Jump to content

Fstoppers article on shooting film


plasticman

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thought I'd take a break from all the usual film negativity on this film forum, and mention this article - which I thought was a good read.

 

(Haven't seen it posted anywhere else here - forgive me if this is a re-post).

 

As a postscript - for all the people who think it's okay to bang on endlessly about how film is finally dead blablablah - one of the comments after the article is interesting: "I have always wanted to try film but I thought they were in the process of no longer manufacturing film."

Edited by plasticman
  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of us who grew up on film are still 'contemplative' and 'conscientious' when also using digital (at least I know I am; my technique and style hasn't changed but that does come from using film.) Digital hasn't made a difference in that respect. So I think that all the talk about 'slowing down' and 'understanding light' or 'better composition' etc., comes primarily from those who grew up on digital devices and are just now using film. They're discovering all those things that film users already learned.

 

But that's not at all to belittle what they are saying. I think it's great that people are discovering film and are now becoming more thoughtful about what they are doing (and questioning why they are even making images in the first place.) If it takes using film to be more conscious about their actions, then that might also help make contemporary digital photography a better place, too. And if they are also discovering the aesthetics of film and the differences between film capture and electronic capture then that's also all good.

 

But one thing that they did point out is something that has bothered me personally about a trend that has become much more apparent with digital photography. And that is what's expressed in #8: "Between sharpness and a better photograph."

 

Here's what the author says: "I love sharp digital images, don’t get me wrong, but I firmly believe our ongoing obsession with it is causing us to overlook our connection to the image. I mean, who doesn't love poring over lens charts? Over sharpened, perfect images are like digital razors to my eyeballs. Imperfection is beautiful. Sharpness doesn’t make a good image, it can make a good image better (if used tactfully) but focusing on just getting something sharp can make an image lifeless and boring. I love the emotion of motion blur, and grain in film, it gives us something organic that connects us to the images we see. We're humans, not robots, and some of the images I see could easily have come from the brain of an awesomely-cool-looking-yet-emotionally-barren android photographer."

 

I think this is an issue we need to consider (re-consider?) with current digital image making. The fetishism for high resolution is creating an odd desire for the real. It's now even beyond the real and has become a kind of visual hyperreality. In the 'days of film' we chose a format for a specific subject matter. Large sheet film was used to get 'sharpness' and detail for very large prints. Grand landscapes were best depicted by using fine grained sheet film. Small format fast 35mm film was used for 'decisive moments' (and what's now unfortunately called 'street photography.') The grain and the characteristics of small film was part of the image itself. There's a characteristic to these sorts of images that are part of the image's interpretation. To be sure, photographers have always defined characteristics like high resolution; we used different emulsions and developers, and we sought out good lenses, etc.. But the interpretation that comes from the hyperreal digital look is more akin to some sort of cloning perfection or something. It too often borders on the bizarre; it's beyond the real.

 

Today there seems to be this odd desire for the hyperreal as if an author's interpretation of the real no longer exists via the choice of materials (aside from employing high resolution and 'sharpness.') And unfortunately that high resolution and sharpness is being applied indiscriminately to all subject matter. When I look at some of contemporary photography these days, I find myself missing the unique and interpretive look of 1950s-60s-70s 'Leica' photography. It seemed so much richer (or maybe part of it is that there aren't any really unique photographers with a fresh vision these days; there's a lot of repeat imagery out there. And/or perhaps because digital might create a sort of mindless snapping as the author of the article implies?)

 

Of course what I'm saying doesn't apply to all photography and photographers out there (e.g., Susan Meiselas has been using a DSLR lately and her work is as conscientious as it's ever been.) But there certainly does seem to be a trend (especially among hobbyists) towards a fetishism of the surface of the image while the content and context of the image too often takes a back seat. However, I think (hope) that eventually this obsession with the technology itself will go away (we're kind of reaching a 'saturation' point already.) But one of the 'problems' with digital is that people are still in such awe over the equipment and technology itself (and feel that the latest and greatest device will somehow 'renew' their view of the world and their image making.) And that's also why I think a lot of people who grew up on digital are now looking to film. They seem to be getting tired of the never ending introductions of so-called 'new' cameras (more like minor tweaks of already existing technology) and the emphasis on the technology. And it appears that using film is helping to relieve that.

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with one exception. Back in film only days there were always new films introduced to give you better different looks. The rush was to make better color faster. The race was higher ISO. And the cameras kept changing with internal meters then auto metering then auto focus. So it wasn't a world standing still waiting for digital. The game to sell improvements was always afoot.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Daguerreotype to wet plate to actate. Photography is a medium in constant motion. Just as oil painters (for the most part) no longer mix their own pigments on a regular basis, the medium of photography is changing. As format size continued to shrink until 24X36 was the standard, changing to digital will not change how someone views the scene in front of them but will alter the number of images produced. I once told another member the format you are using will dictate the style of photography. I love film and am almost exclusively a film shooter but I also see the immediacy and freedom digital provides. To know instantly how the image will look, combined with the ability to not only correct it but to also be able to manipulate it to fit your vision is something only dreamed about a short time ago. Professionals on a short timeline would rue the return to film. Altering not only the ability to provide images in an instant but the creative changes allowed in post processing. I belive we are in a golden age for photography. Where as many film enthusiast decry the loss of our beloved emulations, for every film lost there is a product we have been lusting for. Leica designed the MP with the thought 35mm film would be available for another century. There are photographers out there still dedicated to wet plate images so the idea of film disappearing tomorrow is probably not going to happen. Just because you can to capture a large number of images in a short time doesn't detract from the ability to take your time and preview the image. I love fim for its' enduring nature and knowing how ever many changes in operating systems I will still be able to produce an image. However; I do admire the digital shooters for the flexibility of the format. Just stop chimping after every shot.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Exceptional reply by CalArts.

 

Agreed that the fetishization of sharpness in the digital age seems to have evolved into a communal delusion. It manifests itself, among other ways, as an obsession with tac sharp optics. This simply wasn't an issue in the film age. A good lens was a good lens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wasn't that more a case that the vast majority that wanted to make large prints just used medium or large format cameras so the obsession with getting the most from 35mm format lenses just wasn't there.

 

Sharpness is less an issue to my mind than tonality in colour photography. It seems to me that far too much digital photography these days compresses the range of tones available into a sort of middle ground where the sky, a nice sunset, the foreground and any subject are all fairly close to a middle tone that is completely unrealistic. Its just how we get used to seeing things as a result of the nature of the capture medium I guess. If one has a recent digital camera with 14 stops of dynamic range its natural to pull the shadows and show all the detail down there for no other reason than you can. Does it make for a nicer image?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that more a case that the vast majority that wanted to make large prints just used medium or large format cameras so the obsession with getting the most from 35mm format lenses just wasn't there.

 

True for the majority, but obsession knew no lows, at least during my lifetime. People shooting 35mm from tripods on tech-pan film with the reputed best lenses on camera and enlarger, going through tonal hell. One bloke even used Leica 35mm single-frame film holders. For nothing good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that more a case that the vast majority that wanted to make large prints just used medium or large format cameras so the obsession with getting the most from 35mm format lenses just wasn't there.

 

Not really.

 

True if your style needed large format you would use large format, if it was an increased tonal range and detail sharpness you wanted. But it most certainly wasn't about print size, many famous large format photographs are small, some are contact prints. And yes, some are large. But people accepted and understood the aesthetic differences between 35mm and large format, and print size was less to do with showing off what we now call 'print quality' as making an aesthetic statement. A large 35mm print that breaks down into limited tonal range and big grain was not judged on 'my camera is better than yours because I have more resolution', it was judged on an equal basis to any large format picture. I mean, people still had/ have preferences, but nobody would sneer at a large Robert Frank picture just because it had grain, it was soft, the horizon was crooked and he'd written on the border.

 

Steve

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Plasticman for your post and your link :)

 

Here people come to their senses, because by seeing the "synthetic" images, with "lines" and smooth "edges" as

"cut with a scalpel surgery",images "flat", images "without consistency",colors "not faithful" (yes,yes,especially after

unlimited post-processing ),by "inflation" of pictures (shoot without counting)

that's how I became "allergic" to digital images and I move away more and more of my digital M. We physicians,

that's what we tell to our patients "ouster of the cause of the allergy " !

This is how I "prescribed" to myself a second M7 (instead of a M240) sensorless and no dust, no scratches,or no

cracks sensor with problems "out of stock" that gives me additional stress :mad: .

 

Gentlemen , you know what you have to do, after 5 years of digital, I return to film, follow me :)

a link that will please you :

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread.html

film grain is inimitable

 

Yes just one thing that I attach to digital, it's the practical side, we obtain immediately the image .... as on your iPhone :)

 

Best regards to all of you

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For nothing good.

 

Nothing good but the enjoyment of his obsession. For the "greater good", maybe not, but...

 

I've always seen photography as a loner's endeavor. Apparently a snob, I sniff at the stadium boxes full of identical lenses, taking identical images. Whatever, let them earn their living, I won't deny them that. At the least 20x24s off Tech-Pan was a good test of your darkroom's cleanliness, and if you wanted to rebel there was always 2475 Recording Film. Actual photography no longer drives the photography industry. I thought everyone had figured that out by now.

 

s-a

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly I did enjoy the read . Next, for myself I do so enjoy my film equipment. The bulk being film, I own only one digital, a small Fujifilm 12.2 gig job that is palm size. Having a goodly supply of color and black&white living in a freezer there seems to be no reason to take an expensive trip down the digital highway.That said, if a leica should "happen" to appear on my doorstep I promise I'll not complain. This shutterbug is not a either/or kind of guy believing we all need to be civil towards others while using the kind of camera that we personally enjoy. What ever that may be. Have fun your way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes, all this point could in principle be achieved with a digital camera as well, as well it is in principle possible to write a well-structured programme in C (most won't, though).

 

Thanks for the link, a good summary of some points I experienced myself.

I especially agree on #9, that post processiong is reduced from 30 mins to 30 seconds (or a minute in my case).

 

I also like the summary that both worlds have their merits, when I bought a D70 in 2004, someone, who wouldn't say this out of courtesy commented on my pictures getting better. I attribute this to the higer "mileage" possible with the new medium. For beginners, I recommend to start digital (most do with their phones anyhow) to get this mileage. Myself, I'm mainly on film now.

 

Kodak can discontinue whatever they want, I will always find a way to make whatever is available then look the way I want it to look. :p

 

Stefan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a 'photographic sloth', possibly even an 'emotionally-barren android photographer', so can someone who is neither of those things please explain why the motives expounded in the article cannot be applied to digital?

 

I am currently looking at a 6x9 CMS negative on the lightbox and a 16-bit tiff from my new D810 on the monitor. I don't recall any howling discomfort from the stretching of limbs and growing of teeth and claws when I picked up the Nikon.

 

He's just another one who's discovered there's a world of photography beyond pre-sets and plug-ins. He just needs to understand there doesn't have to be an 'either/or'.

 

No bad thing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I'd take a break from all the usual film negativity on this film forum

 

Been to APUG lately?

 

It's horrible, the useful threads on tech advice move at a snail's pace and the industry threads get hammered by the same 4-6 people racking up page after page of doom and gloom. And yet, the site's owner seems to think it is driving people to the site rather than what is actually happening, it's driving away key people like photo educators who wanted to send students to it for a reference.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Been to APUG lately?

 

APUG is indeed in some sort of dark ages, temporary, I trust. I used to hang there a lot and I still think it is one of, if not the premier sources of analog experience re developers, films, etc. About the discourse situation I am out of date so I'll keep my trap shut. Of course, Plato tried to show us with The Symposium that forums should be conducted in the flesh, at a pub, but they're not these days. Today the Internet makes for a beautiful muse but a dishonest one.

 

s-a

Link to post
Share on other sites

(...) Today the Internet makes for a beautiful muse but a dishonest one. (...)

 

Nice way of putting it. Probably not one of the best source of information for solid data.

We can always move to Barnack's Bar, though...

 

Stefan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...