Jump to content

I like film...(open thread)


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All these comments and questions concerning digitization of negatives brought something forward through the fog in my head. I recall, many years ago, before digital dominated everything, Some "experts" of the time put forward the opinion that film had nothing to worry about as the resolution of the digital sensor would never reach a level to compete with what was possible with film. I imagine that that prophecy has fallen on its face. It makes me  wonder if there is a level of digital resolution which we are better off not to exceed when digitizing a negative, e.g. might a Nikon D700 be better than newer models with higher resolution? To this day, when I see digital images I captured with the old D700, they present a much more pleasing experience that many of the digital images I encounter from more modern digital cameras.

Best,

Wayne

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Doc Henry

    13198

  • A miller

    6032

  • philipus

    2938

  • EoinC

    2612

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This photo is from a series from some of my crazy, extreme photo adventures I  had photographing Mountains "Alpinists " and rock climbers. This is Alpes mountain range which is called   "Le Massive du Mont Blanc", Haût Savoir region  In France.  And this place is a White valley ( La Vallee Blanche - Chamonix ) the most beautiful region You must visit. I was very brave enough to carry my Medium format two lenses/ meters/ and a Canon EOS and a 50mm, a lot of films No tripod/ It is crazy when I thi

Bonjour Henri,   I still prefer black and white film (I use almost no colour). The advantages of digital don’t mean much to me. Seeing instant results is not so useful, since what comes out of a camera is always far from a final result, and the final result requires time and thought.   Film also continues to improve. The quality of available film and developers is as good as it has ever been, and it is still as competent as digital sensors of equivalent size.   I also much prefer silver g

On a week-long stay at the Faroe Islands, I took the ferry from Torshavn (the 'capital') to the southernmost island, Suduroy, and looked up potential shooting locations on the island. This image was taken a little before the sun was setting in the ocean, with wind from the west (left). With the uplift of the humid air at the cliffs, fog and clouds drifted over the island. A quite typical situation for the islands; the ocean can be more or less cloud free, but the islands are generally covered in

Posted Images

9 hours ago, Stefan2010 said:

great shot, I love it :)

Thank you Stefan and all those who left a like, very much appreciated. I have a series of these, each trying to capture a different emotion and using colour (I mostly use black and white). I found Cinestill 800T to give a very good result, so will aim to get another roll for the freezer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus (to add to Stefan)  we know David works a lovely old Leica lens, develops, prints and scans all his own images...colour and B&W. Nothing sent to third party.

The pic has a flavour of "Metropolis".

Nice one as many attest... more please David.

...

Edited by david strachan
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, chrism said:

Ah, but which unfaithful digital colours shall we dismiss? Those created by the CCD in the Flextight scanner, or those made by the CMOS in the D850? Both devices are photographing the same negative. The photo is four years old now, and I don't remember the actual conditions. I would say the second looks more like the kind of light and colours I see along the shore here.

...   that's right Chris in this case the ideal is the enlarger and the print

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ianman said:

I just found some old Kodak HIE negatives...

Nikon FM2, 28mm f/2,8 - Kodak High-Speed Infrared, I can't remember which filter I used, 87c rings a bell.

Infrared 101

Great that you found it. Terrific!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interesting Wayne. What you write reminds me of the discussions about a decade ago give or take about much larger sensors than the, as I seem to recall, 24 megapixels that were common then, and whether that would be a good thing. And now we have what around 40-50mp? I seem to remember some manufacturers actually paused the megapixel race in favour of bigger pixels or something like that which were better for image quality. I also remember reading somewhere in this forum that a CCD sensor would give "better" or "more pleasing" files than a CMOS. I used to own an old Leica Digilux 2 which was a really fun camera to use. Those who knew also said that that camera produced very pleasing files.

I don't know much about this but follow these developments a bit because I am interested in technology. I have an old Canon 5D mk II which I use as a flash meter before committing scenes to film with other cameras or for whenever I need shots for Ebay or the like. It's a really good camera and I've never seen a reason to get another one because I'm sufficiently happy with the results for my needs. 

In a review for that model I read that the noise at higher ISOs reminded of film grain. It sounded a bit like marketing speak to me but there's possibly some truth to it. Everyone with a Coolscan knows that they struggle with dense colour negatives. Such scans are grainier and the scanner also adds some colour noise (which is easy to remove in post in Adobe Camera Raw) because it has to amplify the sensor somehow. Perhaps that's what they referred to in the review, I don't know. I do know, though, that my X1 on eats dense negs for breakfast, cuts through them like a lightsaber in butter. And it adds no noise at all. But it's an entirely different machine than consumer scanners of course.

I'm curious about resolution for another reason and that is printing. I'm interested in trying to see how much I can push my inkjet in terms of detail reproduction. Has anyone tried or tested this?

20 hours ago, Wayne said:

All these comments and questions concerning digitization of negatives brought something forward through the fog in my head. I recall, many years ago, before digital dominated everything, Some "experts" of the time put forward the opinion that film had nothing to worry about as the resolution of the digital sensor would never reach a level to compete with what was possible with film. I imagine that that prophecy has fallen on its face. It makes me  wonder if there is a level of digital resolution which we are better off not to exceed when digitizing a negative, e.g. might a Nikon D700 be better than newer models with higher resolution? To this day, when I see digital images I captured with the old D700, they present a much more pleasing experience that many of the digital images I encounter from more modern digital cameras.

Best,

Wayne

Really nice results, very dreamy.

3 hours ago, ianman said:

I just found some old Kodak HIE negatives...

Nikon FM2, 28mm f/2,8 - Kodak High-Speed Infrared, I can't remember which filter I used, 87c rings a bell.

Infrared 101

Also very nice, I like the contrast between the massive clouds and the buildings.

5 hours ago, dimm said:

Mississippi River, 2021

M2-R | Lux' 35mm f/1.4 | Fomapan 400 | HC-110 (B)

This is a superb photo, bravo.

15 hours ago, 105012 said:

For you, David.

Mesmirised

M3; 50 Summicron Collapsible; Cinestill 800T; Pakon.

(Some jpeg compression artefacts, not present in the original TIFF file).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...