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

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes. For predictable results I shoot with my M-E.

That certainly is one of the major appeals of digital photography.

[sblitz]

and one of the drawbacks -- assembly line character. at times that's great (I have a Q and love it and had an M9), other times not at all. Most of my shooting falls into other times.

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

Film and film cameras are made on assembly lines.  Standardization is a major goal.  This discussion is primarily about the difference in quality control between pro and amateur films... e.g. predictability for the photographer when choosing a given film to use. 

 

If you shoot transparency film and don't scan the image, you are pretty much locked in at the time of exposure. With digital photography, printing from film, scanning, etc. the results are pretty much unlimited and will vary a lot for numerous reasons.  Viewing on-screen it is pretty hard to know for sure what images were shot on film and what images were shot digitally. (With the exception of shots that are impossible to achieve on film.)

 

But if variability is what one wants, cheap and unbranded film with unknown storage history would certainly be one way to go.  However a lot of that might be removed by the scanning and adjustment process.

Edited April 9, 2016 by AlanG

[pico]

Film and film cameras are made on assembly lines.  Standardization is a major goal.  This discussion is primarily about the difference in quality control between pro and amateur films... e.g. predictability for the photographer when choosing a given film to use.

 

I am not sure that standardization or QC  is the issue with economy films. The economy of their design and composition is what makes them different. They strive to be easy to manufacture, at whatever outcome as long as it satisfies their particular market.

.

Edited April 9, 2016 by pico

[AlanG]

I am not sure that standardization or QC  is the issue with economy films. The economy of their design and composition is what makes them different. They strive to be easy to manufacture, at whatever outcome as long as it satisfies their particular market.

.

Isn't that what I and others have said is the difference between cheap film and pro film?  We are going in circles.

 

If you want predictability, you have to lock down as many variables as possible. If one prizes variability and randomness then one can use expired film that has been stored in a hot humid environment and bask in the pleasure of whatever happens.  While you're at it make sure you don't have your shutter speeds or rangefinder checked.  ;-) 

 

A big advantage to digital photography is the instant feedback where one can confirm the system is working as well as expected.  I could never get the same level of confidence with film but got pretty close after a lot of testing and anticipating what could go wrong.

[earleygallery]

The only annoyance (albeit a very minor one) resulting from your post is that you really make no effort to engage on the specific question that I asked. So I thus deem you to be somewhat of a troll in this very particular case on this particular thread. Enjoy your vacation.

Harsh Adam, having a bad day are you?

 

Your question was already answered by myself and others - to ignore those responses and keep searching for presumably the answer you want is trolling!!

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Isn't that what I and others have said is the difference between cheap film and pro film?  We are going in circles.

 

If you want predictability, you have to lock down as many variables as possible

 

Different thing. The economy films are predictable in their character even if is it mediocre.

.

[A miller]

Harsh Adam, having a bad day are you?

 

Your question was already answered by myself and others - to ignore those responses and keep searching for presumably the answer you want is trolling!!

 

James - Perhaps the question underlying the well constructed thesis of my thread has been "addressed," but it hasn't been "answered."  Most people completely dodged the actual underlying question and chose to answer other questions (e.g., quality consistency is really an outdated reason that doesn't apply with today's film stocks; so it was nice to learn the history but doesn't really get to the heart of the question in today's environment).  This is fine insofar as a general film-related discussion goes; but only a few of the posters really touched on what was piquing my curiosity.  

 

I absolutely didn't "ignore" anyone's response to this thread.  I read each one in earnest and reflected on them.  I respect all genuine earnest views expressed here for what they are.  I really was never "searching" for an answer.  I was merely throwing out the question and providing my thesis of why I think that non-pro film really isn't cost- beneficial in our current environment as a general matter.  I still firmly believe this.  But I don't think less of anyone who has a different view.  I just haven't really heard an answer that makes sense to me as a matter of logic and reason, including any of your responses if I may say so.  That's cool, though; at least I got 7 pages of interesting film-related discussion out of it.  

 

As for Mr. Yash, this has some history to it, as I created the thread specifically to avoid further pointless confrontation (and potentially perceived trolling) on his thread, which was really going no where.  It was clear that he and I didn't see eye-to-eye on this topic, and he asked me to leave his thread multiple times.  With all of this background, here he came to troll on my thread with the same line of pointless discourse that we had on his thread, as if to try to continue it even though he was begging for it to stop when it was on his thread.   

[ShivaYash]

James - Perhaps the question underlying the well constructed thesis of my thread has been "addressed," but it hasn't been "answered." Most people completely dodged the actual underlying question and chose to answer other questions (e.g., quality consistency is really an outdated reason that doesn't apply with today's film stocks; so it was nice to learn the history but doesn't really get to the heart of the question in today's environment). This is fine insofar as a general film-related discussion goes; but only a few of the posters really touched on what was piquing my curiosity.

 

I absolutely didn't "ignore" anyone's response to this thread. I read each one in earnest and reflected on them. I respect all genuine earnest views expressed here for what they are. I really was never "searching" for an answer. I was merely throwing out the question and providing my thesis of why I think that non-pro film really isn't cost- beneficial in our current environment as a general matter. I still firmly believe this. But I don't think less of anyone who has a different view. I just haven't really heard an answer that makes sense to me as a matter of logic and reason, including any of your responses if I may say so. That's cool, though; at least I got 7 pages of interesting film-related discussion out of it.

 

As for Mr. Yash, this has some history to it, as I created the thread specifically to avoid further pointless confrontation (and potentially perceived trolling) on his thread, which was really going no where. It was clear that he and I didn't see eye-to-eye on this topic, and he asked me to leave his thread multiple times. With all of this background, here he came to troll on my thread with the same line of pointless discourse that we had on his thread, as if to try to continue it even though he was begging for it to stop when it was on his thread.

Strange how you are a mind reader... 'he came to troll on my thread...' How on earth did you reach that conclusion? And by the way, it's Dr. Yash.

 

You failed to answer the question on how Portra would have changed the colour cast under artificial lighting.

 

I really enjoyed reading this thread, especially your own humble opinion about your opening post. Very modest.

[AlanG]

As previously mentioned, I think the only answer to this question is for each person to try a variety of films in order to decide which works for one's needs. Obviously for some it makes sense to shoot non professional films in this digital age. Especially  because scanning can help compensate for film differences.  The other reason is that the cheap film may give a unique look they prefer.

Edited April 10, 2016 by AlanG

[A miller]

As previously mentioned, I think the only answer to this question is for each person to try a variety of films in order to decide which works for one's needs. Obviously for some it makes sense to shoot non professional films in this digital age. Especially  because scanning can help compensate for film differences.  The other reason is that the cheap film may give a unique look they prefer.

 

Alan -

I can definitely understand the utility of non-pro film as it relates to your second point.  I don't think it is that common of a purpose of using film, at least for the film users that I know.

 

I am not sure about your firs point, though, as it would seem to logically follow that in a scanning workflow it really doesn't matter what film one uses b/c they can always edit the scan in PP to achieve the look of any other film.   

[A miller]

 

You failed to answer the question on how Portra would have changed the colour cast under artificial lighting.

 

 

I highly doubt that what I am about to say and post is going to make you start seeing the light on this topic, but I will for the sake of the preservation of the level of quality of discussion of this thread show some examples of the performance of Kodak Portra in artificial lighting situations.  Clearly it is not the ideal film to use in artificial lighting.  However,  it does a pretty sufficient job in most (not all) cases.  

Here are some examples, each of which I ask you to compare with the image that you posted...

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]

2

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]

3

 

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]

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!

[A miller]

5

 

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]

6

 

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]

7

 

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]

8 (from a Ricoh GR1V that I once had)

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[A miller]

9 (Ricoh GR1V)

 

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!