I like film...(open thread)

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is priceless! I'm sure that at least part of the curses were directed at you Adam

 

I'm telling you this is how I found her!  LOL

[edwardkaraa]

I'm telling you this is how I found her! LOL

Quite a character!

[Advertisement]

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

[AntonioF]

I have shot some medium format lately. This is from the "167" area of Nardò.

 

Mamiya 645, Sekor-C 80/2.8, Ilford FP4@200, HC-110_B

20180113-img928 by antoniofedele, on Flickr

[Doc Henry]

I have shot some medium format lately. This is from the "167" area of Nardò.

 

Mamiya 645, Sekor-C 80/2.8, Ilford FP4@200, HC-110_B

 

20180113-img928 by antoniofedele, on Flickr

 

Antonio clarity and b&w tone beautiful

Best

Henry

[Suede]

Arches

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!

t-max 400

[jochem]

...If you want an analogy between film and digital, I'd compare them to making a chair. Imagine if you were a craftsman who selected the seasoned wood, sketched out the design for the chair in a notebook, cut the timber to length, shaped it, carved the mortise and tenon joints, assembled it and finished it off with French polish.

Now imagine you had a computer on which you could design the chair. Imagine you could fire that design off to a CNC machine that carved the chair out of a block of wood and spat it out ready made and finished in varnish. The initial vision in both cases - the design - is the same. The latter would be the more perfect but which would you rather own?

Or here's an analogy from the music world. You write the song, rehearse it with your favourite musicians and record it live. Or, you write the song, programme various computer-controlled synths to play the the various instruments absolutely flawlessly and record that. Which record would you rather listen to?

Why as a society are we so hell-bent on moving away from things made by human hand to soul-less computer-based crap? The lack of human input is so prevalent in the manufacturing process it's palpable." - from an article in the "The Online Darkroom":

http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2014/01/a-less-beautiful-ralph-gibson.html

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...If you want an analogy between film and digital, I'd compare them to making a chair. Imagine if you were a craftsman who selected the seasoned wood, sketched out the design for the chair in a notebook, cut the timber to length, shaped it, carved the mortise and tenon joints, assembled it and finished it off with French polish.

Now imagine you had a computer on which you could design the chair. Imagine you could fire that design off to a CNC machine that carved the chair out of a block of wood and spat it out ready made and finished in varnish. The initial vision in both cases - the design - is the same. The latter would be the more perfect but which would you rather own?

Or here's an analogy from the music world. You write the song, rehearse it with your favourite musicians and record it live. Or, you write the song, programme various computer-controlled synths to play the the various instruments absolutely flawlessly and record that. Which record would you rather listen to?

Why as a society are we so hell-bent on moving away from things made by human hand to soul-less computer-based crap? The lack of human input is so prevalent in the manufacturing process it's palpable." - from an article in the "The Online Darkroom":

http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2014/01/a-less-beautiful-ralph-gibson.html

 

Those are some apt analogies.  My favorite is the comparison of natural breasts vs augmented breasts - e.g., Sophia Loren vs Pamela Anderson - which do you prefer.  And yes, many say yes and those are most likely to shoot both film and digital   I shoot only film.... 

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 January 15, 2018 by A miller

[stray cat]

Are they augmented? Wouldn't have noticed.

[Wayne]

Here's another faux-Wayne, XP2 @ 1600:

Through the walkway by chrism229, on Flickr

 

I was not going to post it but................

 

 

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!

 

Zorki 1, Industar 50mm 3.5, Fuji 400 Superia.

[chrism]

We can't be trusted, can we, Wayne? We'll photograph anything!

 

Chris

[Prosophos]

"The Pianist, closer."

 

Leica M3, Leica 50mm Summicron Dual Range (at close focus), Kodak Tri-X 400, and Plustek 8200i.

 

―Peter.

 

[X_Beliebiger]

Leica III, Summitar 2.0/50, Delta 3200 @6400

 

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!

 

.

[erl]

...If you want an analogy between film and digital, I'd compare them to making a chair. Imagine if you were a craftsman who selected the seasoned wood, sketched out the design for the chair in a notebook, cut the timber to length, shaped it, carved the mortise and tenon joints, assembled it and finished it off with French polish.

Now imagine you had a computer on which you could design the chair. Imagine you could fire that design off to a CNC machine that carved the chair out of a block of wood and spat it out ready made and finished in varnish. The initial vision in both cases - the design - is the same. The latter would be the more perfect but which would you rather own?

Or here's an analogy from the music world. You write the song, rehearse it with your favourite musicians and record it live. Or, you write the song, programme various computer-controlled synths to play the the various instruments absolutely flawlessly and record that. Which record would you rather listen to?

Why as a society are we so hell-bent on moving away from things made by human hand to soul-less computer-based crap? The lack of human input is so prevalent in the manufacturing process it's palpable." - from an article in the "The Online Darkroom":

http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2014/01/a-less-beautiful-ralph-gibson.html

First of all, welcome to the forum jockem.

 

The article you lifted from "The Online Forum" is interesting and considering the source, one can expect some bias (I am only judging it by the name! so I may be quite wrong). My argument with any of these opinions is that they are always polarized and rarely considered facts. All the facts. Analyses of this kind always seem to be done in a 'sealed bubble', never in the real; world environment. There are times when digital is far superior to film, for the intended purpose. There are times when film is far superior, for the intended purpose.

 

As I type this I am printing out some B&W prints shot on HP5+ with a Hasselblad. There is nothing in my extensive arsenal of cameras that could better the result. Tomorrow I am shooting in the National Gallery of Victoria. I know in advance my best tool will be my digital Leica M10, with my Sony A7s as backup (using the same Leica lenses). These facts are incontrovertible. Much experience has proven it to me. I am not alone in this knowledge.

 

So where does this leave the information in the article posted in The Digital Darkroom?

 

My impression is that it is a mistake to compare chair manufacture and music reproduction with choices between digital and film. Our minds must be kept open and questioning. Not blindly accepting of someone else's 'facts'.

 

P.S. I know my statements will be controversial in this thread and some others will disagree. Maybe their talents with their chosen medium are superior to mine. I can accept that.

[Narsuitus]

First Assignment by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

 

My first assignment as a newspaper photographer was to shoot the grand opening of an Ethan Allen furniture store. I could not capture the image I wanted because at the time, I only had a 200mm telephoto lens and a 50mm normal lens. A chaperone mirror helped me get the wide-angle subject coverage I needed.

 

I was pleased that my city editor was pleased with my image.

 

I immediately invested in a wide-angle lens.

 

This image was shot on Kodak Tri-X with a 50mm lens on a Miranda Sensorex 35mm SLR in the summer of 1968.

 

[stray cat]

First of all, welcome to the forum jockem.

 

The article you lifted from "The Online Forum" is interesting and considering the source, one can expect some bias (I am only judging it by the name! so I may be quite wrong). My argument with any of these opinions is that they are always polarized and rarely considered facts. All the facts. Analyses of this kind always seem to be done in a 'sealed bubble', never in the real; world environment. There are times when digital is far superior to film, for the intended purpose. There are times when film is far superior, for the intended purpose.

 

As I type this I am printing out some B&W prints shot on HP5+ with a Hasselblad. There is nothing in my extensive arsenal of cameras that could better the result. Tomorrow I am shooting in the National Gallery of Victoria. I know in advance my best tool will be my digital Leica M10, with my Sony A7s as backup (using the same Leica lenses). These facts are incontrovertible. Much experience has proven it to me. I am not alone in this knowledge.

 

So where does this leave the information in the article posted in The Digital Darkroom?

 

My impression is that it is a mistake to compare chair manufacture and music reproduction with choices between digital and film. Our minds must be kept open and questioning. Not blindly accepting of someone else's 'facts'.

 

P.S. I know my statements will be controversial in this thread and some others will disagree. Maybe their talents with their chosen medium are superior to mine. I can accept that.

 

John,

 

I think Jochem is linking to an article that is expressing an opinion. In fact the article poses questions and leaves the question of choice up to the user.

 

Many who visit this "I like film" thread use all manner of tools to get their photographs - this happens to be where many post their film images and come to admire the work of other film users and talk about matters related to film.

 

Your shooting with digital in the NGV is your choice based on your lengthy experience. I can't see how that makes an incontrovertible fact that digital is better for the job. It makes it your very firm opinion, and that is to be respected in light of your years of experience. I myself have done lots of shooting in the NGV and never used digital. My experience tells me that film does just fine. Perhaps my purpose for shooting in the NGV has been different to yours, but this alone makes it a discussion that is not about facts but about choices, circumstances. I'll use the tool I find suits me for the job in hand, you use your choice.

 

I think people who are perhaps not regular visitors to this thread often misunderstand the passion that many here have for film. Sometimes that passion is expressed as negativity towards digital - often reasons are given, other times not. I think we all understand and respect that all kinds of photographers will use all sorts of tools for all sorts of reasons, and no-one here disrespects any fellow photographer's right to choose what suits them (I know you are not saying that they do, but I think it is an important distinction to make). And I know that some of us, myself included, find a kind of refuge here from the digital language of sensors and IBIS and menus and captures and so on and so forth - and, as is from time to time expressed - how superior digital is to film for whatever reason.

 

I also think many of us, again myself included, feel a slight (albeit irrational) kind of nervousness that film will somehow become non-viable, and we like to reassure ourselves that there are very good and valid reasons why film should not be replaced, if that were ever an option, by digital. These reasons have far more to do with a "look" and "feel" than with LPM charts and crazy high ISO capability. That is why the chair and music comparisons are valid points in the discussion I think Jochem was referencing. And his question remains - there is much in an evolving society that marginilizes the aesthetic of imperfection in favour of the - and you see the term used in all sorts of areas as an indicator of perfection/the future is now/modernity - digitally produced. By seeking to question whether in doing so we may be losing something - something valuable, something even irreplaceable - is, I'd think, absolutely keeping our minds open and questioning. None of us here, I think you'll find, blindly accept anyone else's "facts".

[Wayne]

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!

 

Minox B, Foma Retropan 320

[edwardkaraa]

Those are some apt analogies. My favorite is the comparison of natural breasts vs augmented breasts - e.g., Sophia Loren vs Pamela Anderson - which do you prefer. And yes, many say yes and those are most likely to shoot both film and digital I shoot only film....

Sophia_Loren_-_1955.JPG

 

 

 

 

pamela-anderson-before-after-1.jpg

I shoot only film too! LOL

[erl]

A very high percentage of my 'best' images are also shot on film, often not Leica! Am I allowed to say that here?

 

Answer to Phil (stray cat) above. My crit was only of the article linked by jockem. Nothing he said. The article was IMO posing to make an analogy between film and digital, using other non related objects. I couldn't see the point, but I do see way too many attempts at such comparisons. Pointless. Again, IMO.

[erl]

From yesterday's shoot.

Hasselblad 203FE + 110mm Sonnar. Ilford HP5+ in Xtol.

 

 

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stray cat]

A very high percentage of my 'best' images are also shot on film, often not Leica! Am I allowed to say that here?

 

Answer to Phil (stray cat) above. My crit was only of the article linked by jockem. Nothing he said. The article was IMO posing to make an analogy between film and digital, using other non related objects. I couldn't see the point, but I do see way too many attempts at such comparisons. Pointless. Again, IMO.

 

We on this thread apparently have some special dispensation that allows us to shoot on non-Leica gear, so here is probably the safest place to say that!

 

I understand where your criticism is aimed, John. I don't mind people making analogies if it helps to illustrate a particular direction of thought - that is the point of analogies in the first place as far as I can tell. As long as it is analogy, not just anal. I think the article Jochem referenced was very much the former, but I respect that you don't see it that way.

 

How did the shoot at the NGV go today? Was it a professional assignment?