the liberating force of simplicity

[c.poulton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now getting my negs back from the lab - THAT is truly exciting.

:D:D

 

I still get a real buzz from the wait, the anticipation of not knowing how the shots came out. When the negs do arrive, oh the thrill of opening the packet (it's like Christmas!) and seeing what's there. Sometimes it's disappointment, but mostly I am pleasantly surprised. Nearly always there's a shot that I didn't think at the time was anything special, but happened to turn out well, sometimes rather well.

 

It's interesting looking at other photographers work - nearly always the dSLR carrying photographer takes one shot, stops, looks at the rear screen, then resumes. With my m2 I am totally focussed on my surroundings at all times. Maybe a quick glance at my light meter, but that's all.

 

Having said that, it's a real PITA having to change film (or lenses) in mid flow. It's one of the reasons why I want to get a second film body.

[c.poulton]

Until I took digital seriously (on an M9), I lacked the practical and immediate feedback necessary to improve my film photography.

 

I can't argue with this. However much that I personally like using film & film cameras, digital is a great tool to use for learning and personal improvement (and I have practical experience of this). It's one of the reasons (maybe the only reason?) that I would consider getting a digital camera myself.

[plasticman]

Can we keep this and every other thread civil please folks? Thanks

 

Come on Andy - it's a holiday weekend. Let's live a little!

 

Anyway - seriously - another thing that increasingly gets on my nerves is the statement that digital color is "better" than film color. One might argue that it's scientifically more accurate across the spectrum, but recently I've become less and less convinced that our eye-brains really perceive the color before us in a real situation in that way. I actually think that we our eyes somehow streamline the spectrum of colors that we 'see' in a scene* - so that the crazy bright reds and greens that often jump obtrusively out of an M9 image simply wouldn't dazzle us in real life.

 

'More accurate' is a pretty poor standard to judge by in any case, in my opinion. Seems to me it's the equivalent of saying Norman Rockwell is a 'better' painter than Caravaggio, because his paintings are more 'realistic'.

 

 

* I have an almost perfect Munsell-test score - for the record.

[Stealth3kpl]

another thing that increasingly gets on my nerves is the statement that digital color is "better" than film color.

 

 

The colour of my film shots often draw complements. I never experienced that with digital.

Oh, I don't believe it. I've fallen into a film vs digital debate. Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

What's there to debate, we all know which we prefer !-)

Pete

[wildlightphoto]

Oh, I don't believe it. I've fallen into a film vs digital debate. Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

 

IMHO both "film" and "digital" are both much too broad a brush. Not all film is the same, not all digital is the same. Depending on which camera and film & how the film is processed, and which digital camera & how the files are processed, one can make a convincing argument that either one is "better" than the other.

 

Far better (again, IMHO) to consider the particular conditions one is likely to encounter, personal preferences, and the equipment and materials one is likely to have available, and use the available tools and process that best fits these particular conditions. It doesn't have to be a religion.

[sblitz]

my point is more about the process of using a purely mechanical camera without thinking about batteries and the like or watching the meter change as I shift composition -- btw the 50 on the m4 is just perfect in terms of being a big enough area and having enough around the lines to choose what should be in or out. if i was a professional shooting under deadline there is no question digital makes more sense. i don't want to get into the film vs digital debate here as i am very happy with the m9 and the images it produces. BUT, i do take a lot of shots with traffic in the background (environmental hazard living in ny) and those red lights on cars and traffic lights in the background look a lot better and more natural on film than digital . . .

[gyoung]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Went walking up towards Cader Idris this afternoon, with III, four lenses and a Weston, no batteries, no bells, no whistles, very satisfying.

 

Gerry

[wildlightphoto]

It's interesting looking at other photographers work - nearly always the dSLR carrying photographer takes one shot, stops, looks at the rear screen, then resumes. With my m2 I am totally focussed on my surroundings at all times. Maybe a quick glance at my light meter, but that's all.

 

I look at the back of the DMR because that's where the histogram is. I use it like glancing at a light meter.

[AlanG]

Come on Andy - it's a holiday weekend. Let's live a little!

 

Anyway - seriously - another thing that increasingly gets on my nerves is the statement that digital color is "better" than film color. One might argue that it's scientifically more accurate across the spectrum, but recently I've become less and less convinced that our eye-brains really perceive the color before us in a real situation in that way. I actually think that we our eyes somehow streamline the spectrum of colors that we 'see' in a scene* - so that the crazy bright reds and greens that often jump obtrusively out of an M9 image simply wouldn't dazzle us in real life.

 

'More accurate' is a pretty poor standard to judge by in any case, in my opinion. Seems to me it's the equivalent of saying Norman Rockwell is a 'better' painter than Caravaggio, because his paintings are more 'realistic'.

 

 

* I have an almost perfect Munsell-test score - for the record.

 

I agree with you entirely. Color is very subjective and we interpret color and do not analyze it. Even the idea of "accurate" color is not realistic or necessarily what makes the best photo of any given scene. Accurate color may not even be a possibility when you get down to it on the final print or LCD.

 

Most photographers today just shoot photos and then adjust them on the computer how they like it or let the lab make prints from negatives using their own judgement, not the photographer's, of what looks "best." There are many choices that will give these photographers acceptable results and they just have to find one or more that they like.

 

The issue for very critical color photographers is how to control the color that one gets for the intended result in a specific application and a given subject. (Fine art print, printed slick ad, web page, newsprint, etc.) Maybe you have to depict the color of fabrics, paints, etc. very "accurately" for ads and brochures. A given roll of film cannot always meet the standard that a photographer expects because it has variation in manufacturing, storage, and processing. Plus each color film has its own characteristics how it responds to various types of light and the length of exposure. Some film may be "better" for use with some subjects and colors than another. (I did a jewelry catalog once where the company and AD insisted that their shade of gold reproduced best when shot on 4x5 Velvia 50.)

 

This was much more of an issue with transparency film than with negative film that can be adjusted quite a lot in printing. Scanning and PP can be used to adjust images from negative and transparency film too in order to meet critical requirements today. But in the past each batch of transparency film was often tested by the photographer and exposed using CC filters and possibly speed corrections in mind for usage of that batch under a specific lighting type and length of exposure. For negative film you have to consider all aspects and limitations of the entire film to print process. For really critical work it comes down to about the same thing (careful approach, testing, and adjusting) whether shooting film or digital.

 

But of course you might subjectively prefer the end result from any approach you take for whatever reason. And going the "simplicity" route is just another choice, but probably won't be the best one for very exacting color work. As exacting repeatable color under various circumstances is never simple.

 

As for simple, last week I had to send someone a Quick Response Code to be incorporated into a flyer. I just picked up my cell phone, shot the code and sent it a few seconds later. (It was the only "camera" I had with me anyway but think what would have been involved to do this with color film and a macro lens.)

[pico]

[...]One might argue that it's scientifically more accurate across the spectrum, but recently I've become less and less convinced that our eye-brains really perceive the color before us in a real situation in that way.[...]

 

You might find this recent research interesting.

 

Despite a surprising differences in individuals' retinas, "These experiments show that color is defined by our experience in the world, and since we all share the same world, we arrive at the same definition of colors."

 

I don't think the above is well phrased. We do not all share the same world. When I did a home page to be shared with Chinese scholars and artists I consulted with our native Chinese students and faculty to find the proper reds for certain visuals. I was surprised by how very sensitive they were to various hues of 'red', as well as some other colors.

 

Certain cultures have more vivid colors in their environment, and to some the symbolism of colors is critical and they 'tune' colors in their publications, for example, to suit.

 

Thanks for the nudge on that topic.

[Stealth3kpl]

Plasticman saw red earlier

Pete

[sblitz]

AlanG -- I think your point is very well taken and not at all in conflict with mine. Working today as you do requires the digital world and digital makes your life easier. I am not shooting with an M4 looking to make ads or the like. i suspect my overarching point about the liberating force of simplicity is that sometimes it is wonderful to get off the grid, and a purely mechanical camera like the m4 represents a step in that direction.

 

best,

steve

[AlanG]

 

Certain cultures have more vivid colors in their environment, and to some the symbolism of colors is critical and they 'tune' colors in their publications, for example, to suit.

 

Yes culture and environment are factors. While a typical American may not care so much about a specific red on a web page, when it comes to lipstick or nail polish it may be a big deal to many women.

[AlanG]

AlanG -- I think your point is very well taken and not at all in conflict with mine. Working today as you do requires the digital world and digital makes your life easier. I am not shooting with an M4 looking to make ads or the like. i suspect my overarching point about the liberating force of simplicity is that sometimes it is wonderful to get off the grid, and a purely mechanical camera like the m4 represents a step in that direction.

 

best,

steve

 

Yes there is no conflict just personal choices. That is the way to do it. And when I shoot film today it is for simplicity too (and to use my old cameras) not for critical applications as that is easier with digital. My battery free meter is made by Spectra and is probably at least 40 years old.

 

I'm an avid cyclist and after decades the mechanics of bikes have been refined to a level of near perfection. Yet racing bikes are still very similar to what was around a long time ago... just smoother faster shifting systems, better braking, and lighter weight. But now there has been the introduction of electronic gear changing.

[01af]

The colour of my film shots often draw complements. I never experienced that with digital.

I did—using the Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D. That's the best digital camera I ever used in terms of colour reproduction—too bad it has lousy auto-focus. The Leica M9 is the worst camera I ever used in terms of in-camera colour reproduction. To improve the M9's colours in Lightroom 4/Camera Raw 7.0 Beta, I am using the following settings in the Camera Calibration menu:

 

Process: 2012

 

Camera Profile Name: Embedded

 

Shadows Tint: 0

 

Red Primary

Hue: +15

Sat: -15

 

Green Primary

Hue: 0

Sat: -5

 

Blue Primary

Hue: -10

Sat: -25

 

 

I arrived at these settings just by eye-balling several pictures, so I don't claim they were perfect ... but they definitely are much better than the original defaults. I saved these settings as my New Camera Raw Defaults, so all my M9 pictures now default to these settings which I consider a significant improvement.

[wildlightphoto]

I did—using the Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D.

 

And I still do with photos from the DMR.

[CalArts 99]

I think these sort of preferential discussions can sometimes get a bit tedious. It's kind of like going around in a circle all the time.

 

Use whatever works for you personally at whatever point in time and/or for whatever specific project you're working on.

 

If the tools lose their clarity and become an irritant, or if they and the corresponding materials interfere somehow with producing a desired final result, then use a different methodology. There never was and never will be a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to producing a body of work.

 

I believe the OP was simply expressing an emotion he/she felt at a given moment in time and wasn't making any implications otherwise.

[AlanG]

I think these sort of preferential discussions can sometimes get a bit tedious.

 

Well I have discovered what is the absolute best way to do photography but I'm not sharing that information with my competitors.

[erl]

C'mon Alan. You can tell me. I won't breathe a word.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[philipus]

Well I've just gone through the process of scanning 30+ rolls (developed by a lab) and I liked it a lot.

 

I agree with Steve that using a mechanical camera is a wonderful experience. Btw, you have some really excellent photos in your gallery

 

That said, today I played for the second time in my life with an M9 at Wiberg's here in Stockholm, the first one being Geoff's (Hoppyman's) M9.

 

I was very impressed. I had heard lots of comments about how loud the M9's shutter sound is compared to the film Ms. Quiet operation is important to me.

 

It is true, the M9 shutter does sound more. Then I realised that it actually isn't true - rather, it is the motor re-cocking the shutter that causes most of the sound. The shutter is at least as silent as my M6's which is quite evident when the discreet mode is enabled.

 

Interestingly, in the discreet mode one can hear that even the motor is actually not very loud in itself. It seems to me that it is the the two sounds heard one after the other in a very short space of time which makes the camera seem much louder than film Ms.