Jump to content

Why does it make any sense at all to use non-professional grade film stocks in this day and age???


A miller

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You do realize that personal preferences are neither right nor wrong don't you? If you like putting a certain films in your camera good for you. What is sad is that you can't tell the difference between what is right/wrong and what is a preference.

 

 To use your reasoning: I certainly hope you bought the most expensive Leica camera ever made, coupled with the most expensive lens Leica ever made, otherwise you're shortchanging your photography,...that's  sad.

 

see how dumb it sounds?

I can see how dumb you sound. If a personal prejudice isn't right why bother at all, everything is then a free for all where nothing matters? If you don't care don't try and force it on anybody else. Going out the door dressed right is going to get you further than going out the door bollock naked and thinking it doesn't matter.

Edited by 250swb
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see how dumb you sound. If a personal prejudice isn't right why bother at all, everything is a free for all where nothing matters? If you don't care don't try and force it on anybody else. Going out the door dressed right is going to get you further than going out the door bollock naked and thinking it doesn't matter.

 

Hahaha..my own personal troll strikes again...lol.

 

Evidently you don't know the difference between "OBjective" and "SUBjective" statements either.

 

Now that's funny.

Edited by rpavich
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Adam.

 

Thanks for this. I don't own any Leica digital cameras. My wife has a now oldish Nikon p&s, which I occasionally use when I want to see results instantly for some reason.

 

The 2-3 advantages digital camera offer mainly don't mean much to me. I am much more interested in honing my skills as a printer. I continue to be mesmerized by a silver rich B&W print, and I continue to be happy with the quality of the negatives I can make (usually on XP2). I am also interested and focused on B&W photography. I am much impressed by good colour photography, but I don't feel that a photograph is by definition better in colour. In fact I think B&W and Colour photography are completely different media - and for he last 20 or so years I have concentrated on B&W. 

 

I also have a minor and non-crucial niggle with Leica's digital M cameras. I like the wonderful viewfinder in my M3 and I am quite satisfied with the .72 viewfinder in my M2. The .68 viewfinder in the digital Ms is going in the wrong direction for me. A purely personal opinion. Back before the M8, I thought I would be tickled with a replacement digital back for my M3 and M2, a little like a mini version of the DMR unit - but that was always a pipe dream.

 

I have a working darkroom that gets used 8-8 times per year. I like the process and challenge of making a silver gelatin print and getting it better and better. And then dry mounting, matting and framing it (it is important to get to a finished show-able picture). I understand about imaging software - I use PSE and SIlverEfex Pro to play with images before making a silver print. But what I get from a negative in my focomat 1c projected onto Ilford Multigrade paper continues to generate both joy and prints that cannot be duplicated nor replaced, I believe.

 

I should have begun with "Don't get me started" - too late,

Michael - You are a true film photographer through and through.  I wish I could have your end to end workflow.  Thanks for your post.  

 

 

Adam, I think you are mistaken in implying that "non-professional grade" film is necessarily (and meaningfully) inferior to film which says "professional" on the box. When I shoot colour film, I choose the film based on the colour characteristics and look that I am after (taking into consideration the light that I am shooting in). This means I might choose £1 "Poundland" film instead of £7 Portra. If I am prioritising minimising grain, I may choose Ektar. (As a sidenote, I have been experimenting with converting Ektar to B&W and am considering using it as a relatively grain free C41 alternative to XP2 or Fuji Neopan 400CN.) I really don't think there are any duff films out there nowadays, at least not ones made by Kodak or Fuji, just different palettes and grain characteristics. In fact, were I keen on a "lo-fi" aesthetic (a perfectly acceptable objective, if that's someone's thing) I'd probably be a bit disappointed that what is generally available is all a bit too good. 

Ian - thanks for your reply.   I am not sure that you responded squarely to my question, which was whether you'd use non pro-grade film as a general workflow.  It sounds like you use non-pro film on certain occasions.  It is not clear, though, how often this is.  

 

What does the poundland film give you that a portra doesn't do better?  This is not a sarcastic or rhetorical question by any means.  It seems that you've used it with great results and I'd love your insights.

Btw, you might try the Ilford Pan-F 50 for the low grain B&W alternative.  I find the tonality wider and richer than the Ektar converted... 

 

 

With all the sophisticated post-processing tools, the answer is "Why not use so-called non-professional film stock." Motion picture people do it as a regular practice.

 

Think more, type less.

.

I have found that - as a general matter - non-pro film stocks don't scan as well and aren't as malleable as pro-film stocks.   I'm ignoring your other comment  :)

 

I think there are a few factors which make this a decision that is not just down to the individual, but may change in either direction over time and according to circumstance. Some random considerations:

  1. Opportunity cost (i) - How much disposable income does the person have at the time that they are making their film purchase?
  2. Opportunity cost (ii) - What are they prioritising? Despite the argument that it is pointless to use commercial quality film in a professional quality camera / lens combination, they can upgrade film at any time.
  3. What is their current "focus" for their shooting? If just starting or getting back into film, they may place more emphasis on building momentum of shooting than on archival quality.
  4. What is their intended final medium? If it is print, there may be greater weighting to maintaining highest quality throughout the critical path. If it is e-mailing jpegs, maybe less so.
  5. What do they like the look of? What are they trying to achieve with their capturing of the light? My daughter has a plethora of film cameras available, but currently likes shooting Polaroids with her refurbished 600-Type. If you like it - use it (also I wouldn't dare tell her that she's whacko).

I'm sure there are many more factors that define what makes sense for an individual in a certain space and time. I know that, at 53 years old, what I like and dislike, and the reasoning that I apply to make such choices seem logical, varies by the hour. Some things are not particularly logical (like driving a car that is capable of +200km/h speeds on roads that are restricted to 90km/h), but may still bring pleasure.

 

On another note, what is the current definition of "professional" film (other than what is on the label)? My untrustworthy memory has it that Kodak used to define it by a combination of greater QA/QC in production (ie increased number of test samples per batch), and storage temperature control, but not by the emulsion itself. Any of you people who have much greater experience and / or less faulty memories? Is there a reference document (Google was not my friend on this one - Google suggested that I spend time watching Jean Reno in "Léon: The Professional")? As mentioned above, I don't see any dud films out there at the moment - Just different renderings.

 

Cheers,

Eoin

Hi Eoin - great thoughts.  I really appreciate it.  You've set forth a number of factors that MAY come into play.  But I guess I am asking what specific fact pattern would exist that would justify using non-pro film stocks on a LEICA with top optics.  By non-pro films, I am referring to those film stocks on today's market that are at least half the price of the portras or fuji pro 400H.  Examples are Kodak Gold or UltraMax, Fuji Superia, and Agfa Vista.  It is a little difficult to imagine that there is a critical mass of people who will purchase a Leica camera and a good Leica lens yet can't afford to pay $4 more for the roll of film.  I suppose that I can imagine a situation in which a person inherits the gear or buys the gear really beat up.  But I am talking really high level general.

 

As far I can remember 'professional film' was cut from the center zones of the ~~1,5m wide layer rolls emulsion coated. Reason was a minimum lesser tolerance in layer and emulsion thickness. But it must have been less to zero compared with 'non professional', I never mentioned one.

Thomas

Very interesting insight, Thomas.  Thanks for sharing it.

 

I think your premise is flawed. 

 

When using legacy technology, why would cost be an overriding factor? People use old lenses for the very reason that they "taint" the image. Why would not someone like the way a so-called "non professional" film renders? 

 

Of course, there could be operational reasons as well, for instance if you live in a part of the world or even the country where the processing of the so called professional film is overly inconvenient to come by.

Pop - I am not following you.  Old Leica lenses are not inferior at all when to comes to film, and they are superior to many old non-Leica lenses.   Not sure you grasped my premise, which is probably my fault for not making it clear.

Totally see your "operational reasons" point; that makes perfect sense but my question was geared to those who have all film stocks readily available.

 

Use a higher grade low grain film that gives good accurate colour reproduction and you can add grain or an alternative impressionistic colour palette in post processing. If you are working on a body of work ( as opposed to making disparate individual photographs) this has considerable advantages as it means you can tweak each image to conform to the overall look you want while at the same time being able to use a wider variety of film stock. So yes, use better film.

 

And you get up in the morning and spend a day shooting, always with the prospect of an exceptional image, but you shoot on cheap film to save £3. How much is your time worth? You can make an image more grainy, but you can't make it less grainy. You can make a sharp film stock softer, but you can't make a soft film stock sharper. So is cheap film fundamentally worth it, basically no. Is it worth it for fun, put it into a P&S as a second camera, yes. But if you are putting any sort of effort into your photography I think you need to use the best you can, you only get one chance.

 

 

Steve

Steve - with the exception of Doc Henry and possibly ManoLeica, I think we may be the lone "pro-film stock snobs" on the LUF forum.  :)   For me, I guess this makes sense as I suppose I am also a "premium gasoline" snob b/c I use it for my SmartCar  :D

 

I agree with most of your post, but I disagree with the above if we are considering films in the context of  a process, scan, edit/fiddle and print workflow.  Suppressing grain and sharpening (an abused art if ever there was one) are simple processes with any of the more controllable plug-ins.

 

However, you probably answer the op's question in the context of a tradional workflow of process and optical wet print where those options aren't availble and the different characteristics between film emulsions are marked.

 

I have dozens of 35mm rolls of Fuji Superia, all long out of date,  that were given away free with every film I used to take to a now defunct mini lab for processing and these films are perfectly good enough for a 'hybrid' workflow. 

 

It's ironic that with Ektar and the Portras we now have some of the best emulsions ever made.

 

.

Steve - as I noted above, I personally don't get the same editing capability out of the non pro-film stocks.  That said, I don't know how it use PS and don't have a drum scanner.  

 

Ektar + M6 or R6.2 = a great combination..

Right on!!  Ektar all the way! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As you told Adam, people do what they want   :)

 

Personally you do not believe me , I love the colors that are closer of M8 and M9

(CCD Kodak sensors) and even if Kodak Portra 160 and 400 or 800 are expensive.

I buy them anyway because the pleasure of seeing beautiful colors and true color

is so great that I forget the price.  :D

Why Kodak has a color sensor as the color of his films according to you ?

 

Same remark for the b&w Kodak TX400 ?  why Leica offers a TX roll when you purchase

a new M-A  according to you ?  :)

 

All Kodak film rolls are marked "Professional"

The quality is priceless !

 

attachicon.gif L1016718-2mpm7filmht+++1000.jpg

 

That said , Fuji  and other film brands are also professional grade. 

Just pass on our thread "I like film" to see the colors !  :)
 

Best regards

Henry

Henry - Thanks for your comments and for your opinion.  :)

 

Professional film is made to be bought in batches - from the same batch number - so as to ensure consistency for the pro who may be shooting 20 rolls of the same subject and can't have a photo from roll one that looks (colour/grain) different from the photo he took with roll 14.

 

It's kept refrigerated to maintain that consistency until it's used. I sometimes saw Pro film stocks at dealers just on the shelf with the regular film, which basically renders it useless for its intended uses.

 

It's not 'better' film as such, it's simply a case of consistency for each batch.

James - Is this an outdated view on pro vs non-pro film?  I would have thought that this is not the case with Kodak portra vs gold/ultramax, and it doesn't seem applicable to the fuji film stocks either based on the data sheets for fuji pro 400H and superia.  And Agfa doesn't really make a pro- film stock....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a newbie when it comes to shooting film, developing film, and printing so I make a lot of mistakes, and I experiment somewhat. Because of that I use cheaper film for my day to day shooting and I'm happy with it. When I'm aiming for something more, (like flying 2000 miles to attend my moms 85th birthday in May) I'll certainly use the more expensive stuff.

 

it works for me.  :)

opinion noted.   Is it fair to say that you are still experimenting and coming into your own with respect to your optimum workflow and that the jury is still out as to whether ultimately you will use more of the pro-film stocks or stick with the non pros?

 

(James posted as I write this)

 

The difference between "professional" and "consumer" films is/was mostly about marketing and distribution channels. And by marketing, I don't mean just a sham to kid people - although that plays a small role.

 

Technically, there is very little difference between, say, Fuji Provia 100 and Sensia 100 (as was). I mean, E6 and C-41 are pretty precise processes in which you have to combine specific chemical dye coupler A (film) with developer chemical Z to get cyan. You can't really source a different chemical B instead of A, to make the film "cheaper" - or you don't get any dye at all.

 

But - Sensia was sold in large orders to chain stores where it sat on shelves for months, by one part of Fuji's sales force - and Provia is sold by different sales reps, in smaller orders, to a different customer base (pro-oriented stores) that could keep it refrigerated.

 

All films age continuously, reaching a "peak" of quality (color accuracy, primarily) some time after it rolls off the coating machine. Consumer films were shipped "unripe" direct from the factory, on the assumption that 8-20 weeks sitting on a Walgreens'/Bootes' shelf before purchase would take care of the "ripening." Pro films (in their heyday) were held back by the manufacturer until test rolls showed they had reached that peak, and then refrigerated to minimize any further ages before shooting. (The old Paul Masson/Orson Welles "We will sell no wine before its time" idea.) Additionally, each batch of "pro-packaged" film was shipped with unique data sheets, that would recommend an exact ISO, and color-correction filter recommendations (based on factory test rolls) - for that specific batch. E.G. Ektachrome 100N - "This batch - ISO 80, use a 10M CC filter".

 

(Part of the idea of "pro-packs" was that the photographer knew that all 5 or 50 or 250 rolls had come off the same machine sequentially, and had consistent "inconsistencies" within that package. You could shoot 20 rolls or 100 sheets of 4x5 of - say - heavy machinery, and know that the "Caterpillar Yellow" or "John Deere Green" would look identical in all of them**).

 

It is the smaller volumes and additional handling and the expectation of consistency (not quality per se) that make Pro films more expensive.

 

The lines have been blurred even more with the economies required today. Even before the digital onslaught and "peak film," Kodak reorganized all B&W film in 1998 to fall under the management of the "professional division" that handled E6 films. B&W as a product line was already too small to rate its own sales force. No practical change to the film itself - they just slapped the word "Professional" on all the boxes, not just TXP 320.

____________

** Those companies are absolutely anal about how their "colors" appear in media. My college photo classes were in Illinois, and you could not pass the commercial photo classes unless you could nail those colors perfectly in your pictures.  ;)

 

Thanks, Adan.  Very informative and insightful as usual.  I would, however, make the same comment that I made to James about questioning whether this information is relevant in today's film stock market.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

opinion noted. Is it fair to say that you are still experimenting and coming into your own with respect to your optimum workflow and that the jury is still out as to whether ultimately you will use more of the pro-film stocks or stick with the non pros?

 

 

Thanks, Adan. Very informative and insightful as usual. I would, however, make the same comment that I made to James about questioning whether this information is relevant in today's film stock market.

Yes it's still relevant - why wouldn't it be? For film users nothing has changed, after all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

James - I guess what I am suggesting is that, foe example, lower grade films stocks from Kodak are not made from the portra film stocks.    I would be shocked if this was the case as the portras are totally different from the gold and ultramax.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a point of interest, does anyone here have access to data on:

  1. Costs of sales for the various films being discussed?
  2. Annual unit sales for the various films being discussed?

I'm wondering what the comparable margins are, whether the non-professional films achieve volume sales that allow considerably reduced cost of sales, and then, subjectively, how the difference in quality relates to the resultant pricing.

 

No agenda - Just interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian - thanks for your reply.   I am not sure that you responded squarely to my question, which was whether you'd use non pro-grade film as a general workflow.  It sounds like you use non-pro film on certain occasions.  It is not clear, though, how often this is.  

 

What does the poundland film give you that a portra doesn't do better?  This is not a sarcastic or rhetorical question by any means.  It seems that you've used it with great results and I'd love your insights.

 

Adam, I do use (what you call) "pro grade" film most of the time but that doesn't mean that I think the quality is necessarily superior to other films that you might want to quantify as "drug store". I actually prefer the colour that I see in Poundland film compared with Portra (certainly the 160 variety) when shot in many lighting situations. Portra tends to look wonderful in the 'golden light' of summer but IMO isn't so good in other (especially mixed) lighting. Ektar is also an impressive film but I wouldn't use it to take photographs at a social occasion.

 

 

 

Btw, you might try the Ilford Pan-F 50 for the low grain B&W alternative.  I find the tonality wider and richer than the Ektar converted... 

 

Yes, Pan-F is an interesting low grain film but I am considering Ektar (converted) for when I want a low grain B&W C41 film.

Edited by wattsy
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the use of analogies (a very human communication method) to support a statement...

 

I live on an Island State which must have one of the highest supercar ownership per road-kilometre rates in the known Universe, and has a maximum speed limit of 90 km/hr. Reversing this thread's question, why should people pay for more quality than they require or can use? Can I use this analogy to recommend that photographers who do not require archival prints do not use Leica's, or MF etc? :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheapo film in a Leica/Lens -- it's a bit like putting lowest grade fuel in a high performance car.... Sad

To continue your analogy (minus the "sad" part), how do you define "lowest grade"? Are you just basing it on Octane rating (RON / MON)? If so, having an Octane sufficient to prevent knocking is all that is required. Extending this newly-acquired petroleum / camera linkage, having a film that delivers what you want it to is all that is required.

 

For my part, I'm returning to film after a long absence, and am enjoying using emulsions which have replaced my old Kodachrome / Ektachrome / Tri-X / Panatomic-X / Technical Pan 35mm and MF workflow. I'm not about to pre-judge the abilities of current available emulsions, be they professional or otherwise, nor those who use them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that personal preferences are neither right nor wrong don't you? If you like putting a certain films in your camera good for you. What is sad is that you can't tell the difference between what is right/wrong and what is a preference.

 

 To use your reasoning: I certainly hope you bought the most expensive Leica camera ever made, coupled with the most expensive lens Leica ever made, otherwise you're shortchanging your photography,...that's  sad.

 

see how dumb it sounds?

Perfunctory Response..

Link to post
Share on other sites

To continue your analogy (minus the "sad" part), how do you define "lowest grade"? Are you just basing it on Octane rating (RON / MON)? If so, having an Octane sufficient to prevent knocking is all that is required. Extending this newly-acquired petroleum / camera linkage, having a film that delivers what you want it to is all that is required.

 

For my part, I'm returning to film after a long absence, and am enjoying using emulsions which have replaced my old Kodachrome / Ektachrome / Tri-X / Panatomic-X / Technical Pan 35mm and MF workflow. I'm not about to pre-judge the abilities of current available emulsions, be they professional or otherwise, nor those who use them.

But surely having invested in a high IQ camera/lens combo, one would I expect use the the higher quality film as opposed to an older and less technically advanced emulsion...it is quite possible that the older emulsion would satisfy the less demanding of enthusiasts..

Enjoy your hobby as you see fit & hopefully satisfying...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely having invested in a high IQ camera/lens combo, one would I expect use the the higher quality film as opposed to an older and less technically advanced emulsion...it is quite possible that the older emulsion would satisfy the less demanding of enthusiasts..

Enjoy your hobby as you see fit & hopefully satisfying

No...not less demanding at all.

 

You like vanilla, I like chocolate.

 

Preference, preference, preference.

 

 But thanks for letting me enjoy my hobby as I see fit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that out-of-date, obscure, cheap, etc. film can produce excellent results.

However I always hope that my next photograph will be the one that will make me famous, earn me a fortune and ensure my place in the history of photography. :)

I would hate to make that photograph with anything but the finest materials just to save a few bob on a roll of film.

I would suggest that if the price of film is a problem, make less photographs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, I do use (what you call) "pro grade" film most of the time but that doesn't mean that I think the quality is necessarily superior to other films that you might want to quantify as "drug store". I actually prefer the colour that I see in Poundland film compared with Portra (certainly the 160 variety) when shot in many lighting situations. Portra tends to look wonderful in the 'golden light' of summer but IMO isn't so good in other (especially mixed) lighting. Ektar is also an impressive film but I wouldn't use it to take photographs at a social occasion.

 

 

 

 

Ian - Thanks for your response.  My use the term "pro grade" is simply taken from the data sheets of the film stocks; it is not my own personal spin or subjective characterization .  You have an interesting take on the limitations of portra.  I never thought about the portras having any limitations relative to other C41 films (at least in natural lighting situations), particularly given the 3 different film stocks to choose from.  What one portra may be missing (saturation or speed) another will have.  I find all of the portra very well balanced and scannable.  Interesting that you prefer Poundland over Portra in certain situations.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I wish I hadn't bought so much Portra because it is taking up freezer space I could use for other film. :-)

 

I take your word about the data sheets but I simply make my preference based on what I see.

Edited by wattsy
  • Like 2
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...