I like film...(open thread)

[Michael Hiles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Beihai Park, Beijing. The city is full of wonderful parks and public spaces. XP2, if anyone cares.

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!

Edited November 10, 2017 by Michael Hiles

[Advertisement]

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

[Doug A]

I'm finding the exact similarity though with my M/F shots, they can look like digital, very clean and sharp. I like them like this though, makes me feel better for forking out so much money for the best lenses, and "bigger" film.

Gary

Back in the day I shot MF to minimize grain and achieve the greatest possible sharpness. I shot 35mm only when I needed the speed and/or portability of the equipment. 50 years later when I look through my old prints it's the 35mm Tri-X shots I can't take my eyes off. The MF prints are as sharp as ever but, frankly, they're a little boring. I've switched from Tri-X in D76 to HP5+ in Rodinal but these days it's all 35mm.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Doug A

[Keith (M)]

All Saints Church in the village of Coleshill on the Wilts/Oxon border.  M7, 35mm ZM Biogon, HP5+, Rodinal 1:50.

 

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!

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Beihai Park, Beijing. The city is full of wonderful parks and public spaces. XP2, if anyone cares.

Very nice Michael the border also sets it off............nice

 

Neil

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

All Saints Church in the village of Coleshill on the Wilts/Oxon border.  M7, 35mm ZM Biogon, HP5+, Rodinal 1:50.

Keith,

I like the way you have maintainmed the verticals and the nice tones

 

neil

[A miller]

torqued contrast!

NYC

Provia 100F

M-A, 28mm elmarit pre-asph

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!

[chrism]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm glad you mentioned what you did, I'm thinking of getting a Pen F to enhance the 'grain to subject' ratio. If one goes to the bother of shooting film, it needs to look like film. If someone pauses and asks: 'Is this film or digital', you've more or less wasted your time and money.

 

 

But even half-frame images can be smooth:

Shaving by chrism229, on Flickr

 

and even 6x6 images can be grainy:

Pippa 2015 #30 by chrism229, on Flickr

 

You simply make some bad decisions about film, speed and development and put up with the results - a statement that applies to both the above photographs depending on what you wanted them to look like! I fully respect the rights of those who choose to roll around in boulder-sized grain, but I don't think I will ever be one of them. Grain was what got in the way, especially if you were foolish enough to use a fast film. But in those days I had no fast lenses and couldn't afford to buy them, so fast film was a must and grain minimisation became the goal. Stupid, really; taking pictures always was the goal and technical considerations must always come second to making a good picture.

[A miller]

But even half-frame images can be smooth:

 

Shaving by chrism229, on Flickr

 

and even 6x6 images can be grainy:

 

Pippa 2015 #30 by chrism229, on Flickr

 

You simply make some bad decisions about film, speed and development and put up with the results - a statement that applies to both the above photographs depending on what you wanted them to look like! I fully respect the rights of those who choose to roll around in boulder-sized grain, but I don't think I will ever be one of them. Grain was what got in the way, especially if you were foolish enough to use a fast film. But in those days I had no fast lenses and couldn't afford to buy them, so fast film was a must and grain minimisation became the goal. Stupid, really; taking pictures always was the goal and technical considerations must always come second to making a good picture.

 

Chris - just about any film will have more grain than a modern digital camera has noise.  whether it is boulder size a la Wayne or not - it is there.  And it forms a vital part of the character of a film image.  I have learned to appreciate this over time.  There are scenes and contexts for fine grain and - IMO yes - there are scenes and context for Wayne-sized grain.  It all is a matter of what you want to express in your picture, which is more than just "taking" a picture, but "making" a picture.  I like to think of the film photos that we share here as pictures "made" and not "taken."  For the most part, I think it is true.  I like to think of it as pairing food with the right wine (or vice versa).  An aged Bordeaux and a slow roasted aged prime rib roast make a meal.  A dry reisling and sushi do, too.  Try switching the wines with these food dishes and you get an akward imbalance that is certainly not a "meal!"  

Edited November 10, 2017 by A miller

[A miller]

Wall Street 

M-A, 28mm elmarit pre-asph, Portra 400 +1

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!

[edwardkaraa]

Wall Street 

M-A, 28mm elmarit pre-asph, Portra 400 +1

 

This one is excellent Adam.

[edwardkaraa]

M7 ZM 50/2 Portra 800 by edward karaa, on Flickr

[A miller]

This one is excellent Adam.

 

 

M7 ZM 50/2 Portra 800 by edward karaa, on Flickr

 

Thanks, Edward.  This last photo that you shared seems cleaner and lower contrast (in a good way) than some of the others.  Are you using the in-camera meter for determining exposure?  If so, do you make any compensating adjustments (e.g., +1)?

[chrism]

Chris - just about any film will have more grain than a modern digital camera has noise.  whether it is boulder size a la Wayne or not - it is there.  And it forms a vital part of the character of a film image.  I have learned to appreciate this over time.  There are scenes and contexts for fine grain and - IMO yes - there are scenes and context for Wayne-sized grain.  It all is a matter of what you want to express in your picture, which is more than just "taking" a picture, but "making" a picture.  I like to think of the film photos that we share here as pictures "made" and not "taken."  For the most part, I think it is true.  I like to think of it as pairing food with the right wine (or vice versa).  An aged Bordeaux and a slow roasted aged prime rib roast make a meal.  A dry reisling and sushi do, too.  Try switching the wines with these food dishes and you get an akward imbalance that is certainly not a "meal!"  

 

I'm perfectly happy to think that making a picture is better than taking one: it implies some control over the process. As I said, I don't mind if someone likes grain, but I prefer to minimise it as best I can. When I said I was channeling my inner Wayne, I meant to imply I was taking a picture of some north American street scene in all its sordid glory, not offering up a grainy photo made with a subminiature spy-camera. Wayne is a far better photographer than someone who can be summed up that way. If I have a beef, it would be another comment to the effect that if an observer asks "'Is this film or digital', you've more or less wasted your time and money." Well, not for me. I make photographs to satisfy myself, and impressing others that they are made with film and not digital is irrelevant. I'm not criticising that view, as photography is a broad church with many points of view. I happen to think differently about the issue, and that's all.

 

I have just developed a roll of the dwindling stock of Freestyle generic XP2 (that might actually be XP1, XP2, or XP2 Plus) that I exposed at 100ASA in the Olypus Pen F. Sadly, the camera broke after ten frames, but maybe one of them will still let me show that a half-frame image does not have to be a grainy image.

[Steve Ricoh]

Wall Street 

M-A, 28mm elmarit pre-asph, Portra 400 +1

Iconic scene !

 

Excuse my ignorance what does +1 mean?

[A miller]

I'm perfectly happy to think that making a picture is better than taking one: it implies some control over the process. As I said, I don't mind if someone likes grain, but I prefer to minimise it as best I can. When I said I was channeling my inner Wayne, I meant to imply I was taking a picture of some north American street scene in all its sordid glory, not offering up a grainy photo made with a subminiature spy-camera. Wayne is a far better photographer than someone who can be summed up that way. If I have a beef, it would be another comment to the effect that if an observer asks "'Is this film or digital', you've more or less wasted your time and money." Well, not for me. I make photographs to satisfy myself, and impressing others that they are made with film and not digital is irrelevant. I'm not criticising that view, as photography is a broad church with many points of view. I happen to think differently about the issue, and that's all.

 

I have just developed a roll of the dwindling stock of Freestyle generic XP2 (that might actually be XP1, XP2, or XP2 Plus) that I exposed at 100ASA in the Olypus Pen F. Sadly, the camera broke after ten frames, but maybe one of them will still let me show that a half-frame image does not have to be a grainy image.

 

Chris - nobody does fine grain film photography like you.    Having said this, your grainy ones, such as the recent ones of your lovely wife, are equally sublime; they convey a different emotion - and it hits home hard.  Very effective photography in each case.

[A miller]

Iconic scene !

 

Excuse my ignorance what does +1 mean?

Thanks, Steve.  I was just indicating that I pushed the film one stop.

[Steve Ricoh]

I think my statement (quoted by Chrism above) was a bit rash, what I meant to say is that I wish to see a clear distinction between my digital and analogue photography. What others chose is a different matter.

Having located a mint- Pen F at a dealer I'm rather tempted, but perhaps I should first experiment with ff 135 Tri X 400 pushed to 3200 to make the grain stand out. Probably make scanning somewhat easier too.

[A miller]

This morning I met up with Marc Tauber ("MT0227") for some Fall shooting in Central Park with our Hasselblads (and my Leica loaded with Adox Color Implosion).  It was pretty much freezing or below and very windy.  We braved the sunrise at 6am (Marc woke up around 4am to make the bus from New Jersey  ) and we stayed with each other until after 11am.  

 

It was a blast.  We each had our Hassy 503cw, 80mm planar and 250mm superachromat.  We blew threw rolls of Ektar (and one Cinestill 50 in 120 format that I had).

 

Being a Manhattanite, I am particularly fascinated with Fall leaves and we dwelled in a spot in the "ramble" forest that had lots of very colorful fall leaves.  It was an opportune time to use my 16mm and 55mm extension tubes, which we did.  (Note: leaves on the ground stay still better than when they are on the tree  ).

 

I grew attached to the leaves and brought some of them home to my 10 year old daughter:

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!

 

 

They kept her busy for about 10 minutes after school today:  

 

 

Real photos to follow!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[A miller]

I think my statement (quoted by Chrism above) was a bit rash, what I meant to say is that I wish to see a clear distinction between my digital and analogue photography. What others chose is a different matter.

Having located a mint- Pen F at a dealer I'm rather tempted, but perhaps I should first experiment with ff 135 Tri X 400 pushed to 3200 to make the grain stand out. Probably make scanning somewhat easier too.

 

Steve - If you just want grain, why don't you just shoot Ilford Delta 3200.  Rating it at 3200 will give you a very healthy dose of grain.  Here's an example which is self-developed. (M3, 135 tele elmar)

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!

 

The grain in this film can be tamed by rating it at 1600 rather than 3200.

[gbealnz]

Back in the day I shot MF to minimize grain and achieve the greatest possible sharpness. I shot 35mm only when I needed the speed and/or portability of the equipment. 50 years later when I look through my old prints it's the 35mm Tri-X shots I can't take my eyes off. The MF prints are as sharp as ever but, frankly, they're a little boring. I've switched from Tri-X in D76 to HP5+ in Rodinal but these days it's all 35mm.

From a similar era then, I too always tried to get the finest grain, sharpest prints. But as Chris(m) quite correctly points out, it was because at the time, old slow lenses were all I had or could afford.

 

I still love the sharp as look that M/F gives me (and even more so from what Neil is showing with L/F), but on the other hand the 35mm stuff that appears here is sublime too.

 

And the "half-frame can be smooth, M/F can be grainy" example is an exceptional display at what Chris was suggesting. Wrong or right film/developer choice.

 

In the end, as long as we are having fun, what does it matter?

Gary