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)

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

Apologies Ian

I mean "reflection of "green algea" at the sea bottom and reflection of the "blue sky" (not the sea)

...   because beyond a few dozen kilometers from Granville in Normandy , where was taken the first photo, the sea

is this time blue with the same Kodak Portra film !

 

Here a picture taken at Cancale in Brittany

at the famous "Rock of Cancale"

 

 

Kodak Portra 400

Uncorrected

M7-50 Summilux Asph

 

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]

and about a "green" of KP  again

 

 

Kodak Portra 400

Leica M7

35 Summilux Asph

 

 

Mont Saint Michel

Normandy - France

...  and salted sheeps are for Ian

cloudy that day , but color well reproduced

 

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!

 

one of the most faithful film color for green and the most faithful color  quite simply

 

Best

Henry

the proof that Kodak film section is not dead

http://nofilmschool.com/2015/12/kodak-film-profitable-2016-nolan-tarantino-abrams

Edited April 12, 2016 by Doc Henry

[A miller]

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.

 

So you are saying that, other than batch consistency, Fuji Superia is exactly the same as Fuji Pro 400H, with respect to color palette, grain, latitude, scanability, etc?

And what about the consumer analog to Portra?  Is there one?  What are the choices? The Kodak Gold line?  Are you saying that, other than batch consistency, Kodak Gold and Portra will render the same and have the same latitude and scanning capability??

And what about the consumer Agfa color stocks?  What is the pro analog to that? 

Is all color film the same (save for the consistency issue) no matter what manufacturer???

Edited April 12, 2016 by A miller

[earleygallery]

None of that stuff was part of your 'thesis' Adam.

 

As I and many others have already covered the above points I suggest you perhaps re-read the responses.

[A miller]

None of that stuff was part of your 'thesis' Adam.

 

As I and many others have already covered the above points I suggest you perhaps re-read the responses.

now I am totally lost by you...

it is the heart of my thesis that the cash savings of using the superias, agfas and golds of the consumer film world are not worth the compromise (or risk of compromise) in overall quality, integrity or scanability that professional film stocks deliver.  At 10 cents an exposure this savings is certainly not worthwhile to me.  But that's just me...

 

The only way the "batch consistency" argument has a chance of flying is if the consumer and pro film stocks are of the same overall emulsion stocks. 

But is kodak gold even close to the portras, or ektar???? 

[earleygallery]

Your question was "is there any cost benefit", which there is.

 

Other differences between various films exist but whether one is considered 'better' or 'worse' is down to personal preference.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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...

You will never get an answer to this so you may as well give up.  The number of variables is infinite and is why anyone needing consistency of results under controlled settings did extensive testing of each film batch before shooting. That pretty much only applied to transparency film.  Scanning and adjusting of the digital file makes the entire issue moot.  One could adjust any of these images to look all sorts of ways. Photographs are subjective.

 

Nobody here has presented any scientific objective testing and analysis of even one scene using just two films. And I doubt if anyone here is capable of doing so.  Besides, what could we possibly learn from that?

 

Why go on?

Edited April 12, 2016 by AlanG

[wattsy]

Adam, nobody is arguing that there are not differences between film stocks – differences in grain, colour response (including differences in the orange mask) and so on. For example, it would be absurd to think that a fine grained film like Ektar is the same emulsion as the relatively grainy and differently coloured Portra. What most of us are rejecting is the implied assumption that there is something automatically inferior about film which isn't marketed as "pro".

 

The irony (at least for me) of all this is that when I started learning photography in the late 1990s and was working as an assistant in the editorial and commercial marketplace, I was taught that real film was transparency film. Colour neg had its uses but was not something you thought of using seriously. The question of "pro" stocks versus "amateur" stocks was about different transparency stocks – refrigerated Provia versus non-refrigerated Sensia, etc.

[A miller]

Your question was "is there any cost benefit", which there is.

 

Other differences between various films exist but whether one is considered 'better' or 'worse' is down to personal preference.

James - I think you may not be understanding my use of the term "cost-beneficial."  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost%E2%80%93benefit_analysis

 

The question is whether, as a general matter, the added modest incremental cost (e.g., 10 cents per shot) of professional grade film is worthwhile in light of the added benefits that professional grade film have over consumer grade film.

In my view, the batch consistency argument doesn't adequately address my question.

The "personal preference" is an answer to just about any question.

 

I think that most people agree with my view and that many of the people on this thread who have taken issue with my thesis have done so simply b/c they didn't like the perception that I was being snobbish trying to prescribe a workflow or way of thinking that must followed (which isn't the case).

[Michael Hiles]

Seems to me that the answer to the original question as to whether it is worth spending money on Pro films depends on whether you get something of value. The value added appears to be a batch-to-batch consistency that is useful primarily for reproduction or perhaps scientific situations requiring technical comparability.

 

If this has value for you, the spend the money and (presumably) use the consistency feature as you need it. If the fact-based difference has no value to you - don't spend the extra money. Buy something that helps you make better pictures.

 

My suspicion is that the added consistency that seems to be the value added of Pro films is hardly measurable without sensitometric instruments, and in fact adds no discernible value to almost anyone participating in this thread.

 

In the B&W world, Kodak made a Tri-X Pro film for years - but no longer - likely because there was no market. The regular Tri-X was fine and the choice film for large parts of the world, and I never heard any complaints about consistency or quality issues. 

Edited April 12, 2016 by Michael Hiles

[LocalHero1953]

I think that most people agree with my view ...........

A remarkable statement ..........

ROTFLMAO

[Michael Hiles]

I think that most people agree with my view ...

 

Perhaps a triumph of hope over experience.     

[A miller]

Perhaps a triumph of hope over experience.     

LOL

Perhaps also I am trying to further cement this thread as the most viewed and commented on in the history of this FILM sub-forum

Edited April 12, 2016 by A miller

[ShivaYash]

Interestingly I recently met an old timer who was admiring my camera. This was in Melbourne when I restarted shooting film. He was puzzled why I bothered shooting with film in this digital era. We had a nice exchange and then he explained during his youth and membership to several photography clubs, the first question asked by many upon seeing a print was this: what film was that taken on? He hated this question! As if that mattered above all else and was vital to judging the photograph. He said he preferred digital as this wasn't in issue. I seem to recall a similar story having been shared here as well.

Edited April 12, 2016 by ShivaYash

[Doc Henry]

Fuji Superia 100 less expensive than Kodak Portra

but also with nice green and blue

 

Ian, the channel here is a bit green again, the little yellow line in the center, it is sand
we are at high tide

 

 

Cap Blanc Nez cliff 110m

near Calais (France)

 

Leica M7

50 Summilux Asph

 

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

Henry

[A miller]

Fuji Superia 100 less expensive than Kodak Portra

but also with nice green and blue

 

Ian, the channel here is a bit green again, the little yellow line in the center, it is sandwe are at high tide

 

 

Cap Blanc Nez cliff 110m

near Calais (France)

 

Leica M7

50 Summilux

 

Henry

 

Image3capgrisnefujilufhtfecviv+++550.jpg

 

Rg

Henry

Henry - this photo is OK but I would venture to say that the fuji pro 400H would have rendered it more beautifully from the perspective of grain and color palette. So i wonder why the extra few cents werent incurred to get that better photo...

[Doc Henry]

Pro 400, sure Adam I agree , but more expensive >10 Euros(E) in France.

Kodak Portra more than 7 Euros and Fuji Sup less 5 E.

Best

Henry

[A miller]

Wow, Henry, that is a considerable difference. But i would think that even the cheaper portra 160 would have delivered better than the superia IMHO, especially the way that you shoot portra

Edited April 13, 2016 by A miller

[adan]

Adam. No, I don't want to pick on YOU, but your reasoning has some - holes.

 

"I would venture to say..."  really just means "My wild-a**ed guess would be..." Not really persuasive - since there are 7,000,000,000 people on the planet, any of whom can offer a WAG.

 

Either you KNOW that Pro400H would do better - and can prove it with some comparison pix. Or you're just blowing smoke....

 

That basically applies to your whole thesis in this thread. You assume (without any evidence, as far as you have presented to date), that Pro films are better. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. IF they are, then your logical argument that they are worth the extra money holds true.

 

A ="If pro films are better than consumer films"

B ="pro films are worth more than consumer films"

 

Your argument is "If A, then B" - Fine. But only if A is KNOWN to be true. Which right now, there is no evidence for. Thus your (perfectly logical, but not rational) argument holds no water.

 

Assuming something to be true without evidence - at that point, you've wandered into the realms of religion....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[A miller]

Adam. No, I don't want to pick on YOU, but your reasoning has some - holes.

 

"I would venture to say..."  really just means "My wild-a**ed guess would be..." Not really persuasive - since there are 7,000,000,000 people on the planet, any of whom can offer a WAG.

 

Either you KNOW that Pro400H would do better - and can prove it with some comparison pix. Or you're just blowing smoke....

 

That basically applies to your whole thesis in this thread. You assume (without any evidence, as far as you have presented to date), that Pro films are better. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. IF they are, then your logical argument that they are worth the extra money holds true.

 

A ="If pro films are better than consumer films"

B ="pro films are worth more than consumer films"

 

Your argument is "If A, then B" - Fine. But only if A is KNOWN to be true. Which right now, there is no evidence for. Thus your (perfectly logical, but not rational) argument holds no water.

 

Assuming something to be true without evidence - at that point, you've wandered into the realms of religion....

 

Well, Adan, yes you were most certainly bullying me around a bit but I will accept your retraction.

 

I also accept your general logic.  But it is incomplete and thus ineffectual.  B is only not true if A is not true.  But just b/c I haven't taken the time and effort to establish that A is true doesn't logically follow that A is NOT true.  And so if it hasn't been established that A s not true, it cannot be definitively established that B is not true.

 

So the only real way to definitively prove that B is not true is to definitively establish as a fact that A is not true, which neither you nor anyone else has done.  

 

Given the fact that professional film stocks are up to double the price of consumer stocks, to say that they are not "better" in any way is going against capitalist market efficiency principles (it is also, btw, going against what the film companies say in their data sheets).  This is not to say that it is an absolute fact that price=quality; but I do think that it gives rise to a presumption that needs to be rebutted.

 

As for my views on the photo posted by Henry that he took with Superia, I have viewed and analyzed HUNDREDS of photos like this that Henry has posted on every single one of the 700 pages of his "I Like Film" thread (which as a film guru I am very surprised that you don't share photos on, as photos of ALL formats are accepted), using all types of film stocks, from consumer to (mostly) professional stocks.  These hundreds of photos were all taken, developed and scanned by one person with a specific set of gear.  In this context, it is fair to be able to assess which deviations in his photos that are attributable to the specific film that is used.  This is not exactly the basis of a strict controlled experiment; but it nevertheless supports my "venturing" quite meaningfully.  

 

And I am not just asserting claims and views without personal experience.  I probably shoot more film today that most of the people who have commented on this thread.  I have shot with most color film stocks that are out there.  I have never conducted a strict controlled experiment, although I have shot enough to attain a working knowledge of the various film stocks and what they are good at and what they are not good at.  

 

It is in this context that I believe that "A" is, as a general matter, true.  And I think that most of the people who have viewed (though not necessarily commented on) this thread would agree.  

 

Having said all of this, based on views expressed here, A and B are, at some personal level, incongruent.  Shiva, for example, expressed an affinity for the traditional look of film.  In his mind, A may be technically true insofar as it goes; however, consumer film may be worth more to ( and thus cost beneficial for) him.  To me, this "answer" pokes a small hole in my thesis; though I believe that it is a very small hole and doesn't damage the integrity of the thesis.