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

[ShivaYash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Takaing your points in reverse order:

 

If price is automatically a sign of quality, then we can obviously just cancel next month's Kentucky Derby. We need only find out which horse commanded the highest price at auction (capitalist market principles) and award it the necklace of roses. It must be the best, correct?

 

It's not a smart way to judge the world - if you want to know which film is best, or which horse is fastest, you don't compare prices, you run a race. Then you know, and don't have to "venture to guess."

 

On the question of proof - I take it you would be comfortable flying on a plane, if the aviation engineer who designed it told you, "Well, we haven't tested it, but no one has proved it is unsafe, therefore we can assume it is NOT unsafe."

 

A basic principle of knowledge is, if you make a claim, it's up to you to prove your claim is correct. Unlike humans in a court of law, "theories" are suspect until proven innocent. By the theory-holder. In fact, when a competent scientist comes up with a theory, the first thing they do is try to prove it wrong, by poking holes in it from every angle. If they can't find any flaws, after vigorous examination and checking of assumptions and fallacies - then they publish it and let everyone else have a chance to disprove it.

 

I guess it's just the journalist in me. "If your mother tells you she loves you - check it out with a second source."

 

I didn't "retract" anything. I simply denied your claim that I was picking on (or bullying) you.

This issue is simple, he thinks he is right. I have found some posts in this thread interesting and look forward to having the results of Adan's test revealed. Perhaps the threaded starter will be a gent and tell us all his thoughts on the test, which result(s) he prefers. Also, I'm minded to start a 'guess what film' thread... ;-)

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

Looking at adan's test images I'm impressed by how similar they all are... closer than I would have expected. Considering that human color vision is not very objective, few could tell a difference when looking at each shot individually. (We just can't recall colors more accurately than that.)  And with basic post processing knowledge, any of these could be adjusted to look virtually identical to any other.

 

So the answer is clear. It makes sense to use non professional grade film in this day and age. (As it always did.)

 

BTW, camera magazines used to be full of film comparison tests in order to inform the user.

[A miller]

Taking your points in reverse order:

 

If price is automatically a sign of quality, then we can obviously just cancel next month's Kentucky Derby. We need only find out which horse commanded the highest price at auction (capitalist market principles) and award it the necklace of roses. It must be the best, correct?

 

It's not a smart way to judge the world - if you want to know which film is best, or which horse is fastest, you don't compare prices, you run a race. Then you know, and don't have to "venture to guess."

 

On the question of proof - I take it you would be comfortable flying on a plane, if the aviation engineer who designed it told you, "Well, we haven't tested it, but no one has proved it is unsafe, therefore we can assume it is NOT unsafe."

 

A basic principle of knowledge is, if you make a claim, it's up to you to prove your claim is correct. Unlike humans in a court of law, "theories" are suspect until proven innocent. By the theory-holder. In fact, when a competent scientist comes up with a theory, the first thing they do is try to prove it wrong, by poking holes in it from every angle. If they can't find any flaws, after vigorous examination and checking of assumptions and fallacies - then they publish it and let everyone else have a chance to disprove it.

 

I guess it's just the journalist in me. "If your mother tells you she loves you - check it out with a second source."

 

I didn't "retract" anything. I simply denied your claim that I was picking on (or bullying) you.

Adan - While I appreciate the time you took and the information that you shared, you really hardly definitively proved or backed up any theory IMHO. 

For example:

1.  You worked with very flat scenes with a narrow range of color and contrast.  I don't agree that this is the ideal comparison reference point, and the fact that you say it is the best doesn't make it so.   It is very important how film handles highlights and shadows as well as a range of colors and contrast levels.

2.  You shared flat unprocessed scans, which is like doing a quality test of film based on a simple unedited work print.   There is A LOT hiding behind these flat scans and a lot that can be drawn out of the scanned files.  This is where the quality of the emulsion (e.g., latitude, highlight and shadow detail retention) becomes apparent.  These are very relevant factors in the analysis, particularly in this "hybrid digital" workflow, and your experiment completely ignored them.

3.  This is going to sound really nit picky and combative, but you shared very low res files.  How can we really establish anything from a massive crop of a low res file?  The compression of the large tiff file diminishes many of the qualities of the film.  

 

I give you an A for effort; but very honestly it did nothing to change my view or film purchasing habits.  I am not any more likely to try out consumer film in my photography as a result of the images that you posted.  In fact, i was cringing this morning as I purchased the rolls of agfa, superia and kodak gold on the B&H website to take with me to Miami and conduct my own experiment (which was inspired by yours).  I had to also buy some portra 160 and tri-x just to make me feel better (ok, in truth I was running low on these film in any case).    Having said this, it very well could impact the future film purchasing habits of others, which is great if it makes them happy.

 

I think you (and others) should re-read my initial post.  It was very respectful to shooters of all types of films and merely raised a question and invited people to express their views.  I did not pontificate or try to suggest that people who shoot consumer film are wrong or bad or uncool.  These incorrect interpretations of my initial post throughout the course of this thread are what got me a bit pointed with my words lately b/c people foolishly decide to take things personally and twist my words to suit their own agendas and feed their own insecurities.

 

And I would also mention that your pontification is really nasty and unnecessary.   I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with your "principles of knowledge" and "smart way to judge the world" BS.   In matters like this the wisest and smartest thing of all is to not pass judgment on other people in this regard.  It is a little pathetic that you get a rise out of it. 

[Alberti]

[ ] 

Back before the M8, I thought I would be tickled with a replacement digital back for my M3 and M2, a little like a mini version of the DMR unit - but that was always a pipe dream.

[ ]

 

OT, I know. Hasselblad recently came up with something for these dreamers. So there is not useless to dream. 

[AlanG]

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 14, 2016 by AlanG

[AlanG]

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!

 

 

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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!

 

[chrism]

Horses for courses. I'm generally pleased with Superia and Ultramax, but don't use enough colour film to worry much about the price of Portra/FujiPro instead. I do find the cheap films more grainy, and my impression is that their colours are a bit less subtle. It might just be that they are less forgiving of my amateur home processing. Having seen a lot of your work in the 'I like film' thread, Adam, I don't think you should skimp on the film as you take some stunning photographs.

 

Chris

[AlanG]

Adan - While I appreciate the time you took and the information that you shared, you really hardly definitively proved or backed up any theory IMHO. 

For example:

1.  You worked with very flat scenes with a narrow range of color and contrast.  I don't agree that this is the ideal comparison reference point, and the fact that you say it is the best doesn't make it so.   It is very important how film handles highlights and shadows as well as a range of colors and contrast levels.

2.  You shared flat unprocessed scans, which is like doing a quality test of film based on a simple unedited work print.   There is A LOT hiding behind these flat scans and a lot that can be drawn out of the scanned files.  This is where the quality of the emulsion (e.g., latitude, highlight and shadow detail retention) becomes apparent.  These are very relevant factors in the analysis, particularly in this "hybrid digital" workflow, and your experiment completely ignored them.

3.  This is going to sound really nit picky and combative, but you shared very low res files.  How can we really establish anything from a massive crop of a low res file?  The compression of the large tiff file diminishes many of the qualities of the film.  

 

I give you an A for effort; but very honestly it did nothing to change my view or film purchasing habits.  I am not any more likely to try out consumer film in my photography as a result of the images that you posted.  In fact, i was cringing this morning as I purchased the rolls of agfa, superia and kodak gold on the B&H website to take with me to Miami and conduct my own experiment (which was inspired by yours).  I had to also buy some portra 160 and tri-x just to make me feel better (ok, in truth I was running low on these film in any case).    Having said this, it very well could impact the future film purchasing habits of others, which is great if it makes them happy.

 

I think you (and others) should re-read my initial post.  It was very respectful to shooters of all types of films and merely raised a question and invited people to express their views.  I did not pontificate or try to suggest that people who shoot consumer film are wrong or bad or uncool.  These incorrect interpretations of my initial post throughout the course of this thread are what got me a bit pointed with my words lately b/c people foolishly decide to take things personally and twist my words to suit their own agendas and feed their own insecurities.

 

And I would also mention that your pontification is really nasty and unnecessary.   I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with your "principles of knowledge" and "smart way to judge the world" BS.   In matters like this the wisest and smartest thing of all is to not pass judgment on other people in this regard.  It is a little pathetic that you get a rise out of it. 

It seems to me, your only solution is actual scientific sensitometric testing of film.  (They don't even teach this at RIT any more.)  Didn't I suggest this was necessary pages ago?  For practical purposes it is unlikely that the dynamic range of similar speed color neg film is that different. Or that any of these films has significantly different color response curves. But surely manufacturers have published data on that if it is important to you.

Edited April 14, 2016 by AlanG

[adan]

Adam - you misunderstand. I do not have a theory to back up or prove. I've said several times "Pro films may, or may not, be better than consumer films," or words to that effect. I took no position either way. I did not know, nor did I claim to know.

 

That is the scientific method - you don't form a theory and then look for facts to confirm it. You look at facts first, and develop a theory to fit all the facts.

 

I try to avoid theories - they are the weakest link in science, in that ONE fact can disprove a theory, but NO theory (not one, and not a million) can disprove a fact. Another fact, or enough of them, can eventually put an original fact into question (if 20 other people replicate my tests, and get results that are different from mine, and consistent with each other, I will have to reconsider my own evidence and technique).

 

Could these pictures have been manipulated to "look their best?" Sure. But that is (as Alan said earlier) no longer a test of the films, but of processing and manipulation skills. I can manipulate these pictures to all look indistinguishable, which won't help your case any.

 

However, I did not, and therefore the "native characteristics" of the films themselves are there for all to see.

Edited April 14, 2016 by adan

[LocalHero1953]

Well, I'm convinced by the original post. There is no cost-benefit advantage to using non-pro grade film.

But I'm also convinced there's no cost-benefit advantage to using pro grade film either.

As someone who happily gave up film for digital a decade ago, and responding to the thread title's question, I can see no sense at all, from a cost-benefit perspective, to film.

But hey, when did cost-benefit analysis come into photography? Let alone Leica photography.

I hope Adan leaves it a long time before identifying the M9 image, allowing everyone plenty of time to make their guesses. And, in 6 month's time, I hope Adam will include digital images with every set of film images that he shows.

But I forgot, by the time I see them on my screen, they'll all be digital.

[AlanG]

I hope Adan leaves it a long time before identifying the M9 image, allowing everyone plenty of time to make their guesses.

Yeah, everyone will really be surprised by that.     Clearly the film is not getting the most out of the lens.  I had to apply some gaussian blur to the M9 image to degrade it enough to match the film images before adding grain to it. A 24MP APS camera at ISO 1000 with a cheap kit lens will out resolve those 400 ISO film shots.

 

This 13 page thread shows how difficult it is for some to let go and why.  Film is certainly a personal choice. But I don't see it as a photographic choice.  It is something else...

Edited April 14, 2016 by AlanG

[LocalHero1953]

I apologise for offering some sarcastic comments, as an interloper and thread hijacker

But, Adam, you made a mistake in using cost-benefit analysis in your argument. As someone who has actually applied cost benefit analysis professionally, I recognise a subjective value judgement when I see it.

(Unless, of course, you can sell photos for higher prices if they are shot on pro-grade film than on non-pro grade film. Now a scientific test to demonstrate that would be interesting).

Edited April 14, 2016 by LocalHero1953

[adan]

Oh, now, Alan! let's not go there.... "Film Forum" - remember?

 

(BTW - this Adam/Adan/Alan thing is giving me the creeps - can't tell without a second look which posts are mine! Maybe I need a new forum name.)

[AlanG]

Oh, now, Alan! let's not go there.... "Film Forum" - remember?

 

(BTW - this Adam/Adan/Alan thing is giving me the creeps - can't tell without a second look which posts are mine! Maybe I need a new forum name.)

I've been very good. But once you put that M9 into the mix it became pretty obvious that debating the tiny points between different films was something from way out of the past.  Sort of like debating the finer points between a Spitfire, Corsair, and P51 Mustang then throwing an F18 into the mix.

Edited April 14, 2016 by AlanG

[chrism]

Alan,

I have to ask this—why do you keep coming to the film forum and telling everyone they are wrong? I know I have said in reply to you before that I choose to use film because I grew up with it, and can't quite get rid of the feeling that digital is cheating. It's not a business for me, but a matter of pleasure. That's my psychopathology and I can live with it without going to digital forums and criticising everyone. So what's the convincing reason that will make us all understand that you are being completely reasonable in taking a stance in a film forum that would otherwise suggest the behaviour of a mythical Scandinavian creature? Do tell.

[AlanG]

I'm not saying anyone is wrong nor did I criticize anyone. I am commenting on the comparison that was presented here in response to another who posted the observation. (LocalHero1953)  It is obvious to all why some use film.  But it certainly is not about getting the most out of the Leica lenses.  Technology has simply moved on. And yes digital feels like cheating to me also. It is very easy and it is not just the sensors but the "smart" features in cameras themselves.  The history of photographic technology has been a steady progression through ease of use and more complexity at the same time. (Multiple TTL flashes anyone?)

 

I accept that I spent years of effort on my part to develop skills that are no longer needed (photographic sensitometry, chemistry, statistics) and that I had to apply my knowledge to learning new skills.  You don't have to do that but the fact that people are scanning their negs and posting digitally calls the "not cheating" idea into question for me.  Color neg film was always pretty easy to shoot and have labs print it. Scanning it yourself is harder but no different in my mind from starting with a raw file other than the cost of the film and the time delay. Figuring out all of the AF and other functions of the latest cameras is not so easy and is a new skill set. So cheating is a debatable point.

Edited April 14, 2016 by AlanG

[wattsy]

This 13 page thread shows how difficult it is for some to let go and why.  Film is certainly a personal choice. But I don't see it as a photographic choice.  It is something else...

 

 

Not everyone favours the kind of gaudy kitsch that you do, Alan. I thought you would know that by now.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sblitz]

Thanks Adan for your work here ...... I personally can't believe this thread continues to go on.... It was decided several pages ago (including the first), by words from the manufacturer, that the difference between pro and consumer has to do with the consistency of color from roll to roll, an obvious critical component when commercial photographers had no digital option.

 

What Adan's work shows is that each film has a unique color palate and sensitivity all its own. Which one prefers is a matter of taste and the object/person/situation to be photographed. If one really likes a consumer film more, the "risk" is that there my be some subtle variances in the next roll -- that are likely able to be fixed in PP on the computer.

 

Might there be a broader sensitivity to colors in the pro films, allowing for more tonal range in the mid-tones? Perhaps, but we would need to see the curves from the manufacturer to sort that out. 

[earleygallery]

I've been very good. But once you put that M9 into the mix it became pretty obvious that debating the tiny points between different films was something from way out of the past.  Sort of like debating the finer points between a Spitfire, Corsair, and P51 Mustang then throwing an F18 into the mix.

 

The crop is immediately obvious yes, by the clean and grainless image. But it's pretty hard or impossible to tell the images apart looking at the uncropped shots isn't it. 

 

Bearing in mind an awful lot of people here who shoot with digital M's probably hardly ever make a physical print, you could say the technology is rather wasted on them. A scanned neg will be just as good for their purposes, indeed they could make do with a Zorki and Jupiter 8 and even allowing for a ton of film and processing they'd be quids in! 

 

Anyway I didn't realise this was the 'Film v Digital, let's fight it out' forum…...

 

As for the OP, perhaps we should stop feeding the troll.