Jump to content

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


A miller

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

So true. I do not have references on-hand, but in Barry Thornton's book, The Edge of Darkness, on page twenty-something he has an example of how a lower-rez image with grain can appear sharper than the obverse. I'm without the library at the moment but I think there are better examples. "The human eye is not a camera". I said that.

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pico , you can believe me when I tell you ,  it's much better in print  I mean in artistic side

General rendering is better in print through my enlarger , that's why I return now to film

after 5 years of digital (with 2 digit M cameras).

 

Human eye * is the best I know , better than camera with software inside

with high definition and no "smoothing" appearance definition with "incisive" and "cutting"

edges (digital case)

Best

Henry

the most "performing" and the most "sophisticated" that exists 

(Retina, nerve, visual cortex of the brain,etc )

Edited by Doc Henry
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't get all of the subjective opinions about this film or that film. I used to shoot a lot of types of film and tried my best to understand which film would give me the results I needed under different circumstances. This required a lot of testing and analysis. Opinions such as "nice colors" or "I really like the look of a given film" have absolutely no meaning to me as I can like the look from many films under a variety of circumstances. But there are reasons I shot one film over the other.

 

Some examples. I used to shoot for a custom carpet company that had elaborate patterns in their carpets. I learned that some of their green colors would not reproduce well on E100G film but would on Ektachrome Lumiere. So sometimes I shot both films of the same rooms just to cover myself. I also learned when shooting interiors that had colorful red and cyan benches that Kodak color neg made the one color look better and Fuji color neg made the other color look better. (I can't recall which.) And while I generally shot Kodak Ektachrome tungsten when I needed long exposure interiors, I found that for rooms with a lot of deep wood colors that Fujichrome tungsten made the wood look richer.  I shot jewelry catalogs and the client insisted on Velvia to be consistent with other projects they had and the shade of gold they preferred. But I tested that against Ektachrome and got him to prefer the Ektachrome. And my stock agency wanted most things as punchy as possible and wanted them on Velvia 50 so that their images would pop on a light box compared to those from other agencies.

 

These were all pro films. Amateur films could possibly have produced identical results but didn't have the manufacturing accuracy that professional films had.

 

Once I started scanning, many of these differences didn't matter any more.

 

FWIW the human eye is the least objective element in the system and is easily fooled.

Edited by AlanG
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a few rolls to try out. It's been a while since used it. I usually use portra and extar. Though shot some 120 Fuji 400h I think it was and loved the colours of the prints when I got them back. Years ago I used to get Konica Centuria or something similar from the supermarket and it was a favourite of mine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wow, I'm loving this thread.  So full of insights and interesting viewpoints.  If we could just get an anti-curmudgeon filter for James, I think we'd be nearly civil... :)  :)  :)

For an interesting twist on film, I invite my old and newfound film friends to check out a short series that I did with Portra 800 during one of the recent snow blizzards in NYC.  Nothing serious, just having fun with the joys of film in NYC  :)  :)  :)

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/257227-the-2016-nyc-snow-blizzard-series-on-film/?p=2994800

Here's the first... (M-A, 28mm elmarit pre-asph version 4)

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 by A miller
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, people are free to do what they want. This is not the topic of this thread and thus bears no relevance to the issue that i am raising.

 

What i would like to know is what winning arguments are there that it is cost-beneficial to use non-professional film stocks on a regular basis with their LEICAs in this predominantly digital era.

 

It makes perfect sense to me that, before the prevelance of digital, film was the only practical medium to take pictures. Consequently, non-professional film stocks were largely cost-beneficial for most amateurs and even some serious enthusiasts. This is particularly so given the incredible variety and popularity of point and shoot film cameras.

 

But in today's digital world in which, through interpolation technology, iphone 6 photos (and certainly photos from the run of the mill digital slr) can be processed and blown up Billboard size, the convenience-centric point and shoot market is now largely served by these digital tools.

 

So where does that leave non-professional grade films (including the Fuji Superias :) ) ???

 

The film workflow nowadays - even the P&S variety - is the old "convenient and readily accessible" and the new "inconvenient and (relatively) scarce."

 

Combining the relatively serious amount of additional work and effort that is needed to make a film image, coupled with the use of world class expensive Leica optics, why would it be cost beneficial to continue to use non-professional grade film???

 

Based on some recent comments that have been made elsewhere on this forum, it appears that some Leica users are happily using these non-commercial grade film stocks as part of their regular workflow.

 

As i said before, freedom rules and horses for courses. I am just wanting to hear from people who think this is actuallly cost beneficial from an objective basis in today's world.

 

Best wishes and happy shooting to all, no matter what film stocks you use!

 

Adam

 

 

Adam,

 

Let me start by saying that my experiences are largely based on B&W film use.

 

Considering that non-professional film is cheaper than professional grade one, I think that their use can be cost beneficial; I would think that the price you pay for that :p (grain, colours, consistency...) differs depending on your choice of film and the intended use. 

 

I do not consider non-professional film as point and shoot material, rather I think of different film having different characteristics; those, if employed (consciously) may be used to good effect and support a photographers vision. 

 

World class expensive Leica optics are not necessary to achieve good photos. You probably won't notice the difference in 99,99% of all film based 35mm pictures anyway. I consider the optical quality of top notch Leica equipment as a "nice to have" in certain situations - but also realize that the optical characteristics of less perfect lenses (for example Sonnar desings) may be better suited to other  situations (or photographic visions). 

 

Also, the difference between so called "quality" films and "cheap" films I find quite arbitrary. A few years back I bought 10 or so Fuji Across films which all had a "telegraph line" along the length of the film. I contacted Fuji twice to complain, they initially said it was not their fault, and did not answer on my second mail. I have not bought any film of that company since.

 

Then: some of the so-called budget films have unique characteristics not found in the professional category. For example, the cheapest film that I currently use, Polypan-F, does not have any amti halation layer and produces wonderful helos around highlights. Or take the old, sadly discontinued Efke/Adox 100, with an emulsion cast in a single layer, that produces nice old school images with a distinct grain.

 

Happy shooting whatever film you use!

 

Regards

 

Christoph

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Christoph I am not entirely of your opinion.
Some cheap films can be successful like you said but not always.

I had to try a few brands of films not widely known , a little cheaper (I said a little)

but the result is not so good
For Leica lens,  it's the same thing

In most cases, we see good lens through crops and result on print !

I compared several 50 mm Japanese lens brands (Minolta, Canon, Sigma)
the crops are not always good , less sharp . Only Leica lens are doing well

If some lens are expensive, they deserve !

Regards

Henry

PS: That said certain lens of certain brands arefrom what I read, good
as Zeiss

Edited by Doc Henry
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Without the specific details of what exactly is different between a given amateur film and a given professional film, what is the point of this discussion?  E.g. is it color saturation, grain, keeping qualities, consistency, accutance, spectral repro curve, H&D curve, latent image fade, long term storage of negs?  What are you looking for?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the specific details of what exactly is different between a given amateur film and a given professional film, what is the point of this discussion?  E.g. is it color saturation, grain, keeping qualities, consistency, accutance, spectral repro curve, H&D curve, latent image fade, long term storage of negs?  What are you looking for?

Alan - I don't think this thread is for you as you don't shoot film on a regular basis.  If you did, I think you'd understand the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan - I don't think this thread is for you as you don't shoot film on a regular basis.  If you did, I think you'd understand the point.

I bet I know a lot more about film than you think. The general statement here is that one needs to shoot professional film because it is somehow "better." Maybe so, but in what ways?  Is there a possibility that the non-pro film could be "better" in some ways too?  So if you don't have a list of the specific characteristics of each film, what basis are you judging their usability on?

 

And samples posted here are not really representational samples of film. They are samples of a complete photographic process of film, processing, scanning and then viewing on a monitor. How was that film stored? How long after shooting was it processed, what scanner, what software, etc. Many variables.  I'd expect to see good photos from any film.

Edited by AlanG
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet I know a lot more about film than you think. The general statement here is that one needs to shoot professional film because it is somehow "better." Maybe so, but in what ways?  Is there a possibility that the non-pro film could be "better" in some ways too?  So if you don't have a list of the specific characteristics of each film, what basis are you judging their usability on?

 

Not suggesting you don't.  My point was that you don't engage in productive discussion regarding films on this forum.  So I can't say that I've ever read anything from you that is insightful or informative.  

As for your questions above, I am soliciting people's specific views on the subject.  If I had all the answers, I wouldn't have started the thread!

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is there are a lot of opinions and little insight. I can't see how that helps you resolve anything so I'm suggesting an analytical approach. There are 5 pages and what has been resolved about professional film?

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is there are a lot of opinions and little insight. I can't see how that helps you resolve anything so I'm suggesting an analytical approach. There are 5 pages and what has been resolved?

 

This is not a murder case.  Nothing NEEDS to be resolved.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a murder case.  Nothing NEEDS to be resolved.  

"What i would like to know is what winning arguments are there that it is cost-beneficial to use non-professional film stocks on a regular basis with their LEICAs in this predominantly digital era."

 

That was your opening question so I was under the impression you wanted to get some kind of answer or approach to quest for an answer. There are ways to do that but you don't seem interested.

 

FWIW I used to do pre-production film testing for Kodak (I guess kind of like a beta tester.)  They had a controlled system for us to use to compare the new film with an existing film so that we weren't just giving general opinions

Edited by AlanG
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan - Do you have any analysis or insight to share on my question?

Yes. The basic idea is to test one emulsion against your "standard" emulsion under a number of situations (lighting, color, contrast, etc.) You must control as much as possible then compare the results.

 

For instance, for Kodak, I would shoot a sheet of the new film compared with E100... both shot as identically as I could. The new film came with sample sheets that had step charts exposed by a sensitometer. The control film was processed at the same time as my tests so that Kodak could measure them and make sure the processing was not out of range.  No printing or scanning came into the picture because this was transparency film. It's tougher to standardize with color negs of course. But consider that one can take a faded negative and print it or scan it to "correct" it somewhat.

 

Thus color neg photography is not so challenging. Even if the film is a little "off," you may still be able to get nice results if the characteristics of that film are what you want for a given scene.  Technical photography is another matter.  So for general photography, shoot the cheapest film you can find. If you don't like it, try something else.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take Adam's original question (the title of the thread), I think people have answered it from their perspective. It makes sense if the look of the film fits what you want for the given occasion, and that look is consistent enough for your requirements. This was always going to be subjective, not "emulsion-peeking".

 

I don't think the discussion should be halted because no empirical conclusion can be reached without double-blind testing in a controlled environment.

 

Thank you to those who have been providing examples, and some explanation of their subjective attachments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried lot of different films to choose one and the link below was pretty helpful for me. Surprisingly I didn't like the Ektar and Portra just because I like more warmer tones in a photograph. It just didn't fill my needs.

 

And I think, if you are not using film for a long-term commercial work, any fluctuation in chemical composition of a non-professional film is not very easy to distinguish and most importantly that perpetual consistency is not crucial. (I assume elements of film processing kept constant)

 

 

 

http://curatingcuteness.com/2013/05/35mm-film-guide/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...