The photographers who refuse to abandon traditional film cameras

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The photographers who refuse to abandon traditional film cameras

 

Something for Alan to chew on. Interesting snippet: "Edgar England, a manager at London's West End Cameras, which specialises in film and film developing, says that a decade ago a pallet of hundreds of rolls of film might take six weeks to sell out. Now it only takes a few days."

[Doc Henry]

Hi Ian,  thanks for the link

 

Today , I bought 20 rolls of Kodak Portra 400 and 20 rolls of Kodak TX400.

(it's cheaper if you buy a lot).
The last time 6 months ago the same thing, it was ilford HP5 and KP 160 and 400.

The film dealer where I go to buy regularly my films told me that Kodak Portra he sells lots.
My 2 digital M still remained in their bag past 6 months and what a pleasure to frame and take

a photo with the M7 and my new MP.

... and what tranquility of not having dust or scratches on the sensor ...and on the photo

 

No more images corrected in front of his computer , no more colors not faithful, no more inflations

triggers , no more impotence with digital and photo software dependence , no more images with edges

and lines cut with "surgical scalpel".

 

I want a real true picture that I see.

 

Best

Henry

Edited April 18, 2015 by Doc Henry

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[KM-25]

Hi Ian,  thanks for the link

 

Today , I bought 20 rolls of Kodak Portra 400 and 20 rolls of Kodak TX400.

(it's cheaper if you buy a lot).

The last time 6 months ago the same thing, it was ilford HP5 and KP 160 and 400.

The film dealer where I go to buy regularly my films told me that Kodak Portra he sells lots.

My 2 digital M still remained in their bag past 6 months and what a pleasure to frame and take

a photo with the M7 and my new MP.

... and what tranquility of not having dust or scratches on the sensor ...and on the photo

 

No more images corrected in front of his computer , no more colors not faithful, no more inflations

triggers , no more impotence with digital and photo software dependence , no more images with edges

and lines cut with "surgical scalpel".

 

I want a real true picture that I see.

 

Best

Henry

 

Life is full of journeys, wondrous and tumultuous. But none instill the warmth and comfort of knowing that you have taken a journey home.

 

Film is home.

[gberger]

I began my 35mm film adventure in the vert early  1940s, when Kodachrome was ASA 12. I started photographing with transparency filf - - -  and I'm still doing it.   To me, the "post-processing" stuff ends when I press the shutter release.  (Or maybe when I spread the slides on a light table and cull. 

I've has key photos printed as color, then mounted; however, for me, the projected slide reminds me of what I wanted to photograph and save. 

When Kodachrome went out of business, I switched to Fujichrome. I still have some Astia in the freezer, but use Provia F as a regular film. 

Every now and then, I'll shoot color negatives, but only for a special occasion. 

 

My children and grandchildren (and their spouses) believe I'm slightly daft.      So What?

[Doc Henry]

I began my 35mm film adventure in the vert early  1940s, when Kodachrome was ASA 12. I started photographing with transparency filf - - -  and I'm still doing it.   To me, the "post-processing" stuff ends when I press the shutter release.  (Or maybe when I spread the slides on a light table and cull. 

I've has key photos printed as color, then mounted; however, for me, the projected slide reminds me of what I wanted to photograph and save. 

When Kodachrome went out of business, I switched to Fujichrome. I still have some Astia in the freezer, but use Provia F as a regular film. 

Every now and then, I'll shoot color negatives, but only for a special occasion. 

 

My children and grandchildren (and their spouses) believe I'm slightly daft.      So What?

GB , "slighty daft" for choosing what is true ?

Hum.... but people are now "formatted" in digital photos with his iPhone (

which on the smartphone is good but expanding that's another story) )

or other digital cameras.

Thank you for your comment

Best

Henry

Edited April 19, 2015 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Hi All and hi all film lovers,

 

Here is the original photo of the freezing fog mist (-9°C)

scanner Nikon 5000

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Here the left corner in the trees cropped 100%

 

 

the crop with film Iflord HP5 +  M7 + 35 Summilux asph

 

 

and here crop M8 (digital) + Summicron 28 asph (like a 35 on M8)

same picture taken at the same moment
 

Conclusion : digital can never replace film for fog , grain gives a different texture to the fog,  like drawing by Impressionist painter
The pixels are smoothed by the camera software and are unable to reproduce the "isolated"

micro-droplets of fog

...  and I add "smoothing" edges and lines in digital pictures gives the "surgical scalpel cut" , as I said above

 

Your opinion ?

 

Best

Henry

Someone who has his first Leica camera in 1970

Edited April 19, 2015 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.... for the continuation of previous post, something seems "unusual"  to you

for the poppy  in the foreground ?

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Leica M9

Apo Summicron 90 Asph

 

Best

Henry
 

* I love this flower , every year I take photo of poppies

Edited April 19, 2015 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Hi,

Hum , so nobody to answer my question ?

Thanks in advance

Best

Henry

Edited April 20, 2015 by Doc Henry

[gberger]

Is it a digital photo?

[Doc Henry]

Is it a digital photo?

Yes George , it is written and marked under the photo

"Leica M9"

Did you notice something that seems abnormal ... or is this normal?

Thanks George 

Best

Henry

Edited April 20, 2015 by Doc Henry

[adan]

If you mean the little white blur right where the stem meets the flower....

 

At this size, it's hard to see the exact shape of the flower petal, left, as it curves up at that point. It could be part of the bright OOF stem blur in the background, showing through the "notch" where the petal angles up to meet the stem.

 

OR - it could be a tiny flying insect or dandelion fluff or other airborne thing (out of focus in the foreground) that drifted through your picture just as you released the shutter.

 

I tend to favor the latter, since it does obscure the flower somewhat. (In a different season, it could be a snowflake - but not in this case!)

 

I don't think it is a flare spot - too sharp and small to be a sensor reflection, and too central for most lens flares.

[Cuthbert]

I know that shop very well, it's always crowded, they have more films that I can try in all my life, plus a decent but expensive range of used cameras, they are very busy but it's also true they are the only decent film photography shop in the area and especially in a 7 milions' town.

 

 

The photographers who refuse to abandon traditional film cameras

 

Something for Alan to chew on. Interesting snippet: "Edgar England, a manager at London's West End Cameras, which specialises in film and film developing, says that a decade ago a pallet of hundreds of rolls of film might take six weeks to sell out. Now it only takes a few days."

[Doc Henry]

Andy thank you to go through here and taking time to reply. It is not the details you listed but the flower itself
What shocks me is the "edge" of the petal you mentioned that is "too thin", and as I said in a post above "cut with surgical scalpel" , that is ultra-smooth !   it is characteristic of digital (reason : the software of M9 smooth pixels of the edge !). The picture is "flat" ,  the petal is without consistency, in digital. But the color is correct
 

Now look at a picture below and notice how the film reproduces differently  the edge of the flower, its thickness, its consistency, not a cigarette paper sheet , "softer" rendering .

This is what I see when I take  the poppy.

That what I reproache to the digital and it's the reason for my return to the film . Photos of  all digital M or other camera brand , are most as I described.
 

For me it's not a picture , but a "synthetic image". 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Leica MP - Kodak Portra 400 - Apo Summicron 90 Asph

 

That's why I refuse to abandon traditional film !

Thank you for reading me 

 

Best

Henry

Edited April 20, 2015 by Doc Henry

[adan]

Well, the lighting is totally different of course, as is the effect of ISO 400 film (what ISO was the M9 shot with?)

 

Your M9 picture looks just about exactly what I would expect from a 35mm K25/KII color slide, with really good high-Dmax-capable drum scanning and post-processing.

[Doc Henry]

Well, the lighting is totally different of course, as is the effect of ISO 400 film (what ISO was the M9 shot with?)

 

Your M9 picture looks just about exactly what I would expect from a 35mm K25/KII color slide, with really good high-Dmax-capable drum scanning and post-processing.

Andy thanks for your reply.

I remind you this flower I photograph every year , because I love it !

When I see these images in digital and when I see the same in film, I decided that for this flower I abandon digital.

The second reason it is mandatory correction of digital image to get a correct image like film .

 

Yes I agree that the above example is not the same shooting.

I took in comparison , in the same situation, the same flower, but I do not find these photos in my archives (I'll post

if I find them), but you can believe me

Best

Henry

[AlanG]

The photographers who refuse to abandon traditional film cameras

 

Something for Alan to chew on. Interesting snippet: "Edgar England, a manager at London's West End Cameras, which specialises in film and film developing, says that a decade ago a pallet of hundreds of rolls of film might take six weeks to sell out. Now it only takes a few days."

 

Putting aside the film/digital debate. And I had no interest in this article, but since you asked me to chew on it... with the demise of camera stores and very few retail locations of any sort carrying film, what are you concluding from this?

[wattsy]

what are you concluding from this?

I'm concluding that Edgar England is selling more film (or at least he is selling film more quickly) than he did ten years ago.

Edited April 20, 2015 by wattsy

[gberger]

Henry,

 

I was looking at the edges of the petals. To me, that was the giveaway, as the edges looked so razor sharp and so sterile.

After I sent my answer, I saw the digital "M9" below the picture.  Oops!

[AlanG]

I'm concluding that Edgar England is selling more film (or at least he is selling film more quickly) than he did ten years ago.

 

And the reasons are...?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wattsy]

And the reasons are...?

Because he has more customers buying film or the same number of customers buying more film (or more customers buying more film).

 

with the demise of camera stores and very few retail locations of any sort carrying film

 

Before you suggest that this is a major factor behind why West End Cameras is now selling more film you should know that this shop is very far from being the last game in town and that there are (and have always been) many retail locations in London that stock film. Things might be different in Rochester – I wouldn't know.