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

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Thanks, James.  I feel your enthusiasm for liberty and free choice and respect for all film stocks.  No we have to talk about how you communicate your feelings.  As I said above, there is nothing wrong with saying what you think and stating that someone else is incorrect as an objective matter and then bring specific examples that support your position.  But you want to avoid name calling or criticizing a person's own belief.

 

I am no fool, believe me.  I just don't agree with you.  

 

And all this talk about a specific desirable "look" that cheap film stocks give that pro-stock can't is really interesting to me. 

 

I am all eyes and would love to see some examples that support this notion...

 

 

 

 

I don't see where I have done any 'name calling'.

 

The best thing to do IMHO is to buy a few rolls of film - pro and consumer stock - and shoot/compare them for yourself. Obviously there are all the other variables that come into play if you just search for images on the web - handling/processing of the original film, post processing etc.

 

Someone put me on to Konica film, just about the time it was discontinued. That's a consumer film and it gives very nice colours - a number of times people have commented on photos I've taken with this film. I'll try to dig up an example or two.

[honcho]

This thread seems hell-bent on perpetuating a discussion around something that ran out of steam after some of the early replies.

 

Adam, if you want to apply the relevance of emulsions to what is actually being photographed, it is quite a simple thing to do.  Ektar is well suited to the kind of images you seem to enjoy making, as a C41 alternative to E6 (and a very good alternative it is), I would not use it for photographing weddings or portraits because it was never intended for that purpose.

 

For many years 120 NPH400 was my standard C41 film stock for wedding and portrait photography.  It was consistently dependable because it needed to be, where 3M or some other emulsion from the likes of Ferrania was not aesthetically very pleasant for that kind of photography.  That isn't to say you couldn't make images with those films, in other applications they were 'better' than NPH400, but I would not have used it to for weddings and portraits where the outcome really mattered.  If it were still viable to photograph weddings and portraits with film, it would be interesting to compare what was once standard to what was once considered inferior in the context of a hybrid workflow.  In the absence of a hybrid workflow, those  films would have produced clearly inferior results in terms of grain, colour and latitude, but I know from my own experimentation that it is no longer the issue it once was from the point of view of aesthetics.

 

I'm not sure if that answers your original question adequately but the advice I would give to you is carry on doing what you are doing with Ektar.  I see little sense in risking compromising the consolidation of your portfolio (and it seems to be improving as time goes on) for the sake of saving a few dollars by using less consistent emulsions. 

 

I doubt I'm the first to say that here.

[Advertisement]

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

[Doc Henry]

For the color and to continue on the question of Adam ....

I know you do not like taking pictures of flower (wild flower in my case) in the nature,

as example and reference to color tonality , because that is what you see most often

when you walk in the forest with your family .

Here is an example:  what reproach you with these colors ?

For me the color in nature remains a reference and often gives the color "signature of one film"

I will not tell you what film I use here , but this color you like it  ?
and you see like this in the nature ? it reproduces perfectly what you saw ?

it suits you or not  ?   Are you satisfied with this rendering  ?

 

If the answer is yes , take this film, otherwise switch to another

basically that's the most important,  the rest is secondary

 

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!

 

Leica M7 + 90 Macro Elmar + Tripod

 

Rg

Henry

Edited February 22, 2016 by Doc Henry

[A miller]

I don't see where I have done any 'name calling'.

 

The best thing to do IMHO is to buy a few rolls of film - pro and consumer stock - and shoot/compare them for yourself. Obviously there are all the other variables that come into play if you just search for images on the web - handling/processing of the original film, post processing etc.

 

Someone put me on to Konica film, just about the time it was discontinued. That's a consumer film and it gives very nice colours - a number of times people have commented on photos I've taken with this film. I'll try to dig up an example or two.

James - it was the part about calling me delusional b/c I didn't agree with you.  I happen to know your writing style after many years and so get that you were just being you.  But sensitive you should try be, nonetheless.

 

This thread seems hell-bent on perpetuating a discussion around something that ran out of steam after some of the early replies.

 

Adam, if you want to apply the relevance of emulsions to what is actually being photographed, it is quite a simple thing to do.  Ektar is well suited to the kind of images you seem to enjoy making, as a C41 alternative to E6 (and a very good alternative it is), I would not use it for photographing weddings or portraits because it was never intended for that purpose.

 

For many years 120 NPH400 was my standard C41 film stock for wedding and portrait photography.  It was consistently dependable because it needed to be, where 3M or some other emulsion from the likes of Ferrania was not aesthetically very pleasant for that kind of photography.  That isn't to say you couldn't make images with those films, in other applications they were 'better' than NPH400, but I would not have used it to for weddings and portraits where the outcome really mattered.  If it were still viable to photograph weddings and portraits with film, it would be interesting to compare what was once standard to what was once considered inferior in the context of a hybrid workflow.  In the absence of a hybrid workflow, those  films would have produced clearly inferior results in terms of grain, colour and latitude, but I know from my own experimentation that it is no longer the issue it once was from the point of view of aesthetics.

 

I'm not sure if that answers your original question adequately but the advice I would give to you is carry on doing what you are doing with Ektar.  I see little sense in risking compromising the consolidation of your portfolio (and it seems to be improving as time goes on) for the sake of saving a few dollars by using less consistent emulsions. 

 

I doubt I'm the first to say that here.

Thanks, Steve. I appreciate your comment.  This is not about me soul-searching for films to use.  It is rather a thesis that I threw out that non-professional films (e.g., the $3 Kodak gold vs the $5-8 Kodak Ektar/Portras) don't have nearly the place in the film world that they use to.   I wanted to get the insights from others, and come they have, though still think that some supporting examples would be interesting...

[earleygallery]

James - it was the part about calling me delusional b/c I didn't agree with you.  I happen to know your writing style after many years and so get that you were just being you.  But sensitive you should try be, nonetheless.

 

 

 

Adam, having re-read this thread the delusional comment wasn't aimed at you (someone else said using cheap film in a Leica was stupid).

 

But regardless of who said it I stand by my comment that such a notion is delusional. Like many things in life, simply just paying more for something doesn't make it 'better'.

[Manoleica]

Adam, having re-read this thread the delusional comment wasn't aimed at you (someone else said using cheap film in a Leica was stupid).

 

But regardless of who said it I stand by my comment that such a notion is delusional. Like many things in life, simply just paying more for something doesn't make it 'better'.

I believe I likened cheap film in a Leica was like using poor grade fuel in a high performance car.. == Read Carefully...

[honcho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Thanks, Steve. I appreciate your comment.  This is not about me soul-searching for films to use.  It is rather a thesis that I threw out that non-professional films (e.g., the $3 Kodak gold vs the $5-8 Kodak Ektar/Portras) don't have nearly the place in the film world that they use to.   I wanted to get the insights from others, and come they have, though still think that some supporting examples would be interesting...

 

 Your time may be better spent making your own comparisons with various negatives on the lightbox rather than trying to make decisions from scanned and adjusted efforts posted to prove a point on here.

 

Cheap films probably don't have their place because no one wants them and the manufacturers don't want to make and market them. Without having access to any manufacturer's figures, it's difficult to see what, if anything, your questions reveal given the black arts of marketing.   I'd say film usage has contracted but it is recognised there are and will continue to be occasional spikes in sales for some time to come.  All the remaining manufacturers know there is a core of die hard users who still just about provide a viable market.  The die hard's realm probably is within the 'professional' category of emulsions and it's an easier thing to periodically revise costs favourably from the manufacturer's viewpoint, especially when they've axed their own cheaper emulsions anyway. 

 

Put simply, sell the aspiration with the 'professional' product and the contracting market loses the cheap 'amateur' stuff, good though some it was, by a combination of natural selection and marketing decisions.  As I said, I have no data to base those opinions on so they are no more than my opinions.

Edited February 22, 2016 by honcho

[rpavich]

 

Cheap films probably don't have their place because no one wants them and the manufacturers don't want to make and market them. 

 

Not sure what you mean...you can buy cheap films (Kodak UltraMax for $1.99 a roll and I actually really like it (not just because of the price.)

 

Did I misunderstand your comment?

Edited February 22, 2016 by rpavich

[adan]

IS the evidence set forth in each of these articles faulty or is it just a case of it being dated as old? 

 

Just wondering which of those put you off the articles.

 

Faulty - mostly from being out-of-date.

 

Rockwell link - how film compared to a 2003 6-Mpixel camera is no longer relevant. It's like racing a horse against a 1905 car - today - and claiming "horses are faster than cars." One can question whether the post was even relevant in 2003, since it compares the quality of 19 square inches of film (4x5) to 0.75 square inches of silicon (APS-C).

 

Especially if the stated case is, as Doc claimed, "the first link, it's just to illustrate that the film still has a better definition." Perhaps it did, 13 years ago, but times and technology have changed rapidly.

 

Photo.net link - A third of those films no longer exist. Several others have been changed technically in 20 years (e.g. Tri-X). Some films today (Ektar 100) did not exist then. It's a snapshot of a bygone era, and no longer useful. The writer says "I'm not sure why Black and White film makes sense any more" - in 1996! Can you actually trust the judgement of someone who said that? And that calls into question everything else he said.

 

Basic tenet of epistemology ("how we know what we know") is that an argument based on faulty information has to be discarded in its entirety. It is "fruit of the poisoned tree." Even if the ultimate conclusion is correct, it has to be tossed out until a better argument, based on better evidence, can be built.

 

I'm not even sure what point Doc Henry wanted to make - I am sure he can find better evidence to support it.

[honcho]

Not sure what you mean...you can buy cheap films (Kodak UltraMax for $1.99 a roll and I actually really like it (not just because of the price.)

 

Did I misunderstand your comment?

 No, I don't think you misunderstood. I'm not implying that they have all but gone.  I may have been more clear if I'd said that more cheap films have disappeared than are currently available. 

[earleygallery]

I believe I likened cheap film in a Leica was like using poor grade fuel in a high performance car.. == Read Carefully...

 

You did, and that's just a stupid comparison. 

[Matlock]

I believe this post has just about run it's course and seems to be rather lost

[Manoleica]

You did, and that's just a stupid comparison. 

In Your VHO...

[Matlock]

Perhaps the moderators could step in?

[Doc Henry]

For Adan

" Especially if the stated case is, as Doc claimed, "the first link, it's just to illustrate that the film still has a better definition." Perhaps it did, 13 years ago, but times and technology have changed rapidly."

About "better definition" of film vs digital , in general in 2016 or in 1996, it's true look at these crops 100% (pictures taken recently with M8 and MP , at the same moment and same place)

 

Adam apologies for this post (not the subject of your thread) but just to answer Adan

 

Look at the buildings  bottom : roof ,windows or top church, bushes  in foreground

Bottom or top church :
in digital : smoothing edges and loss of definition specially at mid
in film :  no smoothing edges but well defined grains

 

Mont Saint Michel

 

Leica M8 -35 Lux Asph crop 100%

 

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!

 

Leica MP-35 Lux Asph -film Kodak TX400

Nikon Coolscan 5000

 

 

Pictures uncorrected

Rg

Henry

Edited February 22, 2016 by Doc Henry

[adan]

Back to Adam's original post:

 

First, my film photography is strictly 120 these days, which means I'm not in the market for drugstore films anyway - they aren't provided in that format. If they were, I'd give them a try. Cost one way or the other would not be a factor, because I think it is a faulty assumption to equate cost with quality, and don't see any objective evidence that higher cost = higher quality, and see quite a lot of subjective evidence that lower-cost films have the same or even better quality, in many respects.

 

Subjectively - if the Portra color films were the only color films available, I would give up color film photography altogether. They are designed around producing "attractive" (as opposed to "accurate") skin tones (the name is a hint), and are not very good at handling other colors. Notably, they cannot reproduce dark greens (evergreen trees and dark architectural greens) without biasing the color balance so far green that everything else looks horrible. Which rules out urban photography (lot of dark green) and landscape (lot of dark green). Probably pretty good in the studios they were designed for - for a given value of "good."

 

I find (compared to "Pro" Portras):

 

ISO 100/160 - Ektar 100 has a much more balanced color palette, handled correctly, and has less grain. Balanced so that when grays are gray, then greens are green and skin is skin-colored, and skies are the correct mix of blue and cyan. It happens to cost a bit less, but I would prefer it even if it cost more.

ISO 400 - Fuji Pro 400H beats Portra 400 for general use. Ektar-like balance with a tad less saturation. Costs same as Portra.

ISO 800 - Lomo 800 (relabeled Ferrania, as was) - vastly cleaner, clearer colors across the spectrum. Very saturated - but at least the greens are GREEN (rather than brown or gray), and the saturation can be dialed back as desired. Quite grainy (but also sharp) - but that is a minimal factor in MF. About half the price (120) of Portra 800 - better pictures.

 

Other Lomo color films (closest thing in 120 to "cheap, consumer film") have very nice image quality (color and grain) - their drawback is "mechanical": they have thick backing paper that screws up the Hassy's auto frame spacing, and jams when winding off the tail of the roll. Not a factor in 35mm, nor with "red-window" frame spacing in 120.

 

NB: Lomo does not "make" film - they get it from various factories around the world and re-brand it. Rumor has it that with Ferrania out of the color neg business for the time being, Lomo 800 is or will be some other film. If it is Portra, I won't use it. If it is Gold Max 800 or Superia 800 cut for 120 (?) I'll give it a try.

[Matlock]

Back to Adam's original post:

 

First, my film photography is strictly 120 these days, which means I'm not in the market for drugstore films anyway - they aren't provided in that format. If they were, I'd give them a try.

 

 

 

Boots in the UK have started to stock 120 film again at their larger branches.

[adan]

@ Doc - well, this is really a film vs. film thread - but

 

In your film picture - what happened to the flag flying from the tower extreme right? How many rocks can you count on the hillside center left? Where are the smaller windows in the church facade? Where are the buttresses below the right side of the church? Where are the rounded forms of the trees below the church?

 

If you want to show me defined grain - just photograph a gray card. It'll still be there. If you want to show me Mont. St Michel - the digital picture (even with a 10-year-old, 10 Mpixel sensor and cropped size) defines slightly more.

 

It's been known for decades that sharp grain will make a fuzzy picture "look" sharper - but it isn't real sharpness.

 

Metaphorically - your film has sandblasted your scene - the sand is sharp; the scene, not so much.

 

Artistically, if you prefer the "pencil sketch" of grain to well-defined reality, that's OK (Edit: actually - MORE than OK. Do it!). Just don't confuse the two.

___________

 

@ matlock - had you taken me a bit less literally, you'd have understood that by "drugstore films," I meant the low-cost consumer films of the previous posts. Kodak Gold, Superia, etc. If Boots is selling those films in 120 size, I'm happy to hear it, and hope they appear in the US. I suspect that is not the case.

Edited February 22, 2016 by adan

[honcho]

You did, and that's just a stupid comparison. 

 

 

Wake up, mods.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Matlock]

 

 

@ matlock - had you taken me a bit less literally, you'd have understood that by "drugstore films," I meant the low-cost consumer films of the previous posts. Kodak Gold, Superia, etc. If Boots is selling those films in 120 size, I'm happy to hear it, and hope they appear in the US. I suspect that is not the case.

 Two nations divided by a common language .

​

As I understand it Boots are concentrating on Ilford 120 B/W films. FP4 etc. But will also supply Kodak Colour films such as Gold, Superia, etc