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

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Are professionals using professional or amateur film in their Leicas nowadays?

[MarkP]

Are professionals using professional or amateur film in their Leicas nowadays?

 

 

You're such a cynic.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest]

I'm a film using amateur, most of the times.

[ShivaYash]

I'm neither... Just a mediocre photographer. But today I shot a roll of Ektar. Previously an amateur film that's been subject to a little bit of social climbing, and now is considered (read branded) professional.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

Not buying the latest digi-body every year, because there's no professional preasure to do it, film costs are secondary. M8' and 1Ds (Mark 1 ) are useful "Polaroid" occasionally.

 

It is just that I can't help noticing, that the more marginalised a group becomes (photo camera versus i-phone&gopro users) the more fierce the infighting tends to become on occasions. Now within the film amateurs additionally to the split between bw versus colour film lovers, we have a new subdivision.

[A miller]

A few more to reinforce my point (as a photo is useful in this regard, which others are encouraged to do on this flip side of this argument)

Some 3 stop pushed portra 400 with my IIIg and 28mm summaron indoors with artificial lighting (shot wide open at 5.6, hence the vignetting)...

Not an example of optical quality  - or even film quality - by any means.  But the studio had fairly substantially artificial lighting and I think the portra handled it pretty well insofar as it goes...

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 April 10, 2016 by A miller

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

another

 

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]

this one was only pushed one stop, but  shot indoors with our lights on...

 

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!

[ShivaYash]

To me such clean photos look like digital PP images... I think at heart I'm a lomographer, hiding behind a red dot. My sister is getting married in August. I was always planning on shooting around 10 rolls of various rated Portra. But now I may just save the cash and blow it on something else... Or just shoot with the M-E.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A miller]

So you are revealing yourself as someone who likes the old "drug store film" look of photos.

Now that you have articulated it this way, I cannot argue with you b/c it is your opinion, to which you are perfectly entitled.  But it helps clarify the logic of using non-pro films.   

I think that it is fair to say that most film users do not seek out this look in their photos.  

But for those that do, I think it makes perfect sense to save the money and get what they are after.

Having said all of this, if this is indeed what you are after, you most certainly don't need a Leica, and so while you have saved on film you have more than overpaid for your gear...

[ShivaYash]

So you are revealing yourself as someone who likes the old "drug store film" look of photos.

Now that you have articulated it this way, I cannot argue with you b/c it is your opinion, to which you are perfectly entitled. But it helps clarify the logic of using non-pro films.

I think that it is fair to say that most film users do not seek out this look in their photos.

But for those that do, I think it makes perfect sense to save the money and get what they are after.

Having said all of this, if this is indeed what you are after, you most certainly don't need a Leica, and so while you have saved on film you have more than overpaid for your gear...

So by this 'logic', or lack thereof, perhaps, you think only pro films can be run through a Leica? I've been shooting with these cameras for a long time, first the M3, then the M6TTL, then the M8, now M-E and M6 Classic. I like the range finder... I like the lenses. I like the brand, the feeling of that shutter... This is all trite. I'm interested to know why you surmise I have over paid for my gear?

 

I drive a Mercedes-Benz with a high max speed, but living in London, barely get beyond 25 mph, and even that, for no more than 2 mins. Does this mean I should have saved my money and got something that maxes out at 30 mph? I'm sure the car analogy has been used before and better examples exist.

 

Occasionally I like an old drug store look, and other times I want something altogether different.

 

Guess what film this was shot on?

 

Answer: I can't remember but I like image. But it was most definitely a cheap non-pro film.

Edited April 10, 2016 by ShivaYash

[ShivaYash]

I'm also considering a silver MP, if anyone is selling up. Ta. Ps. Just the camera, I'm not interested in the box or any paperwork.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A miller]

Yes, i remeber you posting this photo in another thread a while back. My reaction (since you have specifically brought it up) was that it eas overexposed, uninteresting, and not made any better by your choice of "cheap" non-pro film (which you specified but cant recall)

And it has no "lomo" qualities at all...

Hmmm...

[ShivaYash]

Yes, i remeber you posting this photo in another thread a while back. My reaction (since you have specifically brought it up) was that it eas overexposed, uninteresting, and not made any better by your choice of "cheap" non-pro film (which you specified but cant recall)

And it has no "lomo" qualities at all...

Hmmm...

It's ok, I don't need your approval, and others will note I abstained from passing judgment on your selection of images. My image did rather well on Instagram and was picked up by a Leica group and promoted. I think with my name associated to any image, you'll find it terrible.

[A miller]

That's actually not true

I call them how i see them

I just don't pander; instagram is good for good for this...

Share a cool edgy lomo photo using cheap film and i'll be the first to give it praise

[AlanG]

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.   

That's  right. With scanning, film choice is less important. You'd have to compare specific pro and amateur films to decide if a given pro film has any advantages over the amateur film after scanning and adjusting.

 

So generalizations are out.

Edited April 11, 2016 by AlanG

[earleygallery]

Adam I'm not sure what your photos are supposed to demonstrate.

 

Film has a fixed 'colour temperature' so if you shoot daylight film in artificial light you either use a correction filter at the time or correct it later in scanning or printing.

 

It's got nothing to do with whether or not your box of film says 'pro' or how much you pay for it.

 

I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to get at here.

[jaapv]

So you are revealing yourself as someone who likes the old "drug store film" look of photos.

Now that you have articulated it this way, I cannot argue with you b/c it is your opinion, to which you are perfectly entitled.  But it helps clarify the logic of using non-pro films.   

I think that it is fair to say that most film users do not seek out this look in their photos.  

But for those that do, I think it makes perfect sense to save the money and get what they are after.

Having said all of this, if this is indeed what you are after, you most certainly don't need a Leica, and so while you have saved on film you have more than overpaid for your gear...

I cannot say that I agree with the qualification "drug-store look" for film as such. The look you seem to refer to is more generated by the processing than by the film.

The main difference between Pro film and Consumer film is the greater attention to the colour response curve between the film batches and better attention to controlling the ripening process of the emulsion. Consumer films are made to have less rigorous colour fidelity control and can be stored longer in adverse conditions because of wider tolerances.

Obviously each film, be it pro or consumer, will have its own character. That is a purely personal matter of taste, and there is no need to regard a photographer who prefers  for instance  Kodak Gold (which I personally rather dislike) as somehow inferior or not "worthy of his gear". Rather disrespectful in my book to do so.

 

For instance, the only Ilford films marked "professional" are the three Deltas. But nobody in his right mind would call somebody using FP4+ or XP2Super in incompetent photographer for that reason.

[A miller]

Adam I'm not sure what your photos are supposed to demonstrate.

 

Film has a fixed 'colour temperature' so if you shoot daylight film in artificial light you either use a correction filter at the time or correct it later in scanning or printing.

 

It's got nothing to do with whether or not your box of film says 'pro' or how much you pay for it.

 

I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to get at here.

James  - my examples were simply a response to a request to show how portra doesn't make skin an ugly orange in artificial light.  And I didn't use filters or make material WB adjustments in them. 

I am not trying to "get at" anything with this thread.  I constructed a thesis and then posed a question.  So far, the only answer that makes sense to me is that a person may want to use non-pro film to attain an amateur cheap drug store look (or as some might characterize as a traditional non-clean old fashioned mainstream film look).  That is fine as far as it goes, but it isn't a mainstream answer IMO.

 

I cannot say that I agree with the qualification "drug-store look"for film as such. The look you refer to is more generated by the processing than by the film.

The main difference between Pro film and Consumer film is the greater attention to the colour response curve between the film batches and better attention to controlling the ripening process of the emulsion. Consumer films are made to have less rigorous colour fidelity control and can be stored longer in adverse conditions because of wider tolerances.

Obviously each film, be it pro or consumer, will have its own character. That is a purely personal matter of taste, and there is no need to regard a photographer who prefers  for instance  Kodak Gold (which I personally rather dislike) as somehow inferior or not "worthy of his gear". Rather disrespectful in my book to do so.

 

For instance, the only Ilford films marked "professional" are the three Deltas. But nobody in his right mind would call somebody using FP4+ or XP2Super in incompetent photographer.

Jaap - please don't put words in my mouth.  I am not criticizing or disrespecting a person or his or her photography acumen by what film he or she uses.  I really think that you, with your heavy hand, have lambasted me unfairly.  

 

I am simply questioning the logic and rational of using the most expensive 35mm film gear to use non-pro film with the purpose of making amateur-looking old drug store film photos.  Shiva gave me an answer which is that he likes the rangefinder mechanism.  I could quibble with how he could save a lot of money and buy a different much cheaper brand of rangefinder to get the same sensation.  But if someone likes the red dot so much and gets a rise out of clicking that shutter and using the RF, then to each his own, particularly if he is a Mercedes-driving doctor - who am I to judge that!

 

So I think people need to avoid mixing issues.  I may be questioning logic and cost-beneficial nature of using non-pro COLOR film; but I am in no way suggesting that people who use such film are inferior in any way shape or form - or criticizing them personally for doing what they do.

 

I make irrational purchases and decision every single day.  I do it b/c I want to and it makes me happy.  This thread is simply about identifying the degree to which, as a purely objective matter, it is cost-beneficial to use non-pro film in this current environment, taking into account all of the factors that I very clearly laid out in my initial post.  These factors give my thesis a compelling context, I think.

Edited April 11, 2016 by A miller

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[MarkP]

HEY, NOT FAIR.  I'M A MERCEDES-DRIVING PRO-COLOUR-FILM LEICA-USING DOCTOR  ;-)

 

Well actually I have a Subaru but when I'm a really good boy I get to drive my wife's Merc.

 

And all my red dots are now black dots......

 

 

 

ps I use Pro-Colour film where possible as I feel I can identify with pro photographers and take better photos ;-)     Seriously though I do as it's one less variable in my workflow and not really that much more expensive.

Edited April 11, 2016 by MarkP