I like film...(open thread)

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Outer Hebrides.

 

Hasselblad 503CW

Zeiss 50mm f4 cfi

Fuji Acros 100 in APH09

The soft tones and textures give a very peaceful air.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Outer Hebrides.

 

Hasselblad 503CW

Zeiss 50mm f4 cfi

Fuji Acros 100 in AP

I miss the lovely Welsh values

[honcho]

I miss the lovely Welsh values

 

You'll find Welsh Values are only a short walk from the Outer Hebrides.

[schattenundlicht]

Yes , I agree, the best way is to pass directly from negative to print (with enlarger) , no digital intermediary

When I say uncorrected I mean , I don't use photosoftware like I did when I shoot digital

But it's correct that you pass a "digital step" when you use a scanner

 

Please take the following as a good natured reply :-)

 

What about choice of film type, developer, dilution, temperature, time, paper gradation, dodging and burning, (...)?

 

If you compare the very different prints that Ansel Adams made over the years of his famous photograph "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico", just to name one example, there has always been massive pre- and postprocessing in classic silver halide photography. Artistic decisions, interpretations and modifications of "reality" (whatever that may be) nowadays just take different technical roads.

 

With a high resolution digital camera and today's lenses, you can take images that our forefathers could only dream of, notably in an easily portable form factor. Yet, even today you can cristalize images on film that will be nearly impossible to recreate with digital capture. I am very glad for being able to go both ways, so that I also would not shy away from subscribing to to a thread "I like digital". I do admit, however, that these days I take great pleasure in my rediscovery of film.

 

Kind regards

Mathias

Edited July 8, 2017 by schattenundlicht

[chrism]

More Fortress Louisbourg:

 

Fortress Louisbourg 4 by chrism229, on Flickr

 

Fortress Louisbourg 5 by chrism229, on Flickr

 

Fortress Louisbourg 6 by chrism229, on Flickr

[honcho]

Please take the following as a good natured reply :-)

 

What about choice of film type, developer, dilution, temperature, time, paper gradation, dodging and burning, (...)?

 

If you compare the very different prints that Ansel Adams made over the years of his famous photograph "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico", just to name one example, there has always been massive pre- and postprocessing in classic silver halide photography. Artistic decisions and modifications of "reality" (whatever that may be) nowadays just take different technical roads.

 

With a high resolution digital camera and today's lenses, you can take images that our forefathers could only dream of, notably in an easily portable form factor. Yet, even today you can cristalize images on film that will be nearly impossible to recreate with digital capture. I am very glad for being able to go both ways, so that I also would not shy away from subscribing to to a thread "I like digital". I do admit, however, that these days I take great pleasure in my rediscovery of film.

 

Kind regards

Mathias

 

You're absolutely correct.

 

Ansel Adams' 'Moonrise' is often held up as an example of the clear progressive improvements in his printing technique as his career lengthened, and rightly so. I find this continual derision of digital rather eccentric, sometimes tedious and ultimately pointless.  Neither do I agree that printing direct to photographic paper is  necessarily going to produce a 'better' print than a print from a scan. Any meaningful comparison between the two outcomes must evaluate multiple variables and subjective aesthetics, which is hardly a science.

 

I can take digital landscape photography as an example that has reached a stage where anyone with a camera and a fuzzy idea of photography can point it at a scene and then spend a few minutes twiddling the file around with some plug-in or other such as Landscape Pro (you won't need to look far around this forum to see plenty of examples).  The usual result is at best a pretty postcard cliche or, at worst, a cartoon-like image that will jar the viewer's eyes and brain.  Film photography, whether taken along the traditional wet print route or along the 'hybrid' route of printing from scans offers many more options than were available in Adams's day.

 

Film is not compatible with the extreme file-mangling approach that more and more digital landscape photographers seem to be adopting, which in itself negates the argument by some that a scan is by nature inferior to a film original. A high-end, competent scan will be at least the equal and often better than a film original.  If you are going to persist in making comparisons between film & digital, you need to look carefully at how the respective technologies are used rather than continually holding one up to ridicule and the other as a benchmark when all you can rely on is your own subjective preference.

 

Personally, I have no time for gratuitous comparisons.  I'm far more interested in seeing great work from both camps.

Edited July 8, 2017 by honcho

[Wayne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

IIIA, Canon 50mm 1.4 LTM, Svema Color 120

 

image433106 by Keith Finney, on Flickr

[Keith (M)]

Please take the following as a good natured reply :-)

 

What about choice of film type, developer, dilution, temperature, time, paper gradation, dodging and burning, (...)?

 

If you compare the very different prints that Ansel Adams made over the years of his famous photograph "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico", just to name one example, there has always been massive pre- and postprocessing in classic silver halide photography. Artistic decisions, interpretations and modifications of "reality" (whatever that may be) nowadays just take different technical roads.

 

With a high resolution digital camera and today's lenses, you can take images that our forefathers could only dream of, notably in an easily portable form factor. Yet, even today you can cristalize images on film that will be nearly impossible to recreate with digital capture. I am very glad for being able to go both ways, so that I also would not shy away from subscribing to to a thread "I like digital". I do admit, however, that these days I take great pleasure in my rediscovery of film.

 

Kind regards

Mathias

 

 

You're absolutely correct.

 

Ansel Adams' 'Moonrise' is often held up as an example of the clear progressive improvements in his printing technique as his career lengthened, and rightly so. I find this continual derision of digital rather eccentric, sometimes tedious and ultimately pointless.  Neither do I agree that printing direct to photographic paper is  necessarily going to produce a 'better' print than a print from a scan. Any meaningful comparison between the two outcomes must evaluate multiple variables and subjective aesthetics, which is hardly a science.

 

I can take digital landscape photography as an example that has reached a stage where anyone with a camera and a fuzzy idea of photography can point it at a scene and then spend a few minutes twiddling the file around with some plug-in or other such as Landscape Pro (you won't need to look far around this forum to see plenty of examples).  The usual result is at best a pretty postcard cliche or, at worst, a cartoon-like image that will jar the viewer's eyes and brain.  Film photography, whether taken along the traditional wet print route or along the 'hybrid' route of printing from scans offers many more options than were available in Adams's day.

 

Film is not compatible with the extreme file-mangling approach that more and more digital landscape photographers seem to be adopting, which in itself negates the argument by some that a scan is by nature inferior to a film original. A high-end, competent scan will be at least the equal and often better than a film original.  If you are going to persist in making comparisons between film & digital, you need to look carefully at how the respective technologies are used rather than continually holding one up to ridicule and the other as a benchmark when all you can rely on is your own subjective preference.

 

Personally, I have no time for gratuitous comparisons.  I'm far more interested in seeing great work from both camps.

Agree with you both.  Having sold my LPL 7200 and dismantled my darkroom years ago, since 'coming back' to film in 2010 I have been dependent on the hybrid approach.  After post-processing the scanned file in LR, if I want to make a print I just send the file to my Pixma Pro 100.  I really, really do not miss spending hours in the darkroom making test strips etc etc and then spending more time 'spotting' the print!

 

For hard to define reasons film photography generally gives me more pleasure than my digital cameras - but on the other hand there are many situations where to use my M240 or Q or even my iPhone makes more sense.  'Horses for courses', as they say! 

[Keith (M)]

Image #8 from Wed's roll of Ektar 100 (Hasselblad 500C, Tessar 160mm CB).

 

​High Summer on the High Street

 

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!

[schattenundlicht]

[...]  I really, really do not miss spending hours in the darkroom making test strips etc etc and then spending more time 'spotting' the print! [...]

 

 

I fully agree, in a way.

 

On the other hand, I fondly remember from my college and university days the sheer magic and thrill, every time a latent image became manifest on photographic paper in the darkroom. The pleasure of a (subjectively) well performed postprocessing and a (very subjectively again) succesful end result is there with the digital or hybrid workflow, but is not quite fully comparable. On artistic grounds, we have gained more than we have lost. On an experiential dimension, it might be otherwise. But then, it could just be plain nostalgia ;-)

 

On summary, I would not want to go back to wet printing, but I envy those who have the setup, time, stamina, and expertise to still work 'all analog' in this time and age. Whenever I read a page in Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook, I get a bit melancholy because of all the profound knowledge and experience en route to extinction. But then, even in 2017 there are people fully able to operate and service steam engines and wooden sailing boats, so there might be hope :-)

[Guest JMF]

Very nice, Jean Marc.  I will be said for you to see the GR1V go...

 

Thanks Adam !

 

Love it !

 

Thanks sixteen pads !

 

I love this one. I would say the camera is just reaching its stride.

 

Thanks Wayne !

 

A very nice shot. The muted colours fit the situation well. What happened to induce the retirement of the Ricoh?

 

Rgds

 

C.

 

 

Thanks christoph_d, the burnt edge is on all frames, I wonder if I'll be able to find / fix the light leak.

[Wayne]

Microbus fans...........Sometimes they try to conceal it.

image433116 by Keith Finney, on Flickr

 

M3, 50 Summicron DR, Tmax 400

 

[gnuyork]

Here's the Velvia 50

I prefer the Velvia (as I usually do).

[Guest JMF]

I prefer the Velvia (as I usually do).

 

 

Same here, +1 for Velvia !

[mikemgb]

FYI - I decided that I didn't need Google to tell me whether or not I could treat BW400CN the same way as XP2 by B&W developing instead of C41. I should have used Google. I ended up with extremely faint images only just showing through the almost opaque orange-brown base. I'll pull them out and try scanning some this weekend to see if there is anything salvageable.

 

Let that be a lesson to all - The story of the boy who thought he was smarter than the collective wisdom of the World...

 

 I have developed BW400CN in black and white chemistry, 18 minutes in Ilfosol 3 and 10 minutes in Ilford Rapid Fixer gave me some dense but perfectly usable negatives.

[Doc Henry]

I fully agree, in a way.

 

On the other hand, I fondly remember from my college and university days the sheer magic and thrill, every time a latent image became manifest on photographic paper in the darkroom. The pleasure of a (subjectively) well performed postprocessing and a (very subjectively again) succesful end result is there with the digital or hybrid workflow, but is not quite fully comparable. On artistic grounds, we have gained more than we have lost. On an experiential dimension, it might be otherwise. But then, it could just be plain nostalgia ;-)

 

On summary, I would not want to go back to wet printing, but I envy those who have the setup, time, stamina, and expertise to still work 'all analog' in this time and age. Whenever I read a page in Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook, I get a bit melancholy because of all the profound knowledge and experience en route to extinction. But then, even in 2017 there are people fully able to operate and service steam engines and wooden sailing boats, so there might be hope :-)

 

Print in darkroom is the best moment for me , to finally see my work from the beginning ie shoot with my camera

untill print on paper

In addition, you can enlarge what we like , without any problem and a picture in postcard format is different from

a photo in 30x40

The quality of the image on the paper has no equivalent , by the "softness" of the image in the artsitic sense of

the term and the vintage side

Who agrees with me ?

Henry

[SunnySixteen]

East Hampton NY in the fog

Portra 400 - M6 - 35 Summicron

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!

[SunnySixteen]

Print in darkroom is the best moment for me , to finally see my work from the beginning ie shoot with my camera

untill print on paper

In addition, you can enlarge what we like , without any problem and a picture in postcard format is different from

a photo in 30x40

The quality of the image on the paper has no equivalent , by the "softness" of the image in the artsitic sense of

the term and the vintage side

Who agrees with me ?

Henry

 

I agree with you Henry, and I need to make more prints myself!

[Doc Henry]

East Hampton NY in the fog

Portra 400 - M6 - 35 Summicron

 

Superb color and picture

I love these colors , this soft side when watching !

Am I alone ?

Best

Henry

 

I agree with you Henry, and I need to make more prints myself!

 

 

I just spent 3 nights for printing . What pleasure 

Edited July 8, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Doc Henry]

Kodak Ektar 100 (dev in tetenal 38°C)

Leica M7

Summilux 35 Asph

 

 

Tam Ky at sunset

VN 2016

 

 

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!

 

As I said above to Mathias, except the "digital" side when you scan , if not I cannot post 

my photo here , I have not corrected

 

In comparison, the M9 gives a different image with different clarity ,more clear and different

colors.
But the film shot is the exact reproduction of that moment for the color and general appearance

 

I have also this landscape in b&w Kodak taken with my MP

Best

Henry

Edited July 8, 2017 by Doc Henry