years ago that I remembered to be good. Now I find them slow with too long discussions and crawling to the plot.
Possibly you nailed the reason - perhaps it's also due to something else: today denies subtlety: in, do it, get the hell out. Maybe women could explain this better.
Rob C
-
Is that digital vs. film, or is it just that life in general became a lot faster. I recently watched some TV series from 25 years ago that I remembered to be good. Now I find them slow with too long discussions and crawling to the plot.
Well yes, everything is quicker and instant and is expected to be so. One can read books of a hundred years ago and note how the authors were grumbling about mankind's pressing need for instant gratification and how things had gone down hill since the good old days and so on. Everybody's idea of the golden era is the time before they lost track with progress it seems.
I caught a glimpse of a documentary on the box earlier, it was about the the lives of the Amazon dwellers and it appeared far from the simple idyllic existence that we might assume. The fellow who was telling us of life before the white man came explained how they often went without food for days, had to be always on the look out for snakes, needed to stay up all night to guard their women from other tribes and how a jaguar ate his grandmother! So when civilisation came a knocking it was a case of 'yes please, we'll have some of that' and now they have guns to shoot their dinner, medicines to cure their children and the means to ward off hungry felines and rapacious neighbours. I guess it's much the same primal spirit lurking within us all that pushes us to demand 50m pixels or more in our cameras, we are all seeking a better life.
-
I can shoot digitally as slow as I have the discipline to do so. If I'm relying on how fiddly the medium is to give me 'discipline' that is unlikely to give me the discipline in a way that matters. So sure, film can make you slow down, but that is no guarantee that it is going to make you take better pictures.
I also seem to recall some Nikon autowinder backs that would hold something like 100 feet of film. That was hardly for contemplative photography.
So I don't think we can blame the digital format for making us rush through the process. It allows you to shoot quickly but it hardly forces you to.
-
I can shoot digitally as slow as I have the discipline to do so. If I'm relying on how fiddly the medium is to give me 'discipline' that is unlikely to give me the discipline in a way that matters. So sure, film can make you slow down, but that is no guarantee that it is going to make you take better pictures.
I also seem to recall some Nikon autowinder backs that would hold something like 100 feet of film. That was hardly for contemplative photography.
So I don't think we can blame the digital format for making us rush through the process. It allows you to shoot quickly but it hardly forces you to.
Agreed!
-
Now this is a little OT but relates to what the OP talked about in the original post: time and pressure. He describes a vacation situation in which he had no pressure to produce anything and had time to shoot contemplatively.
For me having the time to shoot in an unpressured situation is the recipe for success. Unfortunately, for me, and probably a lot if us, this is a more costly commodity than equipment.
-
Contemplative shooting simply doesn't apply to the pinnacle of photographic art: street photography. On the other hand, contemplation for a fraction of a second may help.
-
I think the 100' roll autowinders were used almost exclusively for sports. I remember a ski photographer writing about shooting races: he would focus on the crest in front of him, or a few feet past it, then when he heard the skis he'd hit the button. With good timing he'd shoot about 10-15 frames per skier, the roll was good for 250 frames, so he kept a stack of them inside his jacket. Outside on cold days, the film would become brittle, and the air was so dry that there would be static build-up on the film causing sparking as it was whizzed through the camera...
-
Now this is a little OT but relates to what the OP talked about in the original post: time and pressure. He describes a vacation situation in which he had no pressure to produce anything and had time to shoot contemplatively.
For me having the time to shoot in an unpressured situation is the recipe for success. Unfortunately, for me, and probably a lot if us, this is a more costly commodity than equipment.
Most of my photography is done on a commercial basis as well which is why I decided to leave it all behind for a week and return to film just for the indulgence but I must admit I hadn't realised what a terrible crime I was committing in the eyes of the assembled digirazzi. I should imagine that 99.99% of image capture is done by digital nowadays and even if film use doubled tomorrow that would only bring it down to 99.98%! Oh well, so be it.
-
Now this is a little OT but relates to what the OP talked about in the original post: time and pressure. He describes a vacation situation in which he had no pressure to produce anything and had time to shoot contemplatively.
For me having the time to shoot in an unpressured situation is the recipe for success. Unfortunately, for me, and probably a lot if us, this is a more costly commodity than equipment.
I found I reacted in quite the opposite way. I couldn't do much of anything when left to my own schedule, which perhaps explains in part why, though I did supply stock to a key agency for years, I didn't really do that much from scratch, mostly using out-takes from assignments. I simply needed something to push my buttons and make me do it instead of think about doing it.
Blessed with a muse almost at the very start of my career, I remember well spendimg most of a day driving randomly around bits of Scotland looking for locations, and her telling me that I was bloody useless without an assignment, that she knew I had to have the pressure. She had me sussed. That's why we worked so well as a duo: she knew me better than I knew myself.
And age and retirement changed nothing: for as long as my wife was still alive after I packed up the business, I hardly touched a camera. We lotus-eat. It was her moving on to prepare our new pad in the sky that forced me to stop, think and take photography seriously again. Therapy. It works. I just hope you have better reasons for doing it than mine are right now. But, the inertia remains. On the plus side, I realised that if you once had it, you can't lose it: neither the bug not the ability. You can indeed just start all over again where you left off. No, I'm not talking about business: that's gone for ever.
Rob C
-
I've long noticed that Casio makes really good performing & often innovative products in the early stages of a new thing, whether that thing is electronic photography or music synthesizers or whatever. Then after awhile they seem to lose interest.
My first good digicam was a Canon G2, bought in early October 2001. Got it at B&H in New York and used it the next day to document a computer hardware (and the contents of a safe) recovery "mission" in World Trade 5. We had a police escort and a strict time limit. I used that camera a lot for a couple years along with my film gear. Then I bought a Canon 10D…
-Dave-
-
Casio make products that are too reliable. Next to my keyboard, I have a Casio scientific calculator (fx-39) purchased in 1978. I can date it by the endearments of my classmates ("Byrnes is a cock") and my school year scratched into the surface. It still works perfectly.
-
Casio make products that are too reliable. Next to my keyboard, I have a Casio scientific calculator (fx-39) purchased in 1978. I can date it by the endearments of my classmates ("Byrnes is a cock") and my school year scratched into the surface. It still works perfectly.
Casio, Two Way Power, SL-807LB
It was given to me by my late friend with the huge boats. I think it came to him as a freebie from Time magazine. He went to his massive marina in the sky at least fifteen years ago. It still works today although I tend to use the one in the smartphone more often. The problem with the Casio is that it becomes illegible under strip lighting.
Rob
-
A Casio CZ-1 was the first proper synthesizer I got my hands on (c. 1986). A deep, powerful instrument. Thoroughly digital. Then I discovered analog synthesis and that was that. Kinda like some younger folks today who've grown up with electronic cameras but have now taken up film. (Though this is a flawed analogy in that tech development has made newer analog synths less expensive to make than in the past and more reliable too. The Moog Werkstatt-01 sitting on my writing desk packs an impressive amount of the classic minimoog's sonic character into a tiny package and costs ~US$175. Film isn't keeping up in anything like the same way.)
-Dave-
-
I hadn't realised what a terrible crime I was committing in the eyes of the assembled digirazzi.
Just because some of us don't share your opinion of film does not mean that anyone accused you of a "terrible crime". No one accused you of anything really. I don't think anyone here is bothered in the slightest regarding your opinion on film.
And the "assembled digirazzi" as you have apparently labeled 99.9% of the photographic community are "assembled" to discuss a topic you posted in an open topic discussion forum. This might not have been the best place to post if you were only looking for responses that affirmed your opinion.
And again, I'm playing with film now too. Just got 8 rolls of B&W film, a new tank and $50 worth of chemicals. But I still don't buy into attempts to objectify the intangible benefits of film. It is what it is and what it is is pretty easy to quantify. If it has an emotional appeal for you (as it does for me too) that is great. But there is no reason to put anyone down ("digirazzi" sounds derogatory to me) for not sharing that emotional appeal.
-
Just because some of us don't share your opinion of film does not mean that anyone accused you of a "terrible crime". No one accused you of anything really. I don't think anyone here is bothered in the slightest regarding your opinion on film.
And the "assembled digirazzi" as you have apparently labeled 99.9% of the photographic community are "assembled" to discuss a topic you posted in an open topic discussion forum. This might not have been the best place to post if you were only looking for responses that affirmed your opinion.
And again, I'm playing with film now too. Just got 8 rolls of B&W film, a new tank and $50 worth of chemicals. But I still don't buy into attempts to objectify the intangible benefits of film. It is what it is and what it is is pretty easy to quantify. If it has an emotional appeal for you (as it does for me too) that is great. But there is no reason to put anyone down ("digirazzi" sounds derogatory to me) for not sharing that emotional appeal.
Maybe unlike moi you understand German; regardless, enjoy these creative moments with film. Man, what a face the young Penelope has!
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=peter+lindbergh+videos&view=detail&mid=057589A66B30A3BDF2DE057589A66B30A3BDF2DE&FORM=VIRE
Rob
-
None of that made any sense to me. But that's okay.
-
Maybe unlike moi you understand German; regardless, enjoy these creative moments with film. Man, what a face the young Penelope has!
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=peter+lindbergh+videos&view=detail&mid=057589A66B30A3BDF2DE057589A66B30A3BDF2DE&FORM=VIRE
Rob
An interesting film, Rob. Yes, I do understand German and enjoyed the video. That reminds me, I need to develop a few rolls of Tri-X. Hate the scanning! Dust is my major enemy.
-
An interesting film, Rob. Yes, I do understand German and enjoyed the video. That reminds me, I need to develop a few rolls of Tri-X. Hate the scanning! Dust is my major enemy.
Wonderful! I envy you that. It's the kind of situation that I feel interviews should embrace: less of the interviewer and lots more from the person being interviewed. For me, the interest lies in that person's thinking, far more than in the way he/she goes about achieving the images. There have been a couple of Sarah Moon spots where she embarks on her flow of consciousness thing, and it's where I find the gold: in her mind, not in her camera's brand, focal lengths etc. etc. as unique as those choices may be.
But that's hard to do: you need the person be willing to open up and have the time, from both sides, to devote to the term required to do it. So much more simple to cheat and just show a few 'popular' images from the files and repeat what everybody already knows.
Rob
-
Agree, although I was happy to learn about the relative risks of working with cheetahs and leopards.
Did I mention the woman I knew who had kept her boyfriend's pet leopard in her apartment in Paris while he was away? She took it for walks in the Bois de Boulogne on a leash. I suspect the leash was only symbolically useful, even if he was old and missing a few teeth.
Ah, the 70's... :)
-
Just because some of us don't share your opinion of film does not mean that anyone accused you of a "terrible crime". No one accused you of anything really. I don't think anyone here is bothered in the slightest regarding your opinion on film.
And the "assembled digirazzi" as you have apparently labeled 99.9% of the photographic community are "assembled" to discuss a topic you posted in an open topic discussion forum. This might not have been the best place to post if you were only looking for responses that affirmed your opinion.
And again, I'm playing with film now too. Just got 8 rolls of B&W film, a new tank and $50 worth of chemicals. But I still don't buy into attempts to objectify the intangible benefits of film. It is what it is and what it is is pretty easy to quantify. If it has an emotional appeal for you (as it does for me too) that is great. But there is no reason to put anyone down ("digirazzi" sounds derogatory to me) for not sharing that emotional appeal.
Whatever, you'll pardon me for agreeing totally and completely and slitting my belly open in the shame of having ever having thought up the word digirazzi, it's far less painful than going over the same old ground again and again and pointing out that I too do all my work on digital bar these few films and wouldn't change back for commercial work, which is 99% of what I do nowadays.
Goodbye cruel world!
-
It's strange how much feeling gets projected into something that is only an intermediary stage. Unless you are viewing transparencies, no one actually sees the film; they see the final print, of course, which is true even with trannies most of the time.
I've gotta say I feel sorry for anyone who's never had the pleasure of looking at Kodachrome trannies with a loupe on a light-table, or even with a cheapie illuminated magnifier box, and seeing the intense reds in photos of roses or geraniums or columbines or fire hydrants float 3D-style above the rest of the image. When I used Kodachrome, especially 64 & the later 200, I made a point of photographing just about anything red.
-Dave-
-
I've gotta say I feel sorry for anyone who's never had the pleasure of looking at Kodachrome trannies with a loupe on a light-table, or even with a cheapie illuminated magnifier box, and seeing the intense reds in photos of roses or geraniums or columbines or fire hydrants float 3D-style above the rest of the image. When I used Kodachrome, especially 64 & the later 200, I made a point of photographing just about anything red.
-Dave-
I hope this wasn't during that Senator Joe McC's time!
;-)
Rob
-
:) Kinda ironic that red is now the defacto color of the Pepsi-Cola Kid's party.
Judging by my dad's '50s Kodachromes the reds were even more saturated back then. Or maybe the world itself was more red then. My Aunt Anna, born in the late 19th century, insisted that the food she ate as a child was more innately flavorful than the stuff she was obliged to use as a senior citizen to keep my dad & me nourished. In particular she had a real beef with chicken. Maybe she was right…
In antiquity references to the color blue are few & far between. Things we'd describe as obviously blue, like the sky, are instead described as various shades of red or green.
In the TV show Fringe the alternate universe, where alternate versions of the show's main characters live (interactions between the two universes drive most of the show's best episodes), has a red tilt to it. The Green Arrow and Green Lantern comic book characters are Red, for example. (Also, the alt universe's USA has somewhat different borders to "ours" and the president on its $20 bill is Martin Luther King, Jr. In fact $20s are nicknamed "Juniors." And his predecessor in office, JFK, served two full terms. And Eric Stoltz played Marty McFly in Back To The Future while Ronald Reagan was Rick in Casablanca.)
Well, that was entirely on-topic!
-Dave-
-
There are a few more here that prompted the OP -
http://www.inkplusimages.com/uyjo/index.html
-
:) Kinda ironic that red is now the defacto color of the Pepsi-Cola Kid's party.
1. Judging by my dad's '50s Kodachromes the reds were even more saturated back then. Or maybe the world itself was more red then. My Aunt Anna, born in the late 19th century, insisted that the food she ate as a child was more innately flavorful than the stuff she was obliged to use as a senior citizen to keep my dad & me nourished. In particular she had a real beef with chicken. Maybe she was right…
2. In antiquity references to the color blue are few & far between. Things we'd describe as obviously blue, like the sky, are instead described as various shades of red or green.
In the TV show Fringe the alternate universe, where alternate versions of the show's main characters live (interactions between the two universes drive most of the show's best episodes), has a red tilt to it. The Green Arrow and Green Lantern comic book characters are Red, for example. (Also, the alt universe's USA has somewhat different borders to "ours" and the president on its $20 bill is Martin Luther King, Jr. In fact $20s are nicknamed "Juniors." And his predecessor in office, JFK, served two full terms. And Eric Stoltz played Marty McFly in Back To The Future while Ronald Reagan was Rick in Casablanca.)
3. Well, that was entirely on-topic!
-Dave-
Dave,
1. Aunt Anna was right: genetically modified food is unnatural - what else can you expect? It's also a product of the skills in cooking: since my wife's demise all my food prepared at home is third-grade: even buying the same brands of basic things like pasta results in less than okay meals because of the lack of the sense of making sauces. That's why I have given up trying to do that, and now make things my wife would have sorned. Or I eat out. Which is another sorry tale of how it was until the mid-80s and then changed - quite rapidly, with respect both to quality and pricing.
2. Blue was a very difficult - and expensive - colour for artists to find/make; the best reason for turning it unpopular.
3. I would expect no less from LuLa!
;-)
Rob C
-
Well, all food is genetically modified. You can do it via selective breeding, cross breeding or direct DNA-level tweaking…but modified is what you'll get regardless. Happens naturally too. Some pollen (or sperm) produced by a member of variety A gets into a member of variety B, et voilà: New variety C. It's the DNA-level stuff that makes many folks uneasy. Along with the sometimes arrogant attitude & behavior of some agribusiness megacorps.
The most intensely flavorful apples I've ever eaten have been recent varieties, the result of much intentional breeding effort over a long period. Lovely red color too!
I do suspect Anna was right about chicken. The intrinsic blandness is likely a by-product of what they're fed and how they've been bred (genetically modified) for mass "production." The meat makes a great platform for spice rubs & marinates, though. Take some paprika, cumin, cayenne pepper, salt and olive oil. Mix it all together and let your chicken breast or thigh soak in it for ~20 minutes per side. Then wipe the chicken dry and stir-fry/grill/bake/roast as desired.
:D
-Dave-
-
Well, all food is genetically modified. You can do it via selective breeding, cross breeding or direct DNA-level tweaking…but modified is what you'll get regardless. Happens naturally too. Some pollen (or sperm) produced by a member of variety A gets into a member of variety B, et voilà: New variety C. It's the DNA-level stuff that makes many folks uneasy. Along with the sometimes arrogant attitude & behavior of some agribusiness megacorps.
The most intensely flavorful apples I've ever eaten have been recent varieties, the result of much intentional breeding effort over a long period. Lovely red color too!
I do suspect Anna was right about chicken. The intrinsic blandness is likely a by-product of what they're fed and how they've been bred (genetically modified) for mass "production." The meat makes a great platform for spice rubs & marinates, though. Take some paprika, cumin, cayenne pepper, salt and olive oil. Mix it all together and let your chicken breast or thigh soak in it for ~20 minutes per side. Then wipe the chicken dry and stir-fry/grill/bake/roast as desired.
:D
-Dave-
The problem with GM crops is not that they are the result of an advanced breeding programme but that genes are introduced which are not naturally present in the species altered, a process that is unknown in nature. There are also concerns that the chemicals that crops are engineered to work in tandem with may have unknown health hazards and indeed Glyphosphate, which is the major herbicide concerned, has had further restrictions placed upon it and faces bans in some countries due to fears of it being carcinogenic. Interestingly Monsanto, makers of Glyphosphate, seem keen to be bought out by Bayer for $65 billion, it's big business alright.
-
About blue: http://www.sciencealert.com/humans-couldn-t-even-see-the-colour-blue-until-modern-times-research-suggests
About gene transfer: http://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-discover-how-genes-jump-between-species-1442512800
-
About blue: http://www.sciencealert.com/humans-couldn-t-even-see-the-colour-blue-until-modern-times-research-suggests
About gene transfer: http://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-discover-how-genes-jump-between-species-1442512800
Indeed you are right and I should have checked first (a warning bell had tingled) but it is as good a reason to be wary of GM as any -
Horizontal gene transfer is the primary reason for the spread of antibiotic resistance in bacteria [5][6][7][8][9] and plays an important role in the evolution of bacteria that can degrade novel compounds such as human-created pesticides[10] and in the evolution, maintenance, and transmission of virulence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
GM may well be doomed to failure anyway -
In the 1990s, when the first genetically modified crops-such as glyphosate-resistant corn, canola, soybean and cotton—were introduced,[155][156] no glyphosate-resistant weeds existed.[157] By 2014, glyphosate-resistant weeds dominated herbicide-resistant research. At that time, 23 glyphosate-resistant species were found in 18 countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
-
Single-source agents are always going to be outdone by evolution in the long term, which is why recommendations exist for crop rotations and varied applications during off-season (i.e. to kill off the weeds which are becoming resistant to the primary herbicide to stop them evolving and becoming dominant). It's just one part of an overall approach.
GM, per se, isn't a problem. Problems only arise when we try to provide a simple, single solution to a complex problem and are then surprised that it doesn't always work or doesn't continue to work without us having to adapt the solution. Again, evolution will master anything given time and the life cycle of some of these things is so short that evolution can happen very, very quickly - easily within a human generation and indeed often multiple times within that span.
Actually, I thought that the article about Blue was the more interesting of the two links I posted :-)
-
Single-source agents are always going to be outdone by evolution in the long term, which is why recommendations exist for crop rotations and varied applications during off-season (i.e. to kill off the weeds which are becoming resistant to the primary herbicide to stop them evolving and becoming dominant). It's just one part of an overall approach.
GM, per se, isn't a problem. Problems only arise when we try to provide a simple, single solution to a complex problem and are then surprised that it doesn't always work or doesn't continue to work without us having to adapt the solution. Again, evolution will master anything given time and the life cycle of some of these things is so short that evolution can happen very, very quickly - easily within a human generation and indeed often multiple times within that span.
Actually, I thought that the article about Blue was the more interesting of the two links I posted :-)
As a justification for GM that is pretty thin stuff, if the situation is that complex that we cannot ensure that it may be safely deployed without failures in the system or subsequent developments requiring further expense and risk then hadn't we better leave well alone? What you are saying is now that we are on the treadmill we are going to have to run ever faster to try and keep up. I appreciate that the vast majority of crops in America are GM but that is a problem that we as yet do not suffer and there are a large number of people who would wish to keep it that way which is why it is banned in most of Europe.
Some 19 member states had applied ahead of the deadline of 3 October to take advantage of rules introduced in April permitting individual member states and regions to ban cultivation of GM crops that have been judged by Europe’s regulators as posing no risk to human health or the environment.
Countries seizing the opportunity to opt out include Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Regions within member states have also joined the exodus, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the UK, and Wallonia in Belgium.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-european-union-votes-to-ban-growing-gm-crops/
-
I just love shooting film. I'm 55 and other than bringing my film to the drugstore like many of us did I never had any experience with the medium. Now, for the past 3 or 4 years I've been 100% film. I love processing both color and black and white on my Jobo, drum scanning on my ICG 365 and printing and making mats. I shoot everything from an Olympic stylus epic, medium format and 4x5. For me, this is what photography is about.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
-
I tend to stay out of GM discussions since they tend to devolve into political/ideological clashes. So I'll just note that the human species put itself on the path to confronting such stuff the day an ancestor of ours first discovered that covering a wound with leaves from certain plants reduced or eliminated infection. Pathogens and antibodies.
I'm also fascinated by the degree to which vision is a learned phenomenon. I cannot see the uniqueness of the "odd man out" green square in the sciencealert article. (I did see a TV doc awhile back, featuring the tribe mentioned in the article, on this subject.)
BTW, here's what happens (see attached pic) when you color balance the green squares image via any of the 11 identical squares. Notice how the odd one now shows up? 8)
-Dave-
-
So I'll just note that the human species put itself on the path to confronting such stuff the day an ancestor of ours first discovered that covering a wound with leaves from certain plants reduced or eliminated infection. Pathogens and antibodies.
We had a visit from the head of the Karolinska Microbiome Project last week. He was on the team that got to take samples from the that 5,500 year old hunter found frozen in the Austro-Italian alps. They found penicillin in his small intestine, "almost exactly Fleming's original strain".
-
Justin - it's true of any complex system, not just GM. The main problem is the GMO has been reduced to a few talking points on either side (mostly the negative side but by no means entirely) which makes the discussion, well, wrong :-)
The herbicide is but one of so many GMO improvements (if we restrict it to actual gene manipulation), but if we look at breeding, splicing, and other previous techniques, as well as evolution, then the examples are in the millions.
In a considered cycle of crop rotation and pest management, the GMO crops reduce the amount of herbicides needed. If people don't follow the recommended protocols, then resistance can develop and then you have evolved yourself out of an advantage. It's like over prescription of antibiotics or prescription of them for people who don't have a bacterial infection but just want "something" so the doctor gives it to them. The issue is far more known and aware now, but like anything, when you stop following the instructions, things can go wrong.
Perhaps the biggest irony in the whole debate is that "organic" (and, really, everything we eat is organic by definition - the term has been co-opted for marketing purposes) usually requires more pesticides and herbicides - they're just considered "natural" ones.
-
Justin - it's true of any complex system, not just GM. The main problem is the GMO has been reduced to a few talking points on either side (mostly the negative side but by no means entirely) which makes the discussion, well, wrong :-)
The herbicide is but one of so many GMO improvements (if we restrict it to actual gene manipulation), but if we look at breeding, splicing, and other previous techniques, as well as evolution, then the examples are in the millions.
In a considered cycle of crop rotation and pest management, the GMO crops reduce the amount of herbicides needed. If people don't follow the recommended protocols, then resistance can develop and then you have evolved yourself out of an advantage. It's like over prescription of antibiotics or prescription of them for people who don't have a bacterial infection but just want "something" so the doctor gives it to them. The issue is far more known and aware now, but like anything, when you stop following the instructions, things can go wrong.
Perhaps the biggest irony in the whole debate is that "organic" (and, really, everything we eat is organic by definition - the term has been co-opted for marketing purposes) usually requires more pesticides and herbicides - they're just considered "natural" ones.
And that is entirely the nub of the problem, you are trying to impose lab standard growing practices on a hugely diverse group of people and those people just happen to be entrusted with mankind's food supply and, to a great extent, the health of the environment. I think it rather disingenuous for the fans of GM to go blaming others for a situation that is of their own making, was completely foreseeable and arrived at through greed.
The term organic was not co-opted by marketing people except in the case that having lost the battle of public opinion over GM the supporters of the technique are now protesting they were always included under that umbrella anyway! I have seen this move elsewhere and have had rather bitter arguments with people who say they are all for organic farming and aren't GM crops just the ticket! A laughable stance to those who have been observing the situation for well over 30 years and recall that Organic farming is primarily about the health of the soil from which all else follows, indeed, even the much compromised Soil Association still has reservations about glyphosphate -
https://www.soilassociation.org/soilhealth/
There has been something of a shift in the battle twixt intensive farming and organic farming of late, outright confrontation has not worked for the chemical suppliers and so they appear to be creeping in via the back door. Sorry, but some of us are awake to that to.
I should point out that I am not against pesticide use per se, but the drive to make us entirely dependent upon chemical use and genetic engineering. The development of glyphosphate resistance weeds through its over use should be a warning as to how not to go about using chemicals that have been of benefit in the past and were a useful tool if used in moderation. Monsanto have completey fecked that up and are now busy trying to blame everyone else.
-
Well, since all this talk about GM food is boring (me) to the point of tears, I'll take a stab at changing the subject (back):
I developed a roll of Neopan Acros last night. First film I've developed in years. Results were not stellar but on the one hand I was a bit sloppy with the processing and on the other hand there were only a few keepers anyway. To be honest I was glad just to see an image on the film. I guessed at development times (Ilford DDX) and temps and have to say that the tonal range and contrast look pretty good.
I noticed when getting the water off the film that the emulsion layer of the Acros seemed sticky. Once dry it was not.
I've scanned them (tedious) on my old Nikon CoolScan IV ED using VueScan. I've done nothing in post yet but will play around with them tonight.
-
I was going through my small freezer of film last night, prompted in part by this thread, and rediscovered in a paper bag two exposed but undeveloped rolls of Kodachrome 200 from a trip to New York in March 2002. I'd exposed them at EI 400 'cuz I was interested in seeing how K200 responded when pushed. Then I found that Kodachrome push processing in the US had been discontinued. Oops. So I put the film in my freezer and forgot about it.
I shot both rolls in the World Financial Center area, including pics of the then damaged (9/11) Winter Garden. Also took pics inside one of the abandoned (though long since reinhabited) WFC buildings. I remember being amazed it was open…'twas a dusty mess inside. I used a Contax IIa rangefinder with a Zeiss Opton 35/2.8 Biogon lens. By the time of my next NYC visit, the following October, the Winter Garden had been rebuilt good as new and was hosting chamber music concerts along with a festive Halloween party.
I really should develop the film as b&w and see what I can make of it!
-Dave-
-
I know you can run Ekta through C41 and get sort of usable negatives... only did it once, pushing 200 to 1600. Is that also possible for K200, or is B&W the only option?
-
Graham, with Kodachrome the color dyes were
adding added during development. Technically it was a multi-layer monochrome film! I know it can be processed as b&w but I need to look into whether the resulting image quality would be worth the effort.
-Dave-
-
One of the appeals of film is that it may not have the crisp clarity that we expect from digital nowadays as I think I have mentioned, yet I came across these today, they were taken about 105 years ago and are wonderfully clear and 'neat'. Would this be just down to a LF camera? I'm thinking it would have to be a damn fine lens to.
http://motorplogar.webnode.se/tillverkare/soverksplogen/