Why does it make any sense at all to use non-professional grade film stocks in this day and age???

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For my opinion about Portra ... if you like color of CCD sensor (M9 and M8)

told "vivid" by Erwin Puts vs M240 , you'll like Portra. I agree with Adam.

 

In France , my film supplier told me recently that the sale of Kodak Portra exploded !

Someone who used 2 M digital during 5 years

Rg

Henry

 

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 April 11, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

I have no worries about my monitor calibration - been calibrating them since 1992. And the print sales I make and the publication awards I win and the jobs I've earned using my calibration skills back me up. But that's by-the-by.

 

As I said, I will look into doing an objective test, to see if paying more for Pro films actually pays off in the pictures. You could well be right - but nothing on this thread so far confirms a worthwhile difference.

 

It always make sense to save a few bucks - if there is no loss in quality. That is the "unproven" part of the equation.

[Doc Henry]

and the proof...

 

sorry for the confusion for this picture below ...

 

now that is posted

... prints with my enlarger Focomat from Kodak TX400 negative on Ilford paper

12,7x17.8 cms in bright 

 

H

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 April 11, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

...  because in fact I wanted to post this photo below

I have operated too quickly
 

Sorry Adam

 

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!

 

H.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Doc Henry

[A miller]

Adan - yes, photo comparisons would be interesting and potentially relevant to the question initially posted.

 

Based on your obsessive views about film that you have shared on this forum (Eg, that none of the portras are good for landscape photography b/c of the,eg, the way they handle greens), i think that your own personal workflow supports my thesis pretty strongly, no matter what the film format...

[Doc Henry]

you said "vivid" color Erwin Puts

...   here's one picture

 

 

No correction

Kodak Portra 400

dev home lab. Tetenal 30°C

Leica M7-35 Summilux Asph

Nikon Cooscan 5000

 

Mondial Air Ballon (France)

...  sunset is coming

 

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!

 

Rg

H.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Doc Henry

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

you said "vivid" color Erwin Puts

...   here's one picture

 

 

No correction

Kodak Portra 400

dev home lab. Tetenal 30°C

Leica M7-35 Summilux Asph

Nikon Cooscan 5000

 

Mondial Air Ballon (France)

...  sunset is coming

 

Image6balk400lfhtcf+++950.jpg

 

Rg

H.

Very lovely, Henry, as are all of the others in your balloon series. But dont take it from me, as i have only been shooting land/city scapea for under a year. I'm afraid that, Adan, our resident pontiff with his gazillion years of experience may not approve since you used PORTRA for a landscape. You killed the greens, Henry!! Didnt you know? We'd better let the others in your film thread know so they can correct their workflows pronto!

[Doc Henry]

... Gentleman , you don't like Portra ...so may be Fuji

film is for all tastes

 

so may be Fuji film

 

Incense sticks in pagoda (Vietnam)

Leica M7

50 Summilux Asph

Fuji Superia 100

 

 

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!

 

You still said "vivid"  ?

 

Rg

Henry

 

[Doc Henry]

...  and for landscape lovers

"soft" color specially green and yellow colors it's spring

 

Kodak Portra 160

Leica M7

35 Summilux Asph

 

Champagne vineyard in spring

(France)

already posted in "I Like film"  thread

 

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!

 

Adam , your pictures of NYC at sunset are superb with Ektar and tags on the walls have wonderful color with Velvia

Gentlemen, I recommend you to watch these pictures in "I like film" thread 

 

Best

Henry

Edited April 11, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

and in b&w if you don't like Kodak

...for film,  there is for all tastes  , you can choose Ilford

 

You said "real" black and grey scales ?

 

Ilford Delta 100 Profes.

(dev home lab Ilfosol S 20°C)

Leica MP - 50 Summilux Asph

 

Bruges (Belgium)

in the morning at 7 am

 

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!

 

Rg

H

Edited April 11, 2016 by Doc Henry

[pico]

BTW - I mean no disrespect for doctors. My first job out of college was 5 years at Children's Memorial in Chicago, shooting everything from [...]

 

!!! That's where I shot my first Parade Magazine cover of pediatric open heart surgery !!! I could not get closer to the sterile field then. I liked the B&W shots better.

Edited April 11, 2016 by pico

[wattsy]

...  and for landscape lovers

"soft" color specially green and yellow colors it's spring

 

Kodak Portra 160

Leica M7

35 Summilux Asph

 

Champagne vineyard in spring

(France)

already posted in "I Like film"  thread

 

Image4vignekp160m7lfht+++-mod900.jpg

 

I don't remember seeing this one before, Henry. It's rather nice.

[A miller]

...  and for landscape lovers

"soft" color specially green and yellow colors it's spring

 

Kodak Portra 160

Leica M7

35 Summilux Asph

 

Champagne vineyard in spring

(France)

already posted in "I Like film"  thread

 

Image4vignekp160m7lfht+++-mod900.jpg

 

Adam , your pictures of NYC at sunset are superb with Ektar and tags on the walls have wonderful color with Velvia

Gentlemen, I recommend you to watch these pictures in "I like film" thread 

 

Best

Henry

Thank you, Henry

And i do recall this photo from your film thread, and i think it is fabulous despite the "defective" greens from the Portra.

[Doc Henry]

Thank you, Henry

And i do recall this photo from your film thread, and i think it is fabulous despite the "defective" greens from the Portra.

You are welcome Adam 

 

According to the local people, the green color of the Channel is the result of reflection of green algae

and the reflection of the sea

 

Kodak Portra 400 film reproduces well this impression

 

...   proof by the photo and no speeches 

 

Granville in Normandy

France

 

Kodak Portra 400

(home lab dev Tetenal 30°C)

Leica M7

Summilux 50 Asph

 

 

surprising that green isn't, but that's what I saw  !

 

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!

 

Best

Henry

Edited April 12, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

You are welcome Adam 

 

According to the local people, the green color of the Channel is the result of reflection of green algae

and the reflection of the sea

 

Kodak Portra 400 film reproduces well this impression

 

...   proof by the photo and no speeches 

 

Granville in Normandy

France

 

Kodak Portra 400

(home lab dev Tetenal 30°C)

Leica M7

Summilux 50 Asph

 

 

surprising that green isn't, but that's what I saw  !

 

Img2Granvbatciplfht++++950.jpg

 

Best

Henry

 

...  and the "green" of the sea in digital with my Leica CCD M9 , what happens ?

Green is not so far from film :  logical because the CCD sensor comes from Kodak

Kodak has greatly inspired by his film when designing its sensor  !

 

I have removed six dusts  in this photo , taken at the same time , in the same place

and same lens !

green a little less green, same blue sky, the sails of boat are whiter !

 

General impression :  a little cold tone in digital , film is warmer ! 

 

Leica M9

Summilux 50 Asph

Important :  Any correction on both pictures except for dusts

 

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!

 

Best

Henry

Edited April 12, 2016 by Doc Henry

[earleygallery]

Clearly, people are free to do what they want. This is not the topic of this thread and thus bears no relevance to the issue that i am raising.

 

What i would like to know is what winning arguments are there that it is cost-beneficial to use non-professional film stocks on a regular basis with their LEICAs in this predominantly digital era.

 

It makes perfect sense to me that, before the prevelance of digital, film was the only practical medium to take pictures. Consequently, non-professional film stocks were largely cost-beneficial for most amateurs and even some serious enthusiasts. This is particularly so given the incredible variety and popularity of point and shoot film cameras.

 

But in today's digital world in which, through interpolation technology, iphone 6 photos (and certainly photos from the run of the mill digital slr) can be processed and blown up Billboard size, the convenience-centric point and shoot market is now largely served by these digital tools.

 

So where does that leave non-professional grade films (including the Fuji Superias ) ???

 

The film workflow nowadays - even the P&S variety - is the old "convenient and readily accessible" and the new "inconvenient and (relatively) scarce."

 

Combining the relatively serious amount of additional work and effort that is needed to make a film image, coupled with the use of world class expensive Leica optics, why would it be cost beneficial to continue to use non-professional grade film???

 

Based on some recent comments that have been made elsewhere on this forum, it appears that some Leica users are happily using these non-commercial grade film stocks as part of their regular workflow.

 

As i said before, freedom rules and horses for courses. I am just wanting to hear from people who think this is actuallly cost beneficial from an objective basis in today's world.

 

Best wishes and happy shooting to all, no matter what film stocks you use!

 

Adam

 

I thought it was time to revisit the original 'thesis' !

 

In summary, the winning argument as to why it's cost beneficial to use non professional film is that it's usually less expensive than the pro stock, partly due to the fact that it isn't too important how it's stored whereas pro stock should be stored in a refrigerator by the dealers until point of sale.

 

Putting aside the whole other question of personal preference, if you don't need the batch consistency of pro film stock then you can save money buy choosing 'non pro' film. Just as in the pre digital days, therefore, there is very much a place for pro and non-pro type films.

 

I would think most people would agree that a less expensive film is cost beneficial, assuming it gives the desired results.

[A miller]

 

 

I would think most people would agree that a less expensive film is cost beneficial, assuming it gives the desired results.

 

Aha, but does it give the desired results, on a consistent basis, in a manner that makes it cost beneficial to use rather than professional film stocks?????

That, mate, is the question that hasn't really been addressed....

Of coursed "desirable results" is a very subjective term and so by using it you are setting yourself up for a slippery analysis.  I wouldn't use that term.  I would use "well balanced from the perspective of color palette and integrity of emulsion (quality, amount and consistency of grain, latitude, etc) including scanability" as a possible replacement standard that is more objective.... I'm sure there are better standards, but you get what I mean...

Edited April 12, 2016 by A miller

[A miller]

...  and the "green" of the sea in digital with my Leica CCD M9 , what happens ?

Green is not so far from film :  logical because the CCD sensor comes from Kodak

Kodak has greatly inspired by his film when designing its sensor  !

 

I have removed six dusts  in this photo , taken at the same time , in the same place

and same lens !

green a little less green, same blue sky, the sails of boat are whiter !

 

General impression :  a little cold tone in digital , film is warmer ! 

 

Leica M9

Summilux 50 Asph

Important :  Any correction on both pictures except for dusts

 

L1013505granvm9la50lfht+++950-lum.jpg

 

Best

Henry

very interesting comparison, Henry.  I hadn't seen this from you before and it is very insightful.   Many thanks for sharing!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wattsy]

According to the local people, the green color of the Channel is the result of reflection of green algae

and the reflection of the sea

 

Kodak Portra 400 film reproduces well this impression

 

...   proof by the photo and no speeches 

 

surprising that green isn't, but that's what I saw  !

 

That's interesting, Henry, I've never really thought of the Channel as being green – if anything, I'm often struck by how blue it looks. Maybe it has something to do with us English tending to look south towards the Channel and you French looking north?  In truth, I think the colour varies widely, depending upon the light, and I'm not sure Portra is any better at reproducing this colour than Ektar or Fuji film.

 

Portra

 

 

Portra

 

Portra

[

 

Portra (looking a bit green )

Edited April 12, 2016 by wattsy

[earleygallery]

Aha, but does it give the desired results, on a consistent basis, in a manner that makes it cost beneficial to use rather than professional film stocks?????

That, mate, is the question that hasn't really been addressed....

Of coursed "desirable results" is a very subjective term and so by using it you are setting yourself up for a slippery analysis.  I wouldn't use that term.  I would use "well balanced from the perspective of color palette and integrity of emulsion (quality, amount and consistency of grain, latitude, etc) including scanability" as a possible replacement standard that is more objective.... I'm sure there are better standards, but you get what I mean...

 

Yes, it has been addressed.

 

By desired results I mean a 'look' that the photographer is after. The only way to know that is by personal experience with a particular type of film. If the photographer tests a film and is happy with the results then by choosing that film again, he/she should get their desired results (let's also throw in the whole processing and printing or scanning options into the mix, which is also part of the eventual desired result).

 

Remember, pro film stock is only batch consistent. If you buy a roll of Superia this week and another in a few months time, it's more than likely they'll be different batches and - if used, processed and printed/scanned identically - they may show a difference in colour rendition.

 

Pro film won't be any different unless it's from the same batch, and stored the same.

 

Anyway, your actual question was whether it was 'cost beneficial' to use a non pro type film, which has also been answered.