I like film...(open thread)

[gbealnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Both look fine to me Steve.

To be fair, the Agfa is a tad older than the Fuji, and without sounding clever, I'd say the Fuji lens would/should be "better" anyway, Fuji produce some excellent lenses.

And, the film look is easily "beaten" in sharpness by digital. I see it time and time again, where I shoot subjects with my R8 and old R28-70 zoom alongside the Leica T with (usually) the Elmarit 28mm M.

Chalk and cheese, the T shots are sharp, and "clinical", the R8 film shots not so.

Heck, I'm almost sounding like Henry . I like both mediums, and recall ChrisM saying a while back in years gone by with film, we all tried to get the finest grained, sharpest looking prints with film. Now digital is here we are clamoring to get away from the sharp and clinical, (or something like that, what exactly was it you said Chris???). I agreed with him at the time, and still do. I like sharp etc, but sometimes the "film look" is nicer.

Gary

[Advertisement]

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

[sblitz]

Both look fine to me Steve.

To be fair, the Agfa is a tad older than the Fuji, and without sounding clever, I'd say the Fuji lens would/should be "better" anyway, Fuji produce some excellent lenses.

And, the film look is easily "beaten" in sharpness by digital. I see it time and time again, where I shoot subjects with my R8 and old R28-70 zoom alongside the Leica T with (usually) the Elmarit 28mm M.

Chalk and cheese, the T shots are sharp, and "clinical", the R8 film shots not so.

Heck, I'm almost sounding like Henry . I like both mediums, and recall ChrisM saying a while back in years gone by with film, we all tried to get the finest grained, sharpest looking prints with film. Now digital is here we are clamoring to get away from the sharp and clinical, (or something like that, what exactly was it you said Chris???). I agreed with him at the time, and still do. I like sharp etc, but sometimes the "film look" is nicer.

Gary

 

I agree. The camera was only around $300 and it is a way to get into a 6x6 negative. I think I will trade in and see if someone has a fuji645 with the longer lens than the one I have ..... also a faster camera to operate ..... all part of the fun. After all, this is our candy store in life .... 

[gbealnz]

Indeed, candy store without the worries of sugar.

Gary

[Doc Henry]

Hi Gary,good to have news from you.. Two mediums but for my trip 90% are film....more sensitive instead low Isos,most with Ektar 100,less with Portra this time ,fine grain and low Isos for the luminosity.I also make some sensitivity tests.Superiority of film without appeal.Best regards H

[christoph_d]

Hi Gary,good to have news from you.. Two mediums but for my trip 90% are film....more sensitive instead low Isos,most with Ektar 100,less with Portra this time ,fine grain and low Isos for the luminosity.I also make some sensitivity tests.Superiority of film without appeal.Best regards H

I look forward to seeing your results.

 

Rgds

 

C.

[Doc Henry]

Both look fine to me Steve.

To be fair, the Agfa is a tad older than the Fuji, and without sounding clever, I'd say the Fuji lens would/should be "better" anyway, Fuji produce some excellent lenses.

And, the film look is easily "beaten" in sharpness by digital. I see it time and time again, where I shoot subjects with my R8 and old R28-70 zoom alongside the Leica T with (usually) the Elmarit 28mm M.

Chalk and cheese, the T shots are sharp, and "clinical", the R8 film shots not so.

Heck, I'm almost sounding like Henry . I like both mediums, and recall ChrisM saying a while back in years gone by with film, we all tried to get the finest grained, sharpest looking prints with film. Now digital is here we are clamoring to get away from the sharp and clinical, (or something like that, what exactly was it you said Chris???). I agreed with him at the time, and still do. I like sharp etc, but sometimes the "film look" is nicer.

Gary

Gary about "sharpness" of pictures, Henri Cartier Bresson said "It' s a stupidity" translation of "connerie" Best Henry

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I look forward to seeing your results.

Rgds

C.

Christoph , I have many pictures of sunset to show you about the faithfullness of color film vs digital.

Best

H

Edited September 2, 2016 by Doc Henry

[philipus]

This is a nice photo. 

 

Summicron 35mm MP Ektar in BW

 

[philipus]

Dish

 

Flickr

50/1.4A Velvia 100

[chrism]

I like both mediums, and recall ChrisM saying a while back in years gone by with film, we all tried to get the finest grained, sharpest looking prints with film. Now digital is here we are clamoring to get away from the sharp and clinical, (or something like that, what exactly was it you said Chris???). I agreed with him at the time, and still do. I like sharp etc, but sometimes the "film look" is nicer.

Gary

 

I pointed out that while people today say they like grain as big as terminal moraine, when there was no digital we all tried to make our grain invisible. I think it took the experience of seeing truly grainless digital images for us to discover that the happy medium is to have just a little grain, just so we know we are looking at a photograph.

[A miller]

That's wonderful.  Love her expression.

 

A human moment well captured, Adam. Her demeanour in slight contrast to her advertisements me thinks. Watching a few pictures from your street collection and you get a kaleidoscop of human expression.

Best,

C

Many thanks, Kevin and Christoph.

[A miller]

Good news, well done!

 

Thanks, Steve

 

 

Sneak some rugelach into the country!!!!!

  

I did but unfortunately it is all in my waistline

 

 

I bet you were sorry to leave!

 

Wow you take a month to PP your photos... I thought I was bad

Looking forward to seeing them ...

Oh yes, very sorry.

And yes, between film processing, scanning, marinating, editing, loving, then hating, then trashing, then coming back to, it can take me a long time!

[MRTEE]

Well cropped. Leica iif with 3.5cm Summaron, Tx400. Tony.

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!

[MRTEE]

Portra400 conversion to b+w. Leica M1 with Zeiss 35mm Biogon. Tony.

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!

[MRTEE]

Portra400 conversion to b+w. Leica M1 with Zeiss 35mm Biogon. Tony.

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!

[MRTEE]

Sorry folks,finger twitch syndrome. Tony.

[chrism]

Red flowers just seem to justify the existence of silver halide photography.

 

FM3a, 105/2.8, TMax 100, HC-110, X1 scan:

Hibiscus by chrism229, on Flickr

 

Chris

[honcho]

From my October 2015 Outer Hebrides workshop.  Looking forward to returning again in a few weeks' time.

 

Hasselblad 503cw

Zeiss 80mm f2.8 planar cfi

RVP 50

 

Yesterday evening, I posted that image of Luskentyre elsewhere and was asked why I did not correct the magenta cast.  That would be unthinkable to me, I might as well not use Velvia 50 if I felt the need to 'correct' the way this emulsion reacts to certain light, location and atmospheric conditions.  Anyway, the comment caused me to think a little again about why I use Velvia to unlock it's palette rather than it's outright accutance, so I put some thoughts on my blog for anyone who might be interested:

 

http://www.uklandscapephotographer.com/fujifilm-velvia-50/

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[A miller]

Yesterday evening, I posted that image of Luskentyre elsewhere and was asked why I did not correct the magenta cast.  That would be unthinkable to me, I might as well not use Velvia 50 if I felt the need to 'correct' the way this emulsion reacts to certain light, location and atmospheric conditions.  Anyway, the comment caused me to think a little again about why I use Velvia to unlock it's palette rather than it's outright accutance, so I put some thoughts on my blog for anyone who might be interested:

 

http://www.uklandscapephotographer.com/fujifilm-velvia-50/

Steve - you're the artist, so everyone else can go jump...

Having said this, the use of a magenta filter wouldnt be that insane as the data sheet for the film indicates this with certain slow shutter speeds, and even provides the ascending degree of strength of filter the slower the shutter.

So there is something to be said for using a filter to obtain correct colors. And there is also something to be said for making lemonade out of lemons using "incorrect colors."

[KevinL]

I pointed out that while people today say they like grain as big as terminal moraine, when there was no digital we all tried to make our grain invisible. I think it took the experience of seeing truly grainless digital images for us to discover that the happy medium is to have just a little grain, just so we know we are looking at a photograph.

 

 

I'm not entirely sure that its "grainlessness" per se.   8x10 LF contact prints are for all intents and purposes grainless and those have been around for a long, long time (well before miniature formats like 35mm).   I do think there is something else about digital images that has produced the reaction you talk about, Chris, of some people lately accepting and even embracing "Big Grain" (as opposed to Big Data) when previously they chased minimized grain.  I'm not entirely sure what that "something else" may be -- perhaps just the ease with which grainlessness can be achieved (just plunk down a few hundred dollars), whereas before it required genuine effort and genuine skill (LF cameras, tray developing large sheets of film, etc.).  The "easy" thing, the "normal" thing, the "common" thing quickly loses its appeal -- beauty is always uncommon, exceptional, or difficult in some way.   Rambling now, so I'll stop.