Jump to content

How many Monochrom users still shoot B&W film?


jplomley

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Because for many people, even some digital users, the creative process is started well before they sit down in front of the PC to start post processing. For them it starts in their minds eye and the sort of picture they want, then they load an appropriate film, then they start making exposures still thinking in terms of the eventual outcome, so by the time it comes to developing and printing/scanning an awful lot of the creative process is already in the DNA of the image. Working on the print can even be a formality because the image is already formed in the imagination and confirms a commitment and authenticity to the original creative idea.

 

It is in other words far removed from the 'lets see what we've got here' approach as the camera operative sits down at the PC and discovers images they didn't know they had.

Steve

 

Steve, let me (respectfully and non-critically) suggest that you start to think of digital differently than this suggests. First let me get my starting point on the table, so you don't think me a newbie digital evangelist. I have between 5-10K rolls of B&W film under my belt, mostly hand developed, and a couple thousand hours in the darkroom. I have done a full Zone System calibration. I know (knew?) and love film-and-darkroom photography.

 

But I shoot exclusively digitally now, not because I shoot differently, but because it allows me to do everything I loved about film photography, in a way that fits into my life (no room or time for a darkroom anymore) and in a way that expands rather than contracts my creative space.

 

The phrase you used to describe the creative process is exactly what I (aim to) bring to my digital work most of the time. I pre-visualize. I chose cameras, I shoot with a vision. The real difference with contemporary digital is that it limits my vision less than film would. I am both less commitment to the path I previsualize if something different/better unfolds, and my ability to match the output to what I had in my mind's eye is greater, bc digital tech, used right, offers better and easier control the get to the desired output much more easily than with a wet print process.

 

But the roots aren't different. It's just a question of where in the chain you make the creative choices.

 

I do, however, reject completely the notion that the print is ever a formality in Black and White work. And that's Ansel disagreeing with you. I'm just a 'me too'. The neg/file is the score, the print is the performance. It's just that, with a digital workflow, what used to take place during film choice/development, takes place during post processing. The paradigm isn't necessarily changed, just the timing and mechanics of the steps.

 

What I'm trying to say is that digital does not/should not connote an approach to work. What was good photographic practice then still is now, albeit it manifestly differently in the process.

 

Regards,

 

- N.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's Ansel disagreeing with you.

 

As a side note, Ansel never used the term 'pre-visualization', which he considered redundant; rather, he used the term visualization. And, yes, despite his desire to visualize the printed result (first accomplished with his shot of Half Dome), he was known to change his print interpretations over time, as I showed above.

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of film, Leica Akademie (North America) is hosting a film workshop later this month in San Francisco. It sold out months ago, so I guess film remains popular, at least among Leica fans.

 

I booked my seat back in December and my M5 has been waiting anxiously ever since. The Monochrom will come too, but only as a "digital backup".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have between 5-10K rolls of B&W film under my belt, mostly hand developed, and a couple thousand hours in the darkroom. I have done a full Zone System calibration.

 

The phrase you used to describe the creative process is exactly what I (aim to) bring to my digital work most of the time. I pre-visualize. I chose cameras, I shoot with a vision. The real difference with contemporary digital is that it limits my vision less than film would. I am both less commitment to the path I previsualize if something different/better unfolds, and my ability to match the output to what I had in my mind's eye is greater, bc digital tech, used right, offers better and easier control the get to the desired output much more easily than with a wet print process.

 

I do, however, reject completely the notion that the print is ever a formality in Black and White work. And that's Ansel disagreeing with you. I'm just a 'me too'.

 

To be honest I don't know how many rolls of film I've got through myself, but as your figure of from 5 to 10 thousand has a potential inaccuracy verging on 100% I'll take it that you like to bandy terms around willy-nilly without any regards to accuracy.

 

I have never got on with the idea of pre-visualisation, it has always seemed a get out clause, a way to find significance in something that wasn't there. The significance of a scene or object is either apparent to the photographer or not, and this is communicated to the viewer in the skill in which the photograph is made. Pre-visualising adds a mystical level of shamanism that can rarely be transmitted to the viewer and has to be taken on trust. This is pretty much evident in the work of Minor White (the photographer who coined 'pre-visualisation') as so much of it is laden with meditative hidden significances, and only through trust can we share in many of them. So at best it is a term that Minor White modified to encompass his own inspirational motivations, but at worst pre-visualisation is a sloppy non sequitur used for showboating effect without any understanding of it's origin. As with Adams who only used the word 'visualisation' once in his texts, so White only used 'pre-visualisation' the once, so the inner meaning has never been fully explored. But if the 'spirit' of White's idea can be expanded it would also fit in with his 'post-visualisation' techniques of posterisation and other playful experiments, by which he sought to find the inner meaning of the thing. Ultimately it's all a bit woolly even though I do like a lot of White's work, but nowadays it is how many photographers discover the images they have, by seeing what post processing can do for them.

 

But I can see you and Ansel are big buddies, and his term 'visualisation' (used the once) has hit a chord with many photographers over the years. He may not have laboured the point because it is clear to see what he was getting at in the Zone System, but others have since robbed much of the meaning from the principle by using it just to say 'I've had an idea and when I get home I'll perform it on my PC!'. Adams created the Zone System to translate what he saw in his minds eye into a final print. To such an extent that in the few seconds exposure he would rehearse the dodging and burning that would be needed, such was the accuracy of his method. He made specific exposure matched to a specific development regime. The specific exposure and specific development were to match the type of paper he wanted to print on, and all this was to accurately record what he 'saw'. That is a rigid regime. So for you to say the print cannot be a formality is a travesty of all that Adams worked for and you are taking his name in vain. The authenticity of his vision and skill are clear and locked in at every stage of the process.

 

Now with 35mm/roll film much can still be learned from Adams, but it is principally to have the courage of your convictions, stand up and be counted by your choice of film and whether it is appropriate to the subject or not, stand up to your exposures and use of filters, stand up to defend your choice of developer, and ultimately stand up for the way you make a print. But there is no going back, you can't make a grainy film less grainy, you can't retrospectively decide if shadow detail is important or not. That is the authenticity of using film, it matches whatever you were thinking even if what you were thinking was flawed. It can also be a feature of camera's such as the Monochrom. Many here like the 'grain' of high ISO and use filters to both adjust the contrast and keep the shutter speed low enough so they can use high ISO's. This locks into the image the idea behind the image, if they want digital grain they have the courage of their convictions and don't seek to side step decisions until later in post processing. That is courage and doesn't hide behind deciding later in Photoshop.

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

One hits those kinds of numbers only when working for newspapers which at the time shot in black and white and hand developed. It's not art, but you do get to know the medium and its limitations. If you ever had or have dreams about misloading metal reels with important photos you know what I am talking about.

 

I guess this narrative of 'film as better because it's harder' is not going away. There is no 'courage' involved. Courage is engaged in taking a photo in circumstances that challenge you, and provoke fear and self doubt. The nature of your tool is never courageous.

 

Shoot film because you like it. Because you like the feel of the cameras, the head-space that comes with having 12 shots instead of 1200, the tactile, craft-like experience of developing, the raw physicality of the process and yes, the subtle differences in outcome. But don't pretend it possess some artistic legitimacy that digital work lacks. That's pure nonsense.

 

Salgado shoots with a Canon DSLR now for a reason. Has he lost the creative courage he once possessed when bulk-loading Tri-X? Or has he just gained latitude in his ability to capture and present his artistic message? That's the point I was trying to make.

 

- N.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As with Adams who only used the word 'visualisation' once in his texts...

 

Technically not true. Each of the first chapters of his first 3 books (in series), The Camera, The Negative and The Print, are titled and about visualization. In addition, Adams spoke frequently about the concept, in video*, in lectures and in various writings describing his experiences. Most notably, he's famous for describing his first experience with the concept when photographing Monolith, The Face of Half Dome, where the red filter provided the key to realizing his intent. He talks about it, for instance in the video* linked, from his living room while looking at the print on his wall (and again talks about visualizing when he's walking outside describing his process). And he's quoted in other texts, e.g., The Making of 40 Photographs., and elsewhere. I heard him talk about it in one of his last (maybe his last) lectures at Kennedy Center in DC not long before he died.

 

Jeff

 

* By Pacific Arts Video, one hour

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been in the audience to hear him talk about visualisation, but in the scheme of things not many people have heard him lecture so I wanted to try and limit the topic to the common tomes that others can easily refer to instead of any esoteric reference that needs to be taken on faith. But yes you are correct, the titles do use the word, but otherwise it was implicit in the Zone System and he didn't need to bang on about it.

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one with the Schneider, although the image was taken with a 1.4 50 'lux at full aperture, so the softness is in the shot. You can see the grain sharp to the edges, though.

 

John

 

From those web shots John, that Componon shot's are impressive. Heck of a lot cheaper than a Nikon Coolscan ED5000, and I already have that lens. Did you need a special adapter to use the enlarging lens?

 

Thanks for sharing John!

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

This locks into the image the idea behind the image, if they want digital grain they have the courage of their convictions and don't seek to side step decisions until later in post processing. That is courage and doesn't hide behind deciding later in Photoshop.

 

A lot of digital photographers do not side step decisions until later. You have to visualize the same way you did with film. Not doing so would be foolish. I firmly believe that most photographers who used to shoot film think about the final image just as much when they shoot digital. I certainly do, especially since I want something similar to what I used to get with film.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said numerous times, I don't consider one medium to be better than the other, just different and I'll shoot film or digital depending on my mood and subject matter.

 

The advantages of digital are obvious. But we photograph not primarily for the equipment or for the medium which are simply means to an end, but for the final image. So personally, there are only a few real advantages of film.

 

1. Most importantly, the analogue look of the final print (which one can get close to with careful post-processing, oh and a Monochrom ;)) of which I do not underestimate the importance.

 

2. The simplicity and discipline of the analogue photographic camera and workflow (not the chemical processing).

 

3. No pressure to update to newer film cameras as they never really improved the final image. That was determined by the lens and the sensor (the film).

 

3. A nostalgia, romanticism, and just fun having used the medium (as an amateur) for 35 years.

 

 

I suspect that when most of us press that shutter release we already have a good idea of how we want that final image to look - call it (pre-)visualisation or whatever, the word is irrelevant but we all know what it means.

 

Now I don't know about some of you, but not infrequently I change my mind regarding how I want the final photograph to look once I see the raw digital image or the negative for that matter. I do not see my original concept as set in stone (although if part of a series or project then one may need a high degree of consistency). I may even 'post-visualise' (sorry for the neologism) an alternative to my original intent :eek:, ie I may want to explore other 'visualisations' as part of my creative process. Except of course if I've already committed to B&W with film or the Monochrom.

 

At other times I just see something and photograph it because I like it and I think I could work, but haven't a clue how it will finally look (or for that matter ends up deleted or in the bin). Think about how those in many areas of life make notes, sketches, jot down part of a tune that came into their mind, collect clippings and information for future reference even though the final process is not yet complete - why can't one do that with a photographic image for future use?

 

I don't see it this as me being a crap photographer because I have not continued with a purity of medium and concept through to the bitter end, but that I have an open mind to 'perhaps there is a better way to present this image' - it is with this versatility where digital really shines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ps - so I'm on holidays at the moment on the Queensland coast and the weather today is beautiful. I'm off now just with my Monochrom and 28-35-50 MATE ( and no colour filters), and my trusty Contax T3 (with it's glorious 35mm lens) loaded with Portra 160. I'll see where the analogue and digital creative process takes me:

 

 

Old Man and the Sea

Monochrom, 2.8/28 Elmarit

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 by MarkP
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically not true. Each of the first chapters of his first 3 books (in series), The Camera, The Negative and The Print, are titled and about visualization.

 

I forgot that he also discussed the concept in his autobiography.

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what i read in an article, Salgado stopped using film because he had too many troubles at the airports (weigh of all the films and material, x-rays and customs officers). So he intended to get a digital Pentax (cause he loved to work with the anagogic 645 and Pentax lenses) but it was not ready at the moment he needed it, so he tried the Canon and stayed with it.

From his recent process, he prints his digital files to 4x5 film and then does analog prints on papers. I've seen both digital printing and analog printing of his work and the analog are without doubt the best ones ;)

Edited by MOZ
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with MOZ. I carefully reviewed Salgado's exhibition images with the intention of determining whether his digital to film transfer of his Canon images nullified any difference in the final print. I spent several hours doing this as part of enjoying his work. It is all fantastic.

 

However, it was pretty clear which were his digital captures and it was evident that the print quality was lower. I believe you can even identify this in his book. That's not to say that his every image is not fantastic and how appreciative I am that he's out there producing his art. Fabulous stuff. :D

 

Gary

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few film cameras lying around that never get used. The MM has taken care of any romantic notions I might have about film. Yes, you get truly exceptional tones from film when properly exposed and processed, but I see comparable tones with the MM. I also get greater latitude when doing PP.

 

I often enjoy visiting exhibits by some of the classic and best known photographers. I observe the darkroom prints closely, and too often they seem flat to my eyes with dust marks on them even on museum walls. I'm convinced that it is a myth that analogue prints look better than digital prints. Most photographers can't tell the difference when I put my darkroom and giclee prints side by side. Most of the time I prefer my giclee prints. So for me, the MM has affirmed my love for B&W photography with no need at all to go back to film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From those web shots John, that Componon shot's are impressive. Heck of a lot cheaper than a Nikon Coolscan ED5000, and I already have that lens. Did you need a special adapter to use the enlarging lens?

 

Thanks for sharing John!

Chris

Hi Chris,

Sorry for the late reply

 

The lens attachment adapter that is part of the BEOON is standard Leitz 39mm thread. It takes a Leica screw lens, or a standard enlarging lens. It comes with an M to screw mount adapter, so you can fit an M lens, but I found that the enlarging lens was better, being already corrected for a flat image field at variable distances.

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that what is happening is that digital cameras have become so good that pictures look hyper-real. Let's face it, most Leica users shoot as a hobby. We have the luxury of picking when we take pictures. If you have to document every minute of a wedding, high ISO capabilities are a huge safety net, but when you shoot for fun, I guess you sometimes want the results to be different from what everyone else is getting.

 

Shooting with a new film stock can give you the same satisfaction as figuring out a new camera.

All I've ever shot is 35mm; SLRs for 30 years (mainly Nikon both for pleasure and for work) and now the M system. Now, I'm not working as a photographer anymore but I am an art student and I still love both film and digital, I'm lucky in that I have full use of the b&w darkroom facilities at college, all I have to buy is paper as all chemicals are supplied. I do enjoy the darkroom enormously but love the immediacy and flexibility (?) that a digital camera can give me; adjusting the ISO through the day and indoors and outdoors and giving me the results very quickly and allowing me to use or share the images quickly. As for sometimes wanting the "results to be different"? Shooting with a Leica M240 or specifically with a Leica lens (if it's a film body, after all the film body does really no more than hold the film and the only difference between your film camera and mine if we both have the same film is going to be the lens we're using) does give me a unique looking photo as a Leica lens will deliver a look like no other brand and the only people "I, in any way know" (!) who use Leica as I do are you lot on this forum, so my photos do look different from all my friends' and acquaintances' photos.

Lastly, I just want to say that practically all my friends/acquaintances apart from a handful of my college classmates either use a phone or a pocket point-and-shoot though I can think of five who have digital SLRs though not high-end models which are always left on auto everything unless they're with me and I'm encouraging/teaching/pushing them to photograph creatively and explore what they can do with their camera!

Edited by VictoriaC
  • Like 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...