Future of Film

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm confused film and tripack paper is not dithered... you did not mean that?

 

Yes it is. Silver grains are silver grains whether on film or on paper. They're either exposed or not exposed, there's no in-between (same applies to dye clouds). We don't see the grain in paper prints because it's not enlarged.

 

Had the lens been bolted to a big block of concrete, and MLU been used, I think we can both agree more detail could have been captured, perhaps even twice as much.

 

"Twice as much" is speculation. But if it's not usable in real-world circumstances with real-world subjects, the discussion of maximum resolution is nothing more than photochemical navel-gazing. For some people that's what photography is all about, not for me. For me photography is about photographs.

 

Also please remember that the same resolution-limiting factors also apply to the photos I've been getting with the DMR - and in these real-world conditions, with real-world subjects, I'm getting far more detail in my photos from the DMR than from any of the real-world film I've used in either the SL or R8.

[Advertisement]

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

[marcusperkins]

And take the image on a very cold day. As distance increases movement of the air degrades the image.

 

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten that detail...

[Steve Ash]

Is there a future of film?

 

Yesterday I showed my wife a scanned slide. She did not have a clue and were not interested to know whether it was taken with my M7 or my M8. She simply replied that the colors are beautiful.

 

That is why there is a future for film! It has a distinctive look and some like it.

 

Regards

Steve

[wildlightphoto]

And take the image on a very cold day. As distance increases movement of the air degrades the image.

 

The comparison photos were made at a camera-to-subject distance of under 3 meters in mid-winter. Not much chance of heat waves influencing the results.

[jaapv]

[tomasis7]

I am pretty good aware of all Eastern Europe production possibilities.

 

tell me about this. how they look on future, plans? or anything you know

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes it is. Silver grains are silver grains whether on film or on paper. They're either exposed or not exposed, there's no in-between (same applies to dye clouds). [...]

 

True, but some might be confused and think that grain is like digital (exposed or not exposed). In conventional B&W films, what we see as grain is actually clusters of grain particles, and the overall pattern is random.

 

"Twice as much" is speculation. But if it's not usable in real-world circumstances with real-world subjects, the discussion of maximum resolution is nothing more than photochemical navel-gazing. For some people that's what photography is all about, not for me. For me photography is about photographs.

 

The hyperbole of lens resolution is worse - some metrics require idealized situations: high-contrast targets under unrealistically blue (high frequency) light. Indeed, I don't see any rez targets hanging in galleries.

 

Also please remember that the same resolution-limiting factors also apply to the photos I've been getting with the DMR - and in these real-world conditions, with real-world subjects, I'm getting far more detail in my photos from the DMR than from any of the real-world film I've used in either the SL or R8.

 

That is quite encouraging. Thanks for that.

[Xmas]

Theoretical maximum resolution in color film is further reduced by the need to dither Red, Green and Blue dye clouds to create the illusion of a full color spectrum.

 

Dictionary says

the process of representing intermediate colors by patterns of tiny colored dots that simulate the desired color

 

I'd suggest tripack film 'superimposes' it does not 'dither', the five or more clouds are on top of one another...

 

Additionally the dye clouds are not like the silver grains they can vary in depth in the emulsion as well as extent.

 

Colour film does lose resolution because the emulsion layer is so deep compared with mono.

 

Lastly film can enhance resolution if subjects have distint boundaries, you can try to emulate this after scanning or in camera or post processing with Digital if you want.

 

Noel

[AlanG]

Is there a future of film?

 

Yesterday I showed my wife a scanned slide. She did not have a clue and were not interested to know whether it was taken with my M7 or my M8. She simply replied that the colors are beautiful.

 

That is why there is a future for film! It has a distinctive look and some like it.

 

Regards

Steve

 

Isn't this a sweeping generalization?

 

Of course. All the beautiful photos are shot on film and all the shi!!y ones are shot on digital. So film has a future if you want to make beautiful and "distinctive" photos.

 

If you look over this gallery, it should therefore be very easy for anyone to tell me which were shot on 6x9 film and which were shot on 35mm or smaller format digital.

 

http://goldsteinphoto.com/modelhomes/

 

This gallery is just random snapshots made over the years. (Most of the images are nothing special but they represent having fun with photography and using a lot of different cameras and films.) I used 35mm slide film and a variety of digital cameras from the 6 megapixel Kodak DCS460 (One of the earliest digital cameras) to 2 megapixel p&s cameras, and various other low end p&s cameras on up to more current pro digital cameras. (The first image was shot on 6x9 film and the banana was simply scanned on my flatbed.)

 

http://goldsteinphoto.com/fun/

[AlanG]

I think what the Adox microfilm images show us is that one can get high res relatively grain free or noise free highly detailed images with film and with digital. And one can also get grainy and noisy images with both. One can make good or bad exposures, good or bad scans, good or bad raw conversions and good or bad prints. Where does a distinctive look for either come in? Do you have to make large prints to see it?

 

I say use what ever camera and method you like. They all have worked well for me. If you like the methodology of working with film, why change? But unless you can make a solid compelling case for it, don't expect others to grasp what intrinsically attracts you to it. Most good photographers can make good photos with anything and they choose their tools and processes for all kinds of reasons. A fine mechanical camera such as a Leica can be a pleasure to use. But let's not get carried away.

[bill]

Still banging the same drum Alan? You were here three or four pages ago and we refused to bite then.

 

Does the irony of inviting us to play Spot the Pixel with a bunch of digitised snaps on a website escape you completely? I refer you to my earlier response to your traffic-driver.

 

Exactly what point are you trying to make this time that you have not tried to make before?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[J_Thompson]

All the beautiful photos are shot on film and all the shi!!y ones are shot on digital.

 

Tell this to David Alan Harvey and Steve McCurry. They just might disagree with your premise.

[adan]

Some notes and clarifications:

 

The silver crystals in film are, as Wildlight says, "binary" - in that a single photon striking a crystal and kicking loose an electron from one of the silver atoms renders an electron imbalance across the whole crystal. Which is what then makes it susceptible to conversion to pure image-forming silver when developed.

 

However, 1) the size of the silver crystals (and the "grains" that they clump into during development) varies in most films - there are big crystals and little crystals, and 2) the actual amount of silver bromide/chloride/iodide that converts to pure silver depends on development time. So while the triggering is binary, the resulting image is modulated into "tones" by development time or by variations in the size/distribution density of the binary "there or not there" silver specks.

 

Variation in crystal size within a film is something film makers try to achieve intentionally, precisely because it improves the tonal rendering - more grays and less pure black or white. In films with "engineered" crystals - like TMax or Delta or ACROS - there is less room for variation, which is why those films are touchier about processing and tend to have "stiffer" tone curves. The microfilms (like Adox 20) are an extreme case, with very uniform (small) crystals that require dedicated developers to keep them from producing the pure black/white copies they were originally designed to produce.

 

(I was just getting into photography when H&W Control VTE Panchromatic Film/developer was introduced (1972) as the first commercial attempt at getting both ultrafine grain and more-or-less continuous tones out of a microfilm (from Agfa, ISO 40) using special developer. Kinda cool-looking before processing (pale blue emulsion, deep royal blue seen from the back). The H&W developer formula can still be found, for those who want to try mixing some for use with Adox or other such films.)

 

Ilford/Harman FP4 actually has (or at least had at some point) TWO emulsions coated, a fast one (big crystals) and a slow one (small crystals) - to improve tonality or dynamic range. The fast emulsion delivered shadow detail, while the slow one held onto separations in the highlights. Sort of analogous to Fuji's "two photosites per pixel" technology that gives their cameras extra DR.

 

As to grain in photographic paper - first, it uses slightly different silver compounds than film (film usually includes silver iodide, paper usually does not.) Second, paper has an ISO speed of about 6, using the film ISO scale (technically, there is a seperate ISO scale for papers; the numbers are not equivalent to film ISOs). Third, as Wildlight again says - it is rare that anyone enlarges an image already on photo paper (although obviously most of us have enlarged images ONTO photographic paper).

 

One last note to really confuse people - always remember that if you see a black "grain" speck in a positive image (print or scan) - that was originally a LIGHT, transparent "hole" on the negative. I.E., not a grain of silver, but a place where there was little or NO silver.

[Nikkor AIS]

Andy, your last post read like poetry, and was very informative. Thanks for that.

[adan]

I am going to come back to the original question of the future of film, and the irrelevancy of the "quality" debate.

 

I worked for a newspaper that won three Pulitzer prizes for its photography between 2000 and 2007. It had the biggest circulation of the two newspapers in Denver, at least within the metro area. It was good, and it was popular - and it went out of business in 2009.

 

Whether film is equal to 6 or 60 or 600 megapixels is just not going to be a signicant factor in its future. That's an "inconvenient truth" - but truth nonetheless. If you want to preserve film, quit arguing about IQ and who loves what, and find a better strategy.

________________________________________________

 

Demonstrators declare their love for the Rocky Mountain News and plead for its survival on January 29, 2009. The newspaper closed one month later.

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!

[AlanG]

Still banging the same drum Alan? You were here three or four pages ago and we refused to bite then.

 

Does the irony of inviting us to play Spot the Pixel with a bunch of digitised snaps on a website escape you completely? I refer you to my earlier response to your traffic-driver.

 

Exactly what point are you trying to make this time that you have not tried to make before?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Why do you think this has anything to do with you, Bill? I gave up on trying to have any reasonable correspondence with you long ago.

But if you don't think you can see a difference in images on my site but you know film images must be different somehow... how large or in what form does the image need to be for you to see the difference? What makes a film image intrinsically different from a digital image?

[MacAulay]

OK - we'll strike the first part. DO you actually have a real argument to present, other than snide characterizations and amateur psycholoanalysis?

 

As to "....presumably Freudian, need...." it introduces the idea of psychopathology, aka neurotic, psychotic, irrational. A "neurotic need."

 

Literally, of course, it means "...presumably related to the ideas and methods of the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, especially his theories about people's subconscious thoughts and feelings, need... - but that doesn't track conceptually or grammatically....

 

Or, in borrowing from the most common usage of that particular adjective: "A Freudian slip is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious wish, conflict, or train of thought."

 

Trust me, none of my posts on this forum stem from unconcious anything - I'm fully aware of what I'm saying and what my reasoning and reasons are. Thank you.

 

Now perhaps what you actually meant was "...presumably rational, need..." Did I guess right?

 

 

An aggressive response to a post on a film forum? I'd call that pretty Freudian

[AlanG]

Tell this to David Alan Harvey and Steve McCurry. They just might disagree with your premise.

 

You do know I was being sarcastic?

 

Yes they both shot/shoot with film and digital. Doesn't that support my contention that a good photographer can get good photos with either? Harvey does promotion for Nikon digital cameras I believe. And McCurry shot images on the "Last roll of Kodachrome" after setting up the shots and proofing with digital.

 

 

I don't believe that the National Geographic "lab" even offers film processing any more. I don't know what happens when NG shooters use film today.

 

http://www.ngimaging.com/index.html

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Xmas]

But unless you can make a solid compelling case for it, don't expect others to grasp what intrinsically attracts you to it. Most good photographers can make good photos with anything and they choose their tools and processes for all kinds of reasons. A fine mechanical camera such as a Leica can be a pleasure to use. But let's not get carried away.

Hi Alan

 

To buy a M8 or M9 costs more then a M2 (or Canon P). To have a M8 or M9 repaired costs more then having a M2 repaired, two reasons

 

- the M2 can be repaired by most good repair persons, with a faster turnaround

- the DigM needs to go back to Solms (or similar) yes if you have a M7 then you may be in same boat - i.e. Solms - your lenses may have to go back to Solms as well

 

Most of the time I use a Canon P cause it is cheaper to replace, if stolen.

 

They all take the same photos, and the DigM scores by providing immediacy, with the proviso that XP2 (or similar) has more dynamic range.

 

35mm buried 120 not because the 35mm had better quality, but because ot greater spontaneity, 120 used in studios (or studio style shots) with models, 35mm doorsteps of the rich or (in)famous...

 

If Leica go out of business your DigM will be like a RD/1, some of my friends are still using their RD/1...

 

How solid a case did you want?

 

Noel

[AlanG]

Hi Alan

 

To buy a M8 or M9 costs more then a M2 (or Canon P). To have a M8 or M9 repaired costs more then having a M2 repaired, two reasons

 

- the M2 can be repaired by most good repair persons, with a faster turnaround

- the DigM needs to go back to Solms (or similar) yes if you have a M7 then you may be in same boat - i.e. Solms - your lenses may have to go back to Solms as well

 

Most of the time I use a Canon P cause it is cheaper to replace, if stolen.

 

They all take the same photos, and the DigM scores by providing immediacy, with the proviso that XP2 (or similar) has more dynamic range.

 

35mm buried 120 not because the 35mm had better quality, but because ot greater spontaneity, 120 used in studios (or studio style shots) with models, 35mm doorsteps of the rich or (in)famous...

 

If Leica go out of business your DigM will be like a RD/1, some of my friends are still using their RD/1...

 

How solid a case did you want?

 

Noel

 

Of course if you are worried about cost, theft and longevity. That can be a factor in not buying an expensive digital camera. But there are cheap digitals and cheap film cameras. A new M7 body is only about $2400 less than an M9. How much film, processing and scanning will that $2400 cover? If M9s don't hold up as well as M2s, that probably is Leica's fault, not the fault of having more electronics in them. Are you making the argument that shooting film and scanning is less expensive than shooting digital for a given quality level?

 

What does the longevity of a camera have to do with picture quality? Can you make an argument of how one will take better pictures on film than on digital? I can. For instance, If I shoot architecture with a 4x5 on transparency film, and scan the film, I bet I'd get better technical quality than if I used an M9. I bet if I shot active people, the M9 images would be more full of life than if I tried to do it with LF or MF film. I bet if I shot active people with an M7 and an M9, they'd look pretty similar much of the time.