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

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I knew I should have resisted the temptation to look in this thread again.  Somehow the title 'Hamster-Wheel' comes to mind...

[chrism]

Seems to me we're getting into an "either-or" debate where there really isn't one.

 

Some photographers prefer and use digital because it has higher resolution (per square unit of image area, same ISO, same color capability) - I am one of those.

 

Some photographers prefer and use digital for reasons having nothing to do with resolution - and I am one of those.

 

Some photographers use Leica lenses because of their resolution - and I am one of those.

 

Some photograhers use Leica lenses for reasons of macro-contrast, color rendering, feel and build-quality, size and weight, and other reasons having nothing to do with resolution - and I am one of those.

 

Some photographers use film and don't care about resolution - and I am one of those.

 

Some photographers use film, and care a great deal about getting the most resolution possible within the context of using film - and I am one of those.

 

I suspect we should all have this mantra tattooed on our bodies somewhere, or at least in our memories. Thank you, Andy.

Edited April 22, 2016 by chrism

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

I am not arguing digital vs film, I am arguing your point that the reason to use digital is you get better resolution from the lenses.

Well if you want more resolution that would be a way. Of course you don't have to.

Edited April 22, 2016 by AlanG

[sblitz]

Well if you want more resolution that would be a way. Of course you don't have to.

Read one of Puts latest blogs he writes it better than I do

[EoinC]

Or alternatively...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY 

[A miller]

"Resolution" of what?

Clinical sharpness, digital has an obvious edge

But i agree with HCB (and others) that clinical sharpness is a Bullsh$t concept

Resolution of tonal range...?.film is king

Resolution of highlight detail....?film king

Resolution of color palette and transition across a given color spectrum..?.film is king

Resolution of natural beautiful grain...?film is king

Ergo...film is king

 

Sorry, had to have my own peom

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica's new ad...

Resolution is a Bullsh$t concept." Yes!

Edited April 22, 2016 by AlanG

[EoinC]

Leica's new ad...

Resolution is a Bullsh$t concept." Yes!

 

Having jumped down that rabbit hole, the new ad works for me.

[A miller]

Leica's new ad...

Resolution is a Bullsh$t concept." Yes!

Alan - Leica has been living with this ad for 50+ years.

In NYC, "bourgeois" translates to "bullsh$t"

[Martin B]

I guess film users need to move to NYC metro :-) ; here life is close enough to the way it was to make film shooting possible....going a little off topic (I think the OP topic has been beaten to death several times) the film developer/printer/scanner etc that I go to, off the beaten path in SOHO (NYC Version) is now processing over 300 rolls of film a day (120,135, slide, color, b&w) .... upside is turnaround is now around 7/8 hours without paying up .... and they are far from the only lab in town.... this keeps me from moving to LA :-)

 

Reading this - I live in NJ - would you agree that there is a recent and clear trend towards film shooting in general? You might have the best comparison here since you know how the film photography market/development etc was several years ago compared to now.

[sblitz]

Reading this - I live in NJ - would you agree that there is a recent and clear trend towards film shooting in general? You might have the best comparison here since you know how the film photography market/development etc was several years ago compared to now.

 

The instamatic auto film camera crowd that drove overall film sales is not coming back. In fact they have all dropped point and shoot digital for phones. Even Leica is involved with a phone camera

 

Commercial photographers are not coming back except in rare occasions

 

People who enjoy taking pictures to create images for themselves for family for profit They are increasingly using film. And it will be this group that keeps film alive

[A miller]

Steve - all you need is one Kardashian to be seen with a film camera and all bets are off...

[Doc Henry]

You have said "resolution" ?

You will need 156 MegaPx for digit cam equivalent 35mm film .

http://istillshootfilm.org/post/114131916747/the-real-resolution-of-film-vs-digital

Anyway you can see when printing.
The human eye is the only master in this case
In France we say "there is no photo" so it's obvious. No "smoothing" line

by algorithm. 

Another link : http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1.html/

... but I get out of the subject of Adam's thread  .

Apologies Adam

H

Edited April 22, 2016 by Doc Henry

[adan]

Doc, I am truly sorry that you linked to that first site, and its statement (posing as fact) that "A digital camera would have to be 156 megapixels to give you the same kind of detail as 35mm film." Because, to be blunt - that article's conclusion is a lie.

 

Mostly because it is based on another false statement: "Most films have an average resolution of 150 line pairs per millimeter." It might be possible that a tiny fraction of films can reach that - if one sticks to ISO 20 or below and B&W, and uses converted microfilms. (I'd want to see some evidence - opinions (unless qualified expert) are not evidence.)

 

Velvia 50 - under ideal lab conditions and lighting, gets to about 125 lppm.

Provia 400, as we are discussing, and as documented in Kodak's own product sheet (again, ideal lab testing), crashes to 30% MTF at about 50 lppm.

 

The second site gives a more scientifically accurate equivalence for 35mm film. Velvia 50 ot Tech Pan (R.I.P.) - 16 Mpixels, TMax 400 (updated) - 8 Mpixels. Portra 400, likely about the same.

 

None of which should dissuade anyone from using film! As sblitz reminded us, resolution is only a part, and often a small part, of the choice.

 

But it is a sorry state of affairs - and does not reflect well on film - if a site has to advocate for film using dishonest means.

Edited April 22, 2016 by adan

[Guest]

Doc, I am truly sorry that you linked to that first site, and its statement (posing as fact) that "A digital camera would have to be 156 megapixels to give you the same kind of detail as 35mm film." Because, to be blunt - that article's conclusion is a lie....But it is a sorry state of affairs - and does not reflect well on film - if a site has to advocate for film using dishonest means.

 

You said it, Adan. One only has to use one's eyes to see that a camera like the MM, or even the M9, has more resolution than 35mm film. To me it's not resolution but rendering of highlights that makes film interesting — not to speak of the element of chance: Jörn Colberg writes, "Art without a trace of chance, a trace of an accident isn’t art" in this article, which is worth reading:

 

http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/photography_after_photography/

 

Furthermore, photographer Mark Steinmetz writes:

I have the Leica M which is good for colour and movies. So far it’s just a fill-in camera for jobs. I haven’t fallen in love with it or been entirely satisfied with what it can do. Most digital photography seems overly sharp and fake. The recording of light just isn’t the same and the harmony between elements in the image is missing. All the elements seem estranged from one another. Nobody else seems to mind but it’s not good enough for me. Nick Nixon told me he was 95% satisfied with digital, which meant he couldn’t continue with it.

 

It's certainly not resolution that is the determining factor in wanting shooting film.

[sblitz]

You said it, Adan. One only has to use one's eyes to see that a camera like the MM, or even the M9, has more resolution than 35mm film. To me it's not resolution but rendering of highlights that makes film interesting — not to speak of the element of chance: Jörn Colberg writes, "Art without a trace of chance, a trace of an accident isn’t art" in this article, which is worth reading:

 

http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/photography_after_photography/

 

Furthermore, photographer Mark Steinmetz writes:

 

It's certainly not resolution that is the determining factor in wanting shooting film.

 

 

Thanks for the link -- I wonder, btw, whether conservatism has hit all mediums. It seems the power of the revolutionary talent in most if not all arts to stand astride his/her world and, in effect, dictate what is going to come next, is gone. Perhaps it is the democratization of tools available, high-end tools available at low prices, I don't know. There was an interesting article in the FT recently about Miles Davis and how he dressed and stood out and stood above jazz and dictated so much beyond just his music. The talent today can't seem to stand out, and certainly don't have a style beyond the mainstream. Jazz, photography, all the same I guess. But, at least we still have film to use.

[A miller]

thanks, @gbealnz, for reminding me about this fun thread, the thesis of which I still very much agree with!! 

[Einst_Stein]

I would question why use film at all?

Within the answer to the above question, you might question if it is relevant at all whether professional grade or non-professional grade.

Simply because you drive Mercedes or BMW does not mean you can not enjoy In-n-out burger.

 

[stray cat]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

I would question why use film at all?

Within the answer to the above question, you might question if it is relevant at all whether professional grade or non-professional grade.

Simply because you drive Mercedes or BMW does not mean you can not enjoy In-n-out burger.

 

Indeed - why take photographs at all?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[A miller]

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I would question why use film at all?

Within the answer to the above question, you might question if it is relevant at all whether professional grade or non-professional grade.

Simply because you drive Mercedes or BMW does not mean you can not enjoy In-n-out burger.

 

Well, to answer your first question, you would use film in order to take amazing photographs.

As to your pro vs non-pro question of relevance, I would refer you to the thesis articulated in my very first post in this thread, as amplified and further fleshed out in the additional posts on this topics that I made in this thread.  It is quite cogent and so I highly commend it to you.  

We can then discuss this in more detail if you'd like.