I like film...(open thread)

[becker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

MP APX 100 40 mm 

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]

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

[becker]

Jungfernstieg, Hamburg

 

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!

[becker]

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!

[becker]

Nature Science  Zoo Mus. Hamburg

 

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 December 26, 2017 by becker

[Doc Henry]

Yes I for one would like to see back to back comparison of digital colour v film colour, but there are so many colour films to choose from, each with their own way of rendering, which film.

 

The reason for the bayer having twice as many green compared to red and blue is due to human vision, of course. But it has always appeared perverse to infer colour by computation in the camera and then to reverse the procedure in pp to produce digital B&W. I think B&W film has the edge, and this primarily was the reason for my return to film.

 

Yes , Steve I agree

Steve I already posted I think but post again for you some examples as I said above

 

 

Case 1:

 

M9/50

 

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!

 

M7

 

 

-the approximate color : of red , blue, yellow, color of bamboo ...  in comparison with Kodak Portra

-the background is blurred in film , not in digital  (flat aspect)

 

Saturation of all colors with digital

 

All pictures are uncorrected of course

DNG and TIFF (Nikon Coolscan 5000) convert JPEG

 

Same lens , same moment , same place.

I really notice colors and keep in memory when I shoot

 

Also notice "sharpness" of sensor and "softness" of film

Best

Henry

[philipus]

This is very nice Adam. The light under the bridge adds a lovely dimension and makes it seem more alive somehow. If I were to nitpick, I'd have cloned out the sign at right and the snow at the bottom. This is such a serene scene and I feel that those things intrude somehow. Here I much prefer the colour version because the extra depth that the colours add.

 

The color version of the Bow Bridge photo

Ektar; 80mm Planar; 503cw

ektar version.jpg

 

Wonderful photograph. Did you ask him to close his eyes? And was it a by-chance double-exposure or intended?

 

M2, Summitar, TMax 400 @1600, double exp.

post-54779-0-82630100-1493025278.jpg

 

I like contrasty black and white but usually not where the photo is reduced to, literally, black and white. I like here that there is some gradation in the tones, in addition to the dog and composition.

 

EmptyName 12.jpg

 

May I be the contrarian, exceptionally? I agree that the colours are better overall on the M7 image, though they're a bit on the blue or magenta side whereas the M9 image is much too yellow. But I actually prefer the exposure of the digital image because the highlights are not over-exposed. Oddly this is the main thing that makes me dislike digital; it just doesn't deal well with highlights. But here the blown highlights on the film image distract from its otherwise good qualities. It would have been possible to pull down the highlights in post, of course, and quite easily because film retains so much more information in the highlights than does digital. I'm wondering, though, if the same aperture was used because the DOF is so evidently different between the images. It seems to me (though I'm no expert of course) that it is unlikely that the same lens would have given different out of focus blur if all settings were equal. 

 

Yes , Steve I agree

Steve I already posted I think but post again for you some examples as I said above

 

 

Case 1:

 

M9/50

 

L1015577m9lux50testlf+++1000.jpg

 

M7

 

Image2vnlampkp160lfht+++-950.jpg

 

-the approximate color : of red , blue, yellow, color of bamboo ...  in comparison with Kodak Portra

-the background is blurred in film , not in digital  (flat aspect)

 

Saturation of all colors with digital

 

All pictures are uncorrected of course

DNG and TIFF (Nikon Coolscan 5000) convert JPEG

 

Same lens , same moment , same place.

I really notice colors and keep in memory when I shoot

 

Also notice "sharpness" of sensor and "softness" of film

Best

Henry

Edited December 26, 2017 by philipus

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Gary and I trying to be artistic by shooting a selfie (or is that a wefie?) on a passing bus.

 

Ghent

 

Flickr

50/1.4A Portra 160 (EI80)

[MarkP]

Hi All,

I am touched by many messages of sympathy in your posts and also by sending personal messages

during my absence

Great thank you for thinking of me .

So I decided to come back in the thread ... the love of beauty has made me lose my head and I hope you will not mind

And as it is soon Christmas ...

I know that you defend like me this search for beauty and this search for art in photography

Let's hope we're not going to see images of digital M in this thread

 

Now place to the pictures of film "digitalized" I admit by my scanner

 

Paris dec 2017

Kodak TX400-Leica MP-50 Summilux Asph

Scanner Nikon Coolscan 5000

 

 

Image5paroskodaktxmplf+++550.jpg

 

Best

Henry

 

 

Have been away from this thread for a few weeks. Just learned of your return.

Welcome back Henry. I look forward to your ongoing contributions to and stewardship of this thread.

 

Kind regards,

Mark

[X_Beliebiger]

 

Wonderful photograph. Did you ask him to close his eyes? And was it a by-chance double-exposure or intended?

 

Thanks, Philipus! He had his eyes closed, sitting in Munich's underground, and I was afraid he would open them too early... The double exp. on the first negatives was just by chance. Funny, isn't it? Christmas dreams ...

[X_Beliebiger]

EmptyName 12.jpg

Hi Matthias, this reminds me strongly on one of my absolute top faves kn your gallery. It was many years ago showing landscape with a house and a road close to the horizon and a car driving on it, very far away and tiny. This was so wonderful mood. Maybe you can show here again.

[X_Beliebiger]

Wonderful photograph, X_B. Lovely light... well done!

  

Superb and I agree with Pritam . It's art XB

Best

Henry

Thanks a lot Suede and Henry!

 

And thank your very much, Henry for your kind welcome me to thos great thread.

[Steve Ricoh]

 May I be the contrarian, exceptionally? I agree that the colours are better overall on the M7 image, though they're a bit on the blue or magenta side whereas the M9 image is much too yellow. But I actually prefer the exposure of the digital image because the highlights are not over-exposed. Oddly this is the main thing that makes me dislike digital; it just doesn't deal well with highlights. But here the blown highlights on the film image distract from its otherwise good qualities. It would have been possible to pull down the highlights in post, of course, and quite easily because film retains so much more information in the highlights than does digital. I'm wondering, though, if the same aperture was used because the DOF is so evidently different between the images. It seems to me (though I'm no expert of course) that it is unlikely that the same lens would have given different out of focus blur if all settings were equal.

 

Quoting Ansel Adams:

'The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways.'

 

I do not see any harm in post processing a scan to correct or to enhance for artistic reasons. Isn't this broadly equivalent to darkroom techniques, accepting that software post processing and digital printing is likely to be inferior to wet tequniques.

[Wayne]

I agree with Henry. To my perception, there is a difference between film and digital, and film does include something worthwhile that is somehow lost in digital. However, my conviction in this regard is not related so much to color, but to something in the negative.

 

I am going to admit to something that everybody probably already suspects as it is likely manifest in many of my postings. My blue/green color vision is imperfect. I try to marginalize it. I figure that if something appears to me in a  photograph exactly as it appears, to me,  in real life, it will likely appear accurate to other folks. At any rate, I try to stay away from the discussion of color representation.....although other people's views interest me.

 

My resolve pertaining to the film vs. digital debate (the superiority of film) has recently been strengthened by use of the Linhof 4x5 camera. It is related entirely to the size of those negatives. I find myself becoming engrossed, sometimes for several minutes, by the depth of the image on that very thin piece of film. I think the size of the 4x5 negative allows an appreciation of something- sort of allows it to hit you in the face- that exists in all negatives but is more difficult to see in smaller format negatives. As I look at the 4x5 negatives I realize that I have never seen a full representation of what the negative comprises outside of the negative itself. It is mesmerizing; possibly infinite........As if the entire scene, including all of its depth, has been somehow compressed into that incredibly flat and thin piece of film.

 

It sets my mind to soaring. It makes me wonder about how/if the infinite aspects of things and life can/will be captured through a binary process. At its root, now matter how refined or advanced it becomes, the digital process will always resolve to a point of on/off...yes/no. It got me to thinking about plucking a string on a classical guitar. I can pluck the string and perceive a quality of sound that is somehow missing in even a good recording of Segovia plucking the strings of his far superior guitar; with a skill that I can only imagine. I think this, too, may have something to do with the infinite. When I pluck the string of my guitar there is a point where I would say the instruments has stopped emitting sound. But has it? Or, is it then doing something that I appreciate only on a visceral level, but yet, is still there? Maybe something that goes on forever and can never be completely turned off, sort of a version of "butterfly flaps its wing" that applies to the formation of a single person's conscience.

 

It is good to be on this path with you, Henry. I believe film does accommodate the  possibilities of the human mind and conscience much better than digital: the things themselves, rather than the progress in the endeavor to master them through technological advance.

 

OBTW, If you have an opportunity to see Otto Tolonen (world class classical guitarist from Finland) make sure you do. But to fully appreciate, you must be in the same room with him.

 

 

Best,

 

Wayne

Edited December 26, 2017 by Wayne

[Doc Henry]

May I be the contrarian, exceptionally? I agree that the colours are better overall on the M7 image, though they're a bit on the blue or magenta side whereas the M9 image is much too yellow. But I actually prefer the exposure of the digital image because the highlights are not over-exposed. Oddly this is the main thing that makes me dislike digital; it just doesn't deal well with highlights. But here the blown highlights on the film image distract from its otherwise good qualities. It would have been possible to pull down the highlights in post, of course, and quite easily because film retains so much more information in the highlights than does digital. I'm wondering, though, if the same aperture was used because the DOF is so evidently different between the images. It seems to me (though I'm no expert of course) that it is unlikely that the same lens would have given different out of focus blur if all settings were equal. 

 

Philip forget to tell you it's ¨Portra 400

no correction at all and portra developed by myself in Tetenal

I noticed of course carefully the color when I shoot this picture

 

Another example

 

Case 2: Is it sunrise or sunset ? 

taken from my hotel room in 7 am

same lens 35mm , same place , same moment , same isos

 

The proof of important distortion or denaturation of original color by modifying the color

 

 

M8

 

 

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!

 

 

M7-Portra 160

 

 

 

The same moment is seen with the jetline in the sky above the smoke of

nuclear plant

 

Your advice Steve ?

 

Best

Henry

Edited December 26, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

I agree with Henry. To my perception, there is a difference between film and digital, and film does include something worthwhile that is somehow lost in digital. However, my conviction in this regard is not related so much to color, but to something in the negative.

 

I am going to admit to something that everybody probably already suspects as it is likely manifest in many of my postings. My blue/green color vision is imperfect. I try to marginalize it. I figure that if something appears to me in a  photograph exactly as it appears, to me,  in real life, it will likely appear accurate to other folks. At any rate, I try to stay away from the discussion of color representation.....although other people's views interest me.

 

My resolve pertaining to the film vs. digital debate (the superiority of film) has recently been strengthened by use of the Linhof 4x5 camera. It is related entirely to the size of those negatives. I find myself becoming engrossed, sometimes for several minutes, by the depth of the image on that very thin piece of film. I think the size of the 4x5 negative allows an appreciation of something- sort of allows it to hit you in the face- that exists in all negatives but is more difficult to see in smaller format negatives. As I look at the 4x5 negatives I realize that I have never seen a full representation of what the negative comprises outside of the negative itself. It is mesmerizing; possibly infinite........As if the entire scene, including all of its depth, has been somehow compressed into that incredibly flat and thin piece of film.

 

It sets my mind to soaring. It makes me wonder about how/if the infinite aspects of things and life can/will be captured through a binary process. At its root, now matter how refined or advanced it becomes, the digital process will always resolve to a point of on/off...yes/no. It got me to thinking about plucking a string on a classical guitar. I can pluck the string and perceive a quality of sound that is somehow missing in even a good recording of Segovia plucking the strings of his far superior guitar; with a skill that I can only imagine. I think this, too, may have something to do with the infinite. When I pluck the string of my guitar there is a point where I would say the instruments has stopped emitting sound. But has it? Or, is it then doing something that I appreciate only on a visceral level, but yet, is still there? Maybe something that goes on forever and can never be completely turned off, sort of a version of "butterfly flaps its wing" that applies to the formation of a single person's conscience.

 

It is good to be on this path with you, Henry. I believe film does accommodate the  possibilities of the human mind and conscience much better than digital: the things themselves, rather than the progress in the endeavor to master them through technological advance.

 

OBTW, If you have an opportunity to see Otto Tolonen (world class classical guitarist from Finland) make sure you do. But to fully appreciate, you must be in the same room with him.

 

Best,

 

Wayne

 

Wayne I agree with you at 200% not 100%.

MF is greater and the definition color with your Linhof are outstanding

 

 

Film has a soul when I watch your Minox pictures or watch your rural pictures

I don't like flat images where all are sharp  foreground as background , no nuance

Film has faithful colors better than digital with no distortion , with a greater depth of field

and another qualities of film .... 

 

Best

Henry

 

I like much Eric Satie , one of the best french pianist like Debussy

Thanks for the video Wayne

Edited December 26, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

MP APX 100 40 mm 

birds.jpg

 

 

Jungfernstieg, Hamburg

 

jungfernstieg hamburg.jpg

 

 

EmptyName 12.jpg

 

 

Nature Science  Zoo Mus. Hamburg

 

jona with the whale.jpg

 

Becker you are an artist do you know that ?

Thanks for your series . It's magic and in film they have a great value

Best

Henry

[Doc Henry]

  

Thanks a lot Suede and Henry!

 

And thank your very much, Henry for your kind welcome me to thos great thread.

 

You are welcome XBel

Have you another pictures in the same and nice style ?

Thank you for posting

Best

Henry

[Wayne]

Traffic Cone series:

 

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!

 

M5, VC 50mm f2 Heliar Classic, Agfa Vista 200

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Doc Henry]

Quoting Ansel Adams:

'The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways.'

 

I do not see any harm in post processing a scan to correct or to enhance for artistic reasons. Isn't this broadly equivalent to darkroom techniques, accepting that software post processing and digital printing is likely to be inferior to wet tequniques.

 

Steve and Philip I don't corrected , no post processing 

Directly DNG and TIFF and convert to JPEG for post

Best

Henry

[Wayne]

Wayne I agree with you at 200% not 100%.

MF is greater and the definition color are outstanding

 

 

Film has a soul when I watch your Minox pictures or watch your rural pictures

I don't like flat images where all are sharp  foreground as background , no nuance

Film has faithful colors better than digital with no distortion , with a greater depth of field

and another qualities of film .... 

 

Best

Henry

 

I like much Eric Satie , one of the best french pianist like Debussy

Thanks for the video Wayne

Thanks, Henry.

 

Low tech vs. high tech: illustrated through use of barns (sub-category of "Rural Skyline.)

 

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!

 

I prefer the low-tech.

 

Minox B, Portra 400