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

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

(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 wondered if Adan was intentionally Nada spelled backwards.

[chrism]

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.

 

Thank you for your temperate reply, but I don't think you addressed my question....which was why are you here telling us these things over and over again?

Edited April 14, 2016 by chrism

[AlanG]

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. 

Yeah you can't tell my film from digital images on my web site either. I think many cameras are wasted on many people. (Including me at times.)  My main point regarding the original post was that we are really splitting hairs. But if those tiny differences are important to one then perhaps one should think a bit more about what is available by adjusting the scanned image or god forbid... shooting digitally where you will see huge differences.

Edited April 14, 2016 by AlanG

[AlanG]

Thank you for your temperate reply, but I don't think you addressed my question....which was why are you here telling us these things over and over again?

Sorry, I thought it was an original comment that contributed to the thread. Should I run all of my posts by you for approval first?

Edited April 14, 2016 by AlanG

[chrism]

Sorry, I thought it was an original comment that contributed to the thread. Should I run all of my posts by you for approval first?

No need for that, but I was curious about your need to continually address this matter. It may be that you have not yet examined your motives.

[adan]

C'mon guys - just drop it (before the thread gets closed and nobody finds out the results ). Tit for tat for tit for tat - it's nursery school behavior, on both sides. Let it lie.

 

And now I'm going to let it lie.  re: Adam. I don't think he is a troll, he just has a preconceived notion/idée fixe/bee in his bonnet about Pro films - but he may be correct (or not - we'll find out soon enough).

 

He plays an SWC like a Stradivarius - we just don't see those shots on a Leica forum.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yeah you can't tell my film from digital images on my web site either. I think many cameras are wasted on many people. (Including me at times.)  My main point regarding the original post was that we are really splitting hairs. But if those tiny differences are important to one then perhaps one should think a bit more about what is available by adjusting the scanned image or god forbid... shooting digitally where you will see huge differences.

 

Absolutely agree about when differences are important but how many people here, if we're brutally honest, NEED anything like the spec of a Leica digital M and new Leica glass? People obsess about corner sharpness but how many real world photos they take actually require it? 

 

It's all a choice - if someone wants the best then good for them, it doesn't matter what they do (or don't) do with it. 

 

As for the benefits of digital and the drawbacks of film (I don't consider them drawbacks BTW but I'm using that term for your benefit Alan) again it's choice. As it happens i shoot both, and recently it's been more digital than film for whatever reasons. 

 

I know you'll think that i'm odd, but I really do like grainy film images sometimes! 

[chrism]

C'mon guys - just drop it (before the thread gets closed and nobody finds out the results ).

 

OK.

 

He plays an SWC like a Stradivarius - we just don't see those shots on a Leica forum.

 

Oh, yes, you can, if you know where to look. There is a special dispensation for one thread to allow film shots from other cameras and other formats (which is why I bought an SWC)....

Edited April 14, 2016 by chrism

[AlanG]

Absolutely agree about when differences are important but how many people here, if we're brutally honest, NEED anything like the spec of a Leica digital M and new Leica glass? People obsess about corner sharpness but how many real world photos they take actually require it? 

 

It's all a choice - if someone wants the best then good for them, it doesn't matter what they do (or don't) do with it. 

 

As for the benefits of digital and the drawbacks of film (I don't consider them drawbacks BTW but I'm using that term for your benefit Alan) again it's choice. As it happens i shoot both, and recently it's been more digital than film for whatever reasons. 

 

I know you'll think that i'm odd, but I really do like grainy film images sometimes! 

I have some grainy shots too. It try to explore a wide range of approaches.

 

As a person who used large format for many years along with very high end MF and other gear, I pretty much agree with you. I always wanted the finest gear and justified that I needed it for my work. Now I shoot many jobs with a $650 APS camera (including lens) and am totally blown away by what it can do... often overkill for the project.  This is despite the fact that I have much more expensive gear.

 

Some clients tell me the most important thing about a picture is how good it looks on a cell phone. (I used to have a 16x20 Cibachrome portfolio made from 4x5 images.)  Very few people appreciate the craftsmanship we can perform and what we sweat over is wasted on them.

 

I have almost totally lost interest in expensive cameras and lenses since the cheap ones became so good and Moore's law is still in effect. But my interest in photography is as strong as ever and I'm totally result oriented. We all know there is a difference between need and want.  I know people love gear... I was one of them who appreciated the quality of Linhof, Rollei, Zeiss, Nikon, and Leica. It's great that Leica has found a new way to thrive and has a unique spot at the high end.  But now even cell phone cameras are amazing in many ways. The splitting hairs part of photography is what gets me the most today.  But fortunately many new creative opportunities have opened up.

 

The biggest drawback with film that I see is cost. It is hard for many to pay for enough film to shoot the number of reps needed to become really good at it.

Edited April 14, 2016 by AlanG

[AlanG]

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

Like this?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4adGwnht7w

 

The thing I recall from the first book on photography that I read is that nobody made a picture that everybody likes. Fortunately I have somehow been able to support myself pretty well in this field by working very hard at it.

 

Anyhow... we're pretty far off course aren't we? Can you just imagine how many wonderful and great photos have been made on "amateur" film over all of these years? Why not today?

Edited April 14, 2016 by AlanG

[earleygallery]

Can't disagree with any of that Alan. 

 

As it happens my digital gear is APS-C, it's great! I do sometimes think about going FF but it's not because I find my APS-C bodies wanting in any respect. Why should they - they're more advanced than the cameras that many pro's earned their living with not so long ago. 

 

I made a post some time back saying that Leica should release a top spec APS-C system (not the T!) but it wasn't taken seriously here. 

 

Anyway this is getting very off topic. 

[wattsy]

Fortunately I have somehow been able to support myself pretty well in this field by working very hard at it. 

 

Absolutely and I would never knock that. I guess I'm a little irked by your earlier suggestion (since mollified by some less inflammatory statements) that there is something not "photographic" about choosing film and that doing so is not being able to "let go".

 

Anyhow... we're pretty far off course aren't we? Can you just imagine how many wonderful and great photos have been made on "amateur" film over all of these years? Why not today?

 

Yes. On that we can certainly agree.

Edited April 14, 2016 by wattsy

[AlanG]

I didn't say that choosing film is not photographic. I said it is not a photographic decision to choose film. That is a personal decision since both film and digital are "photography."  As demonstrated here, it is pretty hard to tell them apart without pixel peeping. And even then, if you add grain, I certainly would not be able to tell them apart.

[AlanG]

Can't disagree with any of that Alan. 

 

As it happens my digital gear is APS-C, it's great! I do sometimes think about going FF but it's not because I find my APS-C bodies wanting in any respect. Why should they - they're more advanced than the cameras that many pro's earned their living with not so long ago. 

 

I made a post some time back saying that Leica should release a top spec APS-C system (not the T!) but it wasn't taken seriously here. 

 

Anyway this is getting very off topic. 

Yes this thread is off topic a bit. But the beauty to me of the mirrorless APS and M4/3rds cameras is their size and weight. A Sony A6000 with retractable kit lens reminds me of the Leica IIIF with Summitar that I started out with.  That is about the right size for a good "go anywhere" camera.  My wife and I are each carrying one along with a shared  55-210 lens and 8 batteries for a three week trip to Bolivia and Peru. We have cards for about 12,000 photos. (Not that we'll shoot that much.) We'll be hiking and camping for 5 days on the Inca Trail to Machu Picchu and anything heavier is a non starter.  And if they are damaged or stolen, we're not out that much money.

Edited April 14, 2016 by AlanG

[erl]

I'm interested in your comment about different developers and they way they are used affecting the outcome. 

 

You say what you would get would be different from what any other user gets from the same film developer combo - do you mean for c-41 also and is that because you use home processing kits and/or tweak your process away from the C-41 standards - e.g. different chemicals, different time, temperature or agitation to get the results you like from different films or when shot under certain conditions (i appreciate you may push or pull but that is a standard for c-41 also). 

 

In any case, Adan's examples have all gone through the exact same commercial c-41 process in the same machine and been scanned the same way in the same machine - so there is no "multiplicity of variations"in Adan's examples is there?

Phil, Retrospectively I realize my post was a bit vague, sorry.

I was referring more to varied B&W devs, that I think most posters will be familiar with. The reason was to illustrate how IMO so many different outcomes can be obtained with the same basic materials, as an analogy. However, I do home process all my C41 and I am sure the recipe I use is not identical necessarily to anyone else's. Small variations can make a difference. I do boast that my process exceeds most lab results, simply because I use the 'one shot' principle same as in B&W processing. For that reason the dev is always optimum and not working simply within a nominated tolerance.

 

Adan's exhaustive testing is very interesting and will probably bring forth conclusions from  many viewers, but I will be mildly surprised if they all agree.

 

To me Adan's test is not what I call 'real world' living, but still a very interesting experiment none the less. I believe the most valid test, for an individual, is building up an experience over much time to remember what film, in which circumstances you may shoot regularly, give your preferred look. We will likely all have a different preference for the same scenario. Somewhere here I have seen samples that I would have chosen different film from the photographer. I am not saying that photographer was wrong, just having a different preference. Hence my original analogy re different developers and films and their use, according to taste.

[A miller]

Oh boy, this thread has really struck a chord!  And has even brought some of the digital gangsters in the discussion       And James gets more and more incensed by the post - yet he can't stop reading!  I love it!!    

The problem that I see with comparing flat scans is that the scanner manipulates the negative in a way that produces a native scanned file that eliminates - to the greatest extent possible - blown highlights as well as crushed shadows.  It is like providing a blob of wet dull clay that has the potential of being molded and shaped into a fine piece of pottery.  I think it is more fair and accurate to compare the finished pieces of pottery rather than the blobs of wet dull clay.

 

Second, the data sheets for most of these professional films very clearly indicate that they are enhanced for scanning.  One will be hard pressed to find literature to explain precisely what makes a portra 400 optimized for scanning.  But I highly doubt that the film companies are making this up out of think air.

 

Third, professional film stocks will generally have a better ability to retain their density in situations in which it is pushed (in terms of exposure) and/or expanded (in terms of development).  This density is important because the more the film is pushed or expanded the thinner it becomes, and the thinner it becomes the more the fine grain, color balances and shadow detail of the film is degraded.  

 

Fourth, I think we all need to keep the context in mind.  We are talking about a mere 10 or cents per shot more to get the piece of mind that the resulting photograph will be as consistently dense, well balanced, scannable as possible, and the time and expense to be invested in developing, scanning and editing (and of course the opportunity cost of missing the "shot") will not be sold short.  We are not talking about whether to spend thousands of dollars more to get the aspherical version of a Leica lens, or a summilux or a summicron, as you read and discussion in infinite quantities in the gear section of the forum.  (Been there and done that.)  This film stock discussion is peanuts compared to most of the direct or indirect "cost-benefit" discussions that go one all day long in the gear forum.  I actually think that the type of film matters much much more than the type of lens one uses (e.g., lux vs cron, ash vs pre-asph).  

 

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.

 

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...

 

Alan - I disagree with you on this.  In film forums all over (including the "I Like Film" thread which is the best kept secret for film photographers on the entire internet), you very rarely (with Shiva being an exception) hear people talking about that special signature that a consumer film stock provides that the photographer loves.  It is all about those lovely skin tones of the portras, or the punchy colors of ektar or velvia 50, or the blues and greens of the fuji pro 100h....

 

This makes me think of the three film stocks that I shot with during my family vacation to Miami last year.  They were Cinestill 50, Portra 160 and Velvia 50.

Here are examples of each:

Cinestill 50

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!

 

Portra 160

 

Velvia 50

 

Obviously, the velvia 50 was a bit out of its element, as I struggled to tame the orange skin.  But it nevertheless provided an interesting twist on a portion of the photos that were taken.  As for the portra 160 and cinestill 50, there are clear differences in rendition.  The cinestill has a golden tinge on the WB whereas the portra 160 is a bit cooler (relatively) and (IMHO) more balanced.  I spent a lot of time with my FLAT scans in LR in order to obtain these results.  However, the results continued to stay true to the characteristics of the emulsion.  And you know what, for our upcoming vacation to Miami, I am going to shoot predominantly with the Cinestill 50.  I like the classic old fashioned (yet clean as a whistle) look that it gives, even though it is not as well balanced (and IMO doesn't scan a well) and requires more work to get to sing. But when it sings, it does so with that unique Amy Winehouse type of a voice rather than, say, Lady Gaga (which is still brilliant, though not quite as unique)...  The Blurb book that we made from our trip, which is filled with exclusively film photos, is on a totally different level of interest relative to the Blurb books that we had previously made with digital photos.

 

So the "film is film is film" argument is a slippery slope to absurdity.  Of course all of these emulsions have different characteristics!  That is what is great about FILM; and that is what is not great about digital, where people work for hours to make their photos look like film.  People should just shoot film!!  I have said this before - it is the difference b/c real breasts and augmented breasts - Sophia Loren vs Pamela Anderson.  To each his own; and of course people are perfectly entitled to enjoy both!!

 

 

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).

Mr. Hero - yes, in a way you are right. But it is the same subjective value judgment that would apply if a particular Lexus model was, say, only $1000 more expensive that the Toyota analog.  Sure, the cost benefit decision is subjective; but a rational person would tend to go for the Lexus.   IT is the "rational" modifier from my previous sentence that introduces the objectivity into the judgment.

 

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. 

Very poetic, Steve.  And I look forward to seeing all of the consumer film that you will now be shooting and sharing on the I Like Film forum :)  And make sure you find that special place in your camera bag for all of that consumer film that you will be taking with you on your vacation out west later this summer :)

 

 

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. 

Oh come on, James, you are lapping this thread up with a monster appetite!

 

OK.

 

 

Oh, yes, you can, if you know where to look. There is a special dispensation for one thread to allow film shots from other cameras and other formats (which is why I bought an SWC)....

Right you are Chris.  And I will say that, although Leica is very near and dear to Chris' heart and he shares some amazing photos with his film Ms, he also regularly shares both medium and large format photos (from film that he develops and scans himself) on the forum.  Same for me: Iots of Leica but also MF from my 60-yr old Linhof 6x9 and SWC - on pretty much a daily basis.   I probably look at (and c moment on) 30 new film photos per day on that thread from all types of film stocks.  It is a great way to learn about film stocks, the vast majority are professional stocks.

 

 

Having said all of this, I will take some sample shots with the three consumer films from Miami Beach over the next couple of weeks and look forward to sharing some results.  I am warning that it may take me a while b/c I am traveling quite a bit over the next month.  

 

Peace,

 

Adam

[sblitz]

You are incorrigible but that is part of your charm. I offered a way pro films could be better but you chose a different tack. I will take Ektar because I am beginning to understand it and fill my needs. Nice that there is still a lot of choice and we can have this discussion. For a while a few years back this might not have seemed possoble

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[adan]

OK - first the key to the photos - on page 12 of this thread (for brevity, "Kodak" = consumer UltraMax 400)

 

Pizza signs full images

Fuji - Kodak

M9 - Portra

 

Pizza signs crops

Kodak - M9

Portra - Fuji

 

Pushed to 800 full images

M9 - Fuji

Kodak - Portra

 

Pushed to 800 crops

Fuji - Portra

M9 - Kodak

 

Evergreens full images

Portra - Fuji

M9 - Kodak

 

Evergreens crops

M9 - Portra

Fuji - Kodak

 

Indoor portrait 400

Kodak - M9

Portra - Fuji

 

Cameras full image

Portra - Kodak

Fuji - M9

 

Cameras crops

Kodak - Portra

Fuji - M9

________________________

 

Characteristics observed -

 

Portra 400: finest grain, highest resolution, lowest contrast, lowest saturation, slight tendency to pink in highlights and green in shadows (allowing for the pink introduced by mixed light.) Highest ISO either normal or pushed, ~1/3rd to 1/2 stop "brighter" images than the other films, brighter than my M9 at 800. About an effective ISO 500/1000 (with the meter I used). Not only is the overall saturation lower, but the "color noise" of the individual grains is also lower.

 

Fuji X-Tra 400: grainier than Portra, slightly lower resolution, more contrast, more saturation, noticeable red bias, especially in shadows, about 1/2-1/3 stop slower that Portra, normal or pushed. About an effective ISO 320/500. Weak shadow detail shot at 400/800 - but that may explain its slightly finer grain compared to UltraMax.

 

Kodak UltraMax 400: by a small margin - grainiest and lowest resolution, a bit greener than Fuji, especially in the shadows. Overall saturation same as Fuji, but less red bias. Slightly brighter than Fuji, normal or pushed. Effective 400/800.

_________

 

Some thoughts.

 

The consumer films have higher saturation and contrast, and "look prettier" right out of the box or scanner. And that makes sense - their prime target audience likes pretty colors straight from the lab. They don't do scanning and post-processing, for the most part. But those characteristics get them into trouble in mixed lighting (the color shifts are more obvious) and when pushed (which adds even more contrast).

 

Portra 400's low saturation and contrast help it in mixed light and when pushed. Adam is absolutely right that it pushes well. The push does slightly increase its tendency for pink highlights and green shadows. Overall, it really is what the name says, a studio portra(it) skintone film that was nudged towards "general-purpose" when the VC and NC versions were combined a few years ago. It has a higher true ISO, and that should be taken into consideration in the crops from the pushed image - it blew out the highlights in the metal film reel, but that is because it really could have been shot at 1000 instead of 800.

 

It is very interesting that while Fuji is known for its greens, the Fuji film in this set had the heaviest red bias, and the two Kodak emulsions were more green overall. Of special interest to me is that Portra 400/35mm does better with dark desaturated greens than Portra 160/120. I will have to give the big version of 400 a try, to see if that translates to roll film.

 

With less grain at a higher effective ISO, and the most neutral color, I think we have to say Portra 400 is the best film of this batch. The low contrast and low saturation help it achieve that. They may not look pretty on their own, in raw scans - but contrast and saturation can be increased easily in post-processing. Adam is correct.

 

Is it twice as good - since it costs twice as much (round figures, depends on where you buy your film and your local price)? No. But that is par for the course with most incremental improvements - the last 10% costs as much as the first 90%. Leica owners should be very familar with that principle.

 

So "Youse pays yer money, and youse takes yer choice."

[LocalHero1953]

Mr. Hero - yes, in a way you are right. But it is the same subjective value judgment that would apply if a particular Lexus model was, say, only $1000 more expensive that the Toyota analog.  Sure, the cost benefit decision is subjective; but a rational person would tend to go for the Lexus.   IT is the "rational" modifier from my previous sentence that introduces the objectivity into the judgment.

 

Why? Some people would, some wouldn't (size, maintenance costs, image etc might point you to a small cheap car). Rationality applies both ways. Just remember, someone might have different priorities, values and ambitions than you.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest]

...Some thoughts....With less grain at a higher effective ISO, and the most neutral color, I think we have to say Portra 400 is the best film of this batch. The low contrast and low saturation help it achieve that. They may not look pretty on their own, in raw scans - but contrast and saturation can be increased easily in post-processing...So "Youse pays yer money, and youse takes yer choice."

 

Seems a reasonable conclusion that Portra 400 is the most flexible film of the ones tested. As I am considering a return to film after shooting digital for ten years, a comparison with the M9 is also of interest.

By way of background, so far I have only shot a few rolls of Tri-X and my conclusion from comparing some 35+ B&W pictures (posted on the RFF under the name "Nowhereman") is that it's not an easy call considering the extra effort required for developing and scanning: I could go either way, continuing to shoot with my M9-P and MM or going back to my M6 and Tri-X, but I like film for how it renders highlight in particularly bright and harsh tropical light.

 

I haven't yet tried the new Portra 400. Ten years ago I shot Kodak E100G and find that I prefer the M9 because it provides much greater flexibility and control. I like the look of M9 files at ISO 640 and pushing in PP up to as much as 4 stops in dark light and night shots. Looking at the M9 shots above, I'm not sure whether, or why, Portra 400 would be better. No point in my speculating since I haven't yet had a chance to try it, but would like to hear from people here who have. BTW, people complain about "digital vs film"discussion, but that happens to be what is of interest to me, and perhaps a good number of others that are considering a return to film.