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

[ShivaYash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the same vein as Dr MarkP, I'm a PhD 'doctor' and my Mercedes is 23 years old. The older models are the better ones.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

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

[A miller]

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

LOL

I am, too, if you regard my Smartcar as a Mercedes

[MarkP]

In the same vein as Dr MarkP, I'm a PhD 'doctor'

 

Well I have one of those too - and I'm NOT going to rat heaven because of it.

 

 

LOL

I am, too, if you regard my Smartcar as a Mercedes

 

No, you're driving a Swatch watch!

Edited April 11, 2016 by MarkP

[ShivaYash]

Hands up who wears a Rolex?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A miller]

 

No, you're driving a Swatch watch!

OMG Mark that was SO disrespectful!

Please try to maintain your sense of civility on this thread.

[MarkP]

No. I thought it was overkill for me and too pretentious to wear in front of many of my patients who are not very well off. I'm happy with my one-quarter-the-price-of-a-Rolex steel bracelet automatic Omega Seamaster (pre-coaxial mechanism).

Edited April 11, 2016 by MarkP

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OMG Mark that was SO disrespectful!

 

 

 

The truth hurts. Deal with it!

[A miller]

The truth hurts. Deal with it!

That's it, now I need therapy!

Wait until Jaap gets a hold of you...

[jaapv]

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.

 

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.

I don't think that using non-pro colour film leads to inferior results by definition. It may be advisable to use pro film - preferably from the same batch and refrigerated if one needs colour consistency over a larger series of photographs, but that is not always a requirement.

I rather doubt that cost is a consideration; scanning and printing are far more expensive than the film itself.

[adan]

Adam  - to be blunt, I don't see anything in the pictures you have posted here, that show that Portra is in any way superior to any of the other films shown.

 

Except for that last bedroom shot, which plays directly to Portra's (skin tone spectrum) strengths - pink, pinker, pinkest, and purple. Based on film quality, all the rest would go in my reject pile.

 

Portra is OK if your target and goal is Kodak "shirley cards": http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2015/09/multirace.jpg, beloved by wedding and studio portrait photographers. It is what it is designed for.

 

As far as I'm concerned, you've dumbed down your Leica just as much as Shiva (if that is actually an important issue.)

 

And - having seen the flurry of recent posts pop up - Always remember, a doctor's opinions about photography are just about as useful and competent as a photographer's opinions about "this mole on my shoulder that seems to be growing."

[ramarren]

When I shoot film (in my Leicas M and R, or Nikon F and F6, or Hasselblad, or Polaroid, or whatever) I almost always choose fresh B&W or out-dated Color print. Why? Because I like the looks they produce. Out-dated, cheap color print film is unpredictable and produces unique images that are near to impossible to simulate in image processing. Fresh B&W film produces tones and textures that are simply quite different from what can be produced in image processing. This is why I shoot film today: because I get a feel to the photos which is different from what I get with digital cameras. No other reason. 

 

 

Minolta Instant Pro + close-up lens

Impossible Project B&W Spectra film

 

Oh, forgot to mention (in the spirit of the thread): I'm not a doctor, I do own a few Leica cameras, and I drive a 16 year old Mercedes 230SLK Kompressor—in bright yellow. 

Edited April 11, 2016 by ramarren

[ShivaYash]

No. I thought it was overkill for me and too pretentious to wear in front of many of my patients who are not very well off. I'm happy with my one-quarter-the-price-of-a-Rolex steel bracelet automatic Omega Seamaster (pre-coaxial mechanism).

I'm a Rolex man. Submariner.

[MarkP]

 

 

And - having seen the flurry of recent posts pop up - Always remember, a doctor's opinions about photography are just about as useful and competent as a photographer's opinions about "this mole on my shoulder that seems to be growing."

 

 

A brutal post all round Andy :-)

But you are SO right especially on that last point. If we extended that to most of the opinions in this forum there would be almost nothing competent worth reading.

Come to think about it........

Edited April 11, 2016 by MarkP

[MarkP]

Submariner.

 

What? You only surface in times of difficulty?

Edited April 11, 2016 by MarkP

[A miller]

Adam  - to be blunt, I don't see anything in the pictures you have posted here, that show that Portra is in any way superior to any of the other films shown.

 

Except for that last bedroom shot, which plays directly to Portra's (skin tone spectrum) strengths - pink, pinker, pinkest, and purple. Based on film quality, all the rest would go in my reject pile.

 

Portra is OK if your target and goal is Kodak "shirley cards": http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2015/09/multirace.jpg, beloved by wedding and studio portrait photographers. It is what it is designed for.

 

As far as I'm concerned, you've dumbed down your Leica just as much as Shiva (if that is actually an important issue.)

 

And - having seen the flurry of recent posts pop up - Always remember, a doctor's opinions about photography are just about as useful and competent as a photographer's opinions about "this mole on my shoulder that seems to be growing."

Adan - the photos posted were strictly limited to indoor artificial lit scenes - where portra is admittedly not at its best.  And they were all pushed at least one stop, and a few 2 or 3 stops.  So seriously pushed film shot in artificial light needs to be the context.  And IMHO the skin tones are very acceptable in all of the photos, at least insofar as family snaps or gritty street photography goes.   I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say with the hyper-technical subtleties in the context of seriously pushed outdoor film in artificial light.

 

The photos were not meant to showcase my command of Portra in general.  For that I would refer you to my flickr stream...

[AlanG]

Just forget everything on this silly thread. Leica or not, maybe pro films should simply be left for the pros. 

[earleygallery]

Adam you can just as easily get the 'cheap drug store' look with pro film. In fact you're probably better off using pro film if that's the look you're after!

[A miller]

James - i push my portra when shooting in the street for the extra speed. Portra responds very well to pushing a stop, even two. I havent conducted an experiment on the pushability of non-pro color film; but i would venture to guess that the results will be inferior. I even notice that portra 400 pushes better than fiji pro 400H, which by definition is another pro film.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

Adam, I guess I'm saying there are a lot of opinions floating around on this thread, with no evidence to back them up one way or the other. No pictures that demonstrate that pro films really convey any benefit at all. (Except maybe a warm fuzzy feeling for the photographer).

 

BTW - I mean no disrespect for doctors. My first job out of college was 5 years at Children's Memorial in Chicago, shooting everything from in situ records of organs and procedures in the OR, to studio "before-and-afters" of scoliosis/spina bifida corrections and cosmetic restorations, to lab equipment (teaching hospital, a lot of publication work). Some docs even borrowed my/our camera to take their own shots in the OR (Darn, it's hard getting blood off the focus ring of a Micro-Nikkor! Pre-AIDS biohazard protocols were - a bit more casual.)

 

We know medicine is an art, and that there's a reason doctors call what they do "practicing" - but if you were making a diagnosis, would you "venture to guess" - or would you get some tests ordered?

 

As to your flickr stream - funny thing, every time I saw a picture that stood out and said "LOOK at me!" - when I clicked on if, it turned out to be Ektar. The Portra shots tended towards purple and muddy, even in daylight. But that doesn't help, since Ektar is also "Pro"-labelled.

 

Hard for me to do comparisons with consumer films, since they aren't made in 120. Maybe I'll borrow an M film body today when I drop by the shop, and try a little UltraMax 800 vs. pushed Portra 400.

[A miller]

Adam, I guess I'm saying there are a lot of opinions floating around on this thread, with no evidence to back them up one way or the other. No pictures that demonstrate that pro films really convey any benefit at all. (Except maybe a warm fuzzy feeling for the photographer).

 

BTW - I mean no disrespect for doctors. My first job out of college was 5 years at Children's Memorial in Chicago, shooting everything from in situ records of organs and procedures in the OR, to studio "before-and-afters" of scoliosis/spina bifida corrections and cosmetic restorations, to lab equipment (teaching hospital, a lot of publication work). Some docs even borrowed my/our camera to take their own shots in the OR (Darn, it's hard getting blood off the focus ring of a Micro-Nikkor! Pre-AIDS biohazard protocols were - a bit more casual.)

 

We know medicine is an art, and that there's a reason doctors call what they do "practicing" - but if you were making a diagnosis, would you "venture to guess" - or would you get some tests ordered?

 

As to your flickr stream - funny thing, every time I saw a picture that stood out and said "LOOK at me!" - when I clicked on if, it turned out to be Ektar. The Portra shots tended towards purple and muddy, even in daylight. But that doesn't help, since Ektar is also "Pro"-labelled.

 

Hard for me to do comparisons with consumer films, since they aren't made in 120. Maybe I'll borrow an M film body today when I drop by the shop, and try a little UltraMax 800 vs. pushed Portra 400.

Adan - I think the lack of evidence proffered on this thread is more prominent on the "consumer" film side of the argument. 

 

" Purple and muddy"?  Seriously, Adan?  I think you'd better consider the calibration of your monitor... Or, perhaps you should scroll down past the gritty (mostly color) silhouettes (which are part of my "Anonymous New Yorkers" series), which were shot in very difficult conditions and have deliberately done good torture to the film - for artistic purposes.  I typically enjoy your exhaustive dissertations on esoteric topics throughout this forum.  But this one is lost on me and sounds a bit like you are out to put me in my place, which you really don't a basis to do.   

 

And I think it really is beside the point of the thread, which is that why it makes sense to save a few bucks and use consumer film instead of professional grade film in the context of the thesis that I laid out in my first post...

Edited April 11, 2016 by A miller