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

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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."

Adan - Thank you again for your time and analysis.  I think that it will prove to be a valuable contribution to the overall discussion.  I think you had a slight advantage over us with the benefit of the full resolution files.  In any case, I most likely wouldn't have been as articulate as you even if I saw the full res files.   

 

 Just remember, someone might have different priorities, values and ambitions than you.

Right, but you have to remember that this concept is being applied to a context involving art , which is inherently subjective (unlike a business transaction, in which the benefit can be quantified into profit or cost savings).  So you need to account for this.  The "benefit" in the cost-benefit is inherently subjective, for sure. But that doesn't mean that a general proposition can't be derived from the behavior of a general population of photographers.  The question is what would a reasonable person of average judgment decide in this context, in which the overall direct and imputed (development, scanning and (I would argue) increased level of editing relative to digital) cost of the film photography workflow is increased only to a de minims extent by the incremental cost of pro film.  Based on the thousands of photos that I have reviewed just on the "I like film" thread (not to mention the thousands that I have seen on Flickr and elsewhere), it is quite clear that the use of consumer film as a general workflow (not a one off) is not at all the norm - in fact I would go so far to say that it is somewhat rare.  

 

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. 

 

This is another subjective analysis, and so you really have to make up your own mind.  There is obviously extra effort in the film workflow involved, and the question is whether it is worth it to you.  

As a NYC resident, I like pizza just about more than anyone.  And assuming that I have the time on my hands I am willing to schlep down to the Village to get a slice (ok, more like 2 or 3 slices) from Joe's Pizza rather than hop across the street and grab a slice from one of the run-of-the-mill NYC pizzerias.  I happen to think that the sauce and thin crispy crust at Joe's are simply sublime.  And I am willing to invest the extra time and effort (and cab fare) to enjoy what I perceive to be this enhanced gastronomical pleasure.  I would say that this is not a rational cost-benefit judgment.  Mostly people would not do this.   They would be happy with the run-of-the-mill corner pizzeria (after all, they are very much above-average by national standards).  This is a little like going back to film.  It is more time intensive, and most people would deem it irrational and not cost-beneficial.  But there is that population of people (like myself) who want to shoot film and only film and as much film as possible.  It is a darn good thing that you can't get fat from shooting film; otherwise, I would be like a marshmallow man!!   

 

Especially after hearing you say that you put a few rolls of the venerable Tri-X and couldn't seem to discern a worthwhile difference vs your M9 and MM, I really question whether you have the requisite level of appreciation for the characteristics of film that are necessary to make the extra effort worthwhile.  To me, there are face-slapping differences.  Certain B&W films (such as Tri-x) will run circles around digital when it comes to retention of highlight detail and tonal range and transitions.  Couple this with the fact the film shooters are today in the minority, your best film photographs will be more distinguishable within the general (mostly digital) photography community.  To me, this is all worthwhile.  But so much goes into it that it would be foolish to try to impose my view on you or anyone else.  

 

One thing you might consider is to try to gain some inspiration from other "professional" B&W film photographers. (There is a thread on this in this Film Forum.)   I'll bet that if you study some work of others you just might catch the bug.  

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

It is getting pretty deep around here isn't  it?  Aren't most of these photos viewed on a wide range of monitors and devices? The variation in displays and viewing conditions is far more significant than the differences in film. Plus all of the film characteristics can be modified in scanning and post to make just about any look you want. There is no universal standard to aim for. And human vision is not very critical anyway. Why go on in post after post in weird postulating over something so insignificant and trivial? 

 

People have had no problem choosing color film over the past many decades. And it isn't as if most shooters can choose a specific film for each shot even if they know the films in depth.  So you're often not using the "best" film for the shot.

 

Why not start a post that all viewing must be done on a specific high end monitor that is calibrated in a particular way in a particular size room that is painted with a particular paint using identical lights that are replaced once a year?  And every viewer must have to pass some kind of color vision test. And even then we'll have personal and cultural differences of what people prefer.  And how do you control the scanning and post production?

 

Color theory is much much more complicated than choosing a particular film. I simply adjust my images to get the look that I like.  I could do that with any film. It's very simple.

Edited April 15, 2016 by AlanG

[A miller]

It is getting pretty deep around here isn't  it?  Aren't most of these photos viewed on a wide range of monitors and devices? The variation in displays and viewing conditions is far more significant than the differences in film. Plus all of the film characteristics can be modified in scanning and post to make just about any look you want. There is no universal standard to aim for. And human vision is not very critical anyway. Why go on in post after post in weird postulating over something so insignificant and trivial? 

 

People have had no problem choosing color film over the past many decades. And it isn't as if most shooters can choose a specific film for each shot even if they know the films in depth.  So you're often not using the "best" film for the shot.

 

Why not start a post that all viewing must be done on a specific high end monitor that is calibrated in a particular way in a particular size room that is painted with a particular paint using identical lights that are replaced once a year?  And every viewer must have to pass some kind of color vision test. And even then we'll have personal and cultural differences of what people prefer.  And how do you control the scanning and post production?

 

Color theory is much much more complicated than choosing a particular film. I simply adjust my images to get the look that I like.  I could do that with any film. It's very simple.

 

Alan - Film is not film is not film... Period.  If you don't get this then it is your loss.  One could argue more forcefully that digital is digital is digital...  

[AlanG]

Alan - Film is not film is not film... Period.  If you don't get this then it is your loss.  One could argue more forcefully that digital is digital is digital...  

Kind of going from the specific to some kind of generalization now aren't you? Who said it is?  As I mentioned I used to test trial color transparency emulsions for Kodak. Many of theses differences were pretty subtle but they were trying to judge preferences.

 

But with digital scanning there is not enough difference between similar speed pro negative color films and amateur negative color films to justify 15 pages of back and forth about how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. The differences you seem to care about (without providing controlled comparison illustrations) are very subtle considering everything that has more consequences in the larger scheme of things. It's all based on your conclusions from pictures you have observed on various forums. Why should your opinions apply to me and others? How is that unbiased?  Maybe your monitor or viewing conditions are way different than mine. Maybe your preferences are different. 

 

Do you know that given a choice, most people will prefer a warm version of a photo over a cooler one? Did you know that in our culture the image on the left is chosen more than the image on the right in some comparisons?  Did you ever study prints in a room that had a ceiling with all kinds of different lighting fixtures so that various color lighting scenarios could be simulated? Do you know about the concept of color constancy in human vision? Do you know what trouble Kodak went through to control the comparisons before they assembled large test groups to rate and give opinions about new film samples and form statistical analysis of this information?

 

Thus thinking your pictures are going to be significantly "better" by using pro film seems totally absurd to me. You could simply raise or lower any one of numerous sliders in the scanning software to have far greater effect.

Edited April 15, 2016 by AlanG

[A miller]

Who said it is?  As I mentioned I used to test trial color transparency emulsions for Kodak. 

 

But with digital scanning there is not enough difference between similar speed pro negative color films and amateur negative color films to justify 15 pages of back and forth about how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. The differences you seem to care about (without providing controlled comparison illustrations) are very subtle considering everything that has more consequences in the larger scheme of things. It's all based on your conclusions from pictures you have observed on various forums. Why should your opinions apply to me and others? Maybe your monitor or viewing conditions are way different than mine. Maybe your preferences are different.

 

Thus thinking your pictures are going to be significantly "better" by using pro film seems totally absurd to me. You could simply raise or lower any one of numerous sliders in the scanning software to have far greater effect.

 

the differences are material, indeed.  You just don't see them; perhaps a mental block of some kind?  Only you know...  

[adan]

It does pay to remember that all we are really discussing (and sampling) here is the medium - the "paint" if you will. It may be suggestive and useful, but it won't really help explain why a picture is better or best. Or how to achieve a picture that is better or best.

 

Jackson Pollock used industrial car enamel (and not "BMW" enamel, but the plain old 1950s Detroit/DuPont stuff, in buckets). And no amount of hand-ground, exclusive Mussini oil paint (cheap at $81 for 8 15ml tubes) is going to turn a painter into Jackson Pollock - not in financial value, and not in historical staying-power.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the differences are material, indeed.  You just don't see them; perhaps a mental block of some kind?  Only you know...  

A mental block about what? Seeing things your way which is just arbitrary generalizations and vague opinions?

 

You almost never reply to my points about film testing, color theory, etc. So do you have a mental block?

 

The film is only a means to an end which in this case is either a print or display on a monitor. It isn't as if we are projecting slides.  The image is "stepped" on quite a lot when scanned and adjusted. 

 

You keep saying things such as the "differences are material indeed."  But you haven't given any examples as proof. I posted four copies of those colorful brushes to show how the color can easily be varied. There is virtually no limit where one can go with that. Likewise I took one of Andy's M9 images, blurred it and added grain and I don't think I can tell the difference between it and the 400 ISO film shots. If there is a difference, it is so trivial to be irrelevant.  How come you have nothing to say about these?

 

This is a visual medium and you are giving me words as your "proof." The photos you posted don't illustrate anything about your point to me. Whereas Andy showed examples that illustrate a contrary view than your point.  If one can't scan and adjust an image from one film to come very close to matching the look of another film then what one really needs to do is work on one's scanning and PP skills to get them up to snuff.

 

We're just spinning our wheels here. My biggest complain about this thread is that I somehow spent so much time on this.  Why should I care what film you use? And why would you care what others use?

Edited April 15, 2016 by AlanG

[A miller]

Thank you, Alan, for that insight

[Jeff S]

It does pay to remember that all we are really discussing (and sampling) here is the medium - the "paint" if you will. It may be suggestive and useful, but it won't really help explain why a picture is better or best. Or how to achieve a picture that is better or best.

 

Jackson Pollock used industrial car enamel (and not "BMW" enamel, but the plain old 1950s Detroit/DuPont stuff, in buckets). And no amount of hand-ground, exclusive Mussini oil paint (cheap at $81 for 8 15ml tubes) is going to turn a painter into Jackson Pollock - not in financial value, and not in historical staying-power.

 

So industrial car enamel is not any better or worse than pro car enamel for painting?  It would seem Adam, were he a painter, would be arguing otherwise.

 

Jeff

[Guest]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/258574-leica-film-camera-for-a-beginner/?p=3024674

 

....Especially after hearing you say that you put a few rolls of the venerable Tri-X and couldn't seem to discern a worthwhile difference vs your M9 and MM, I really question whether you have the requisite level of appreciation for the characteristics of film that are necessary to make the extra effort worthwhile.  To me, there are face-slapping differences.  Certain B&W films (such as Tri-x) will run circles around digital when it comes to retention of highlight detail and tonal range and transitions...

 

Adam - that's not quite what I said: I wrote that the M9/MM digital files could not match the highlight rendition of Tri-X, especially in bright and harsh tropical light . In another thread I posted the following comparison:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/258574-leica-film-camera-for-a-beginner/?p=3024674

 

So, my feeling is that Tri-X sometimes blows the Leica-M digital files away. In the MM photo in the thread linked above, I simply had to choose a somewhat darker look to get the highlights to look reasonable. I've been considering a full return to film, and am considering that in the context of an overall high-contrast look that I like. While the answer is not obvious to me, considering the additional effort film involves, I continue to be drawn to shooting with Tri-X and am still considering selling both my M9-P and MM.

 

My question , perhaps not stated clearly enough, was whether the advantage in highlight rendition of Portra 400 in bright and harsh light was as compelling as it is with Tri-x vs the M9/MM.

[adan]

BTW, Bill Pierce (many years Leica shooter for TIME magazine, and a columnist, and one of the writers of the last Leica Manual) called Tri-X the "vin ordinaire" of photography - what you used if you didn't have a reason to use something else. Which for him, meant Tri-X most of the time.

 

@not_a_hero - I don't know. I know Portra 400 uses Kodak's T-grain technology, and thus may be closer to Tmax 400 than Tri-X. But without tests......? Chemists can juggle all sorts of things, so you never know.

 

I've only shot the current TX400 in 120. It may well share one characteristic with Portra 400 - higher real ISO than the box says. In HC-110 B normal, it seems to have a lot of overall density, bunched up in the highlights (upward-arcing tone curve), While TMax 400 is right on target and linear at 400 or even 320. I've meant to try-X (ahem) metered at 500-640-800, to see what happens. Haven't had the will yet, since Tmax 400 is so nice.

Edited April 15, 2016 by adan

[A miller]

 

My question , perhaps not stated clearly enough, was whether the advantage in highlight rendition of Portra 400 in bright and harsh light was as compelling as it is with Tri-x vs the M9/MM.

 

Apologies for misunderstanding.  

I believe that highlight rendition of Portra 400 is also "big league" and at least as compelling as Tri-X

Here are some examples of Portra 400 pushed one stop and shot (to some degree) into the sunlight...  They are not meant to be models of crisp clarity or perfect color balance....

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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[A miller]

Just cracked open a special delivery (via second class mail  ) from B&H...

I am now a proud owner of a suite of consumer film stocks...

Miami, here we come!!

 

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!

[EoinC]

...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... 

Having read this magnificently volatile thread from beginning to end, and very much appreciating the images you produce on our favourite thread, Adam, I think that the above statement is probably close to accurate, and is why you are not open to accepting the following:

 

1) You have agreed that some people may like the look of specific "amateur" (an anachronism in terminology) films.

2) You have accepted that "cost-beneficial" is, in the first place, determined by getting a result that one wants (which is why we have Leicas, knowing full well that similar physical results could be achieved with much cheaper cameras, but we include the touchy-touchy-feely-feely component in our assessment of results).

3) You are very clear that the amateur films do not provide you with what you want.

Therefore, amateur films cannot be cost beneficial for you, but can be cost beneficial for others (refer (1) above).

 

I applaud anyone who shoots any film for any reason. Shoot what you like, with what you like and, if money is an issue, assess the opportunity cost that is applicable at the time.

 

Alan has raised some very good points along the way, but it seems to be they get passed over by some on the basis of an assumption that they are an attack on film (no matter how often he has stated that they are not).

[Guest]

...I believe that highlight rendition of Portra 400 is also "big league" and at least as compelling as Tri-X

Here are some examples of Portra 400 pushed one stop and shot (to some degree) into the sunlight...  They are not meant to be models of crisp clarity or perfect color balance....

 

 

Perfect! Love these. I'm not after "crisp clarity or perfect color balance." It's this type of edgy look that I have not had the guts to do with the M9...

[earleygallery]

Crap photos are crap photos, whatever they're made with!

[EoinC]

Crap photos are crap photos, whatever they're made with!

I can vouch for this, having generated more than my per capita share of crap photo's in multiple mediums.

[erl]

Perfect! Love these. I'm not after "crisp clarity or perfect color balance." It's this type of edgy look that I have not had the guts to do with the M9...

The M9 is very capable of such 'style', but of course, as with ANY camera, it is dependent on one's ability to use it.

Give your M9 a chance and try it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[erl]

Crap photos are crap photos, whatever they're made with!

True enough James, but likewise, Good photos are Good photos, whatever they are made with.

[A miller]

The M9 is very capable of such 'style', but of course, as with ANY camera, it is dependent on one's ability to use it.

Give your M9 a chance and try it.

 

I cannot argue with this in any way.  If you can achieve what you desire with your M9 and/MM it certainly will make your workflow easier to manage!!  And I am not suggesting that it isn't theoretically possible.

All I can say is that, I tried and tried, and no mater what I tried I couldn't get these types of results with my MM (CCD) or M9.  The highlights just weren't IMHO as charming or malleable.  

Another portra 400 shooting into the sun....

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!