What would drive you back to film?

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even if the film were free, plus free processing, scanning, delivery, etc I still couldn't be persuaded to use it. Only exception is if it is 4x5 or larger. Then there is still a resolution benefit to compensate for all the inconvenience.

 

No matter what examples people show in defence of film, I can't help thinking every time that I could achieve the same look with a DSLR after 5 mins in Photoshop.

You just "talked me down", Graham.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Advertisement]

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

[charlesh]

No one should really talk you out of anything, as it is an intensely personal choice. Granted, many film "looks" can be duplicated in photoshop, but for me, the enjoyment of photography comes from creating with the camera, film, lens...and not sitting behind a computer with photoshop. that said, I'm probably like many others...I use a D200 for work...brochures, press conferences, event photography, when the need for speed is of prime importance. For everything else...even for work when there are no time constraints... it's an M7 and Contax G2. For me, they are SO much better than the "real" look of digital. But that's me.

[Guest stnami]

..................and there are those that still enjoy the darkroom... I don't but I do like the results so I hop in from time to time,,,,,,,,,,, I am still teaching traditional style B&W,as part of the multi media courses many a student enjoys as well......................Most are destined for the moving picture, but here we don't mind, its about experiences

[vic vic]

me with the best digital and best analog.. my preferance is clear.. analog... it is simply better....

 

everything that was expressed here about digital is one big marketing agitation slogans that people blindly repeat like masses of sheeps......

 

i call it degenratography........... here take alook and read carefully.... wake up.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMHO degeneratography ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

there is convinince and great usability in digital photography (especially in digital visual communication fields), but this is not what people talk most of the time.. people on www talk degenratography..... repeating and repeating all the noensenses .. tech-toy-boy talks........

 

mitchell graham.......

i dont know which digital u know, but it is not better than what i know, in best case maybe as good..... so, after you finished your resolution resolution photoshop photoshop talks, let me tell you this... you are not able to get film results .... either you say misleading statements, or your refer to inferior prints of both digital and analog, or you are simply not sensitive enough to see the differance of fine prints from both mediums....

in any case.... the stone or the leave i will photography on film will look more tangible and with more substance than the one i will photograph on digital.......

the face or body and the skin i will photograph with film will look far more tangible and with substance than anything digital (note we are about the best digitals - not cannons leicas)......

the light lumminance that is radiated on the photograph will look with far more impact and substance on film rather on digital...........

 

that is it.........

 

 

the TASTE of digital is developed as KITSCH taste of many avarge fashion magazines and commercials..... the plastic KITSCH look........ and masses of sheeps follow it as though it is the photography at its best............ it is not................ it is just commercial and usually not more than KITSCH......... and when it becomes exampliary of good photography than your photography becomes DEGENRATOGRAPHY...... )

[Guest malland]

These are just words, vic vic. And they don't mean a thing.

 

I suppose you're going to say that one can't tell from jpegs; but that simply is not true — leaving aside the issue of platinum prints — because the jpegs do give a very good indication of the quality that the print will be: if from a reasonably-sized jpeg one cannot tell whether a particular photograph was shot digitally or on film, for almost all cases, one will not be able to tell from a good print of these photographs either. The rest is a matter of personal preference

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

[Guest malland]

No one should really talk you out of anything, as it is an intensely personal choice. Granted, many film "looks" can be duplicated in photoshop, but for me, the enjoyment of photography comes from creating with the camera, film, lens...and not sitting behind a computer with photoshop. that said, I'm probably like many others...I use a D200 for work...brochures, press conferences, event photography, when the need for speed is of prime importance. For everything else...even for work when there are no time constraints... it's an M7 and Contax G2. For me, they are SO much better than the "real" look of digital. But that's me.

I was joking: obviously people should do what they prefer.

 

In my case when shooting digitally I don't specifically try to get a film look, at least not consciously, but work with each (RAW) file to get the look that I like for that particular picture: usually I compress shadows, "giving a long toe", and, compress highlights somewhat less "on the shoulder", which inevitably does give the picture a film look.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

[vic vic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

mitch..... i speack words.... but i dont speack "just words"...... if i say something, that means that im responssible for my words knowing what i say.......

 

no, jpegs on the interent are not enough .........

 

jpegs on the interent are enough for "just words".......

 

as pics.... jpeg on the inerent is great as ilustration, as communication.... but they are not the referance of physical world and its substance.......

 

 

 

and indeed......... i agree with you...... people should do what they prefer with what ever reason they have in their preferances......

but that is different thing from talking nonesenses and ignorance.........

[Guest malland]

Un dialogue des sourdes: a dialogue of the deaf.

 

I agree that jpegs are not the reference of the the physical world and its substance, but, in most cases, they show enough of an indication so that, if from the jpegs one cannot tell what was shot digitally or on film, one won't be able to tell from the prints either, assuming both sets of prints are made with the same skill level.

 

—Mitch/Potonmac, MD

[vic vic]

mitch u r serious.......????????

 

ah.. platinum......... still the same old mantra.. platinum is the holy cow of photography, and anyway not many people do it or need it and their work.. so platinum is different yes...... but silver gelatine or ilfochrome are simply in-distigushable from digital ????????????????

 

where was that last time u saw a real ilfochrome fine print, or a real fine b/w silver print........

in gallery for example.. not on the interent ????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Guest malland]

vic:

 

You're misinterpreting me: I'm not saying that a silver halide print is indistinguishable from a digital print. But it's not as simple as that: last year I saw an exhibition of 60 B&W prints by Moriyama Daido at the Sydney Biennale: these were 100x150cm prints, shot mainly with the Ricoh GR1 and GR21 on 400 ISO film but printed with the Epson 9800 using the new K3 inks, which anyone would have been hard-pressed to equal with silver prints, not only because blowing up to this huge size introduces more softening with an enlarger because of dispersion of light but also because the new K3 inks that this printer uses have deeper blacks than a silver print. Indeed these prints were better than the silver prints would have been at this size.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

[Guest malland]

...ah.. platinum......... still the same old mantra.. platinum is the holy cow of photography, and anyway not many people do it or need it and their work.. so platinum is different yes.....

Actually, I don't care for paltinum prints that much because I'm after deep, rich blacks.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

[pierovitch]

Pure self indulgence.

The Images can fend for themselves.

[4season]

I really like a good large format negative, contact printed onto fiber paper! And I think Ebony view cameras are really, really neat. And I still admire John Sexton's photos, and the way he's able to handle great dynamic range in a single exposure. So much I could learn there in terms of processing techniques including the use of dilute developers, reduced agitation, toning, etc. And I think if I were after the particular look of say, Tri-X processed in HC-110 dilution B, then that's exactly what I'd want to use, rather than trying to fake it in Photoshop.

 

But for the way I shoot on most days, the Leica M8 just plain works for me: I take some pains not to clip the highlights if I can help it, let the other values fall where they will, and more often than not I'm amazed at what I can do with the resulting image.

[albertknappmd]

After all the aggravation of learning CS2, CS3, Lightroom as well as the intracacies of the PC and both the DMR & M8... and after ahving derived so much pelasure from working on my files without a darkroom.... I would never, repeat never, return to film. I have tasted photographic manna from Heaven so how could I go back......

[vic vic]

hi again mitch......

 

first of alll....... platinum has many many faces....... some have faded look, some have super deep blacks etc etc....... it depends on the way one creates a platinum print and their are many variables to do ....... i will not get into it now of course....... but..... be sure...... you want blacks?? you will get with platinum ))

 

 

about the enlragement.......

first of all....... for super big enlargemnets one needs appropriate enlarger...... ideally that would be a good horizonatal enlarger (or at least good vertical that turned to projection on the wall) with super strong lamp and specially optimized lenses for this kind of magnification ...... if done that way, it will kick out any digital print.......

true...... on cheap and unapropriate enlarger (weak lamp like 75W and lenses that are good for up to 8x10) the prints cannot go big... simply cannot.

 

personally............ i donnt do analog prints of super big sizes normally......... my size is max-20x24" standard size print...........

why ?????????

1. cause i think that the whole amazing chracteristics of analog darkroom print wetrher colour or especially b/w baryta, needs a closer look of the viewer...... in other words, i have noticed that the fine analog print radiates all its magical and unmatched photographic qualities when the print and the viewer are in some kind of visual contact....... for that matter 20x24" print is great ...... beyong it, the viewer goes back from the picture and at this point, even if the fine crafetd analog is better, still, the viewer is no more attached to the print intimatly.................

other example........ with platinum prints compared to the modern high quality silver gelatine papers (FB)......... i have noticed that the best way to see and value the platinum is at the size that u still can hold it... in other words... in about arm lengh (8x10 / 9x12" / up to 12x16)............ at bigger sizes, platinum still has its qualities, but the distance that the viewrer has from the print doesnt make so superior (physically) in impact anymore.....

2. well.. simple...... it is not eassy to make bigger than 20x24" print in the darkroom...... i mean i dont like it......... i see it as pain in the a** ))) hahhahah but this is only secondary reason )

 

no u want blacks in silver print ??????? take glossy bergger paper for example - see what is deep black when u look into it and u are letteraly lost into it )

 

 

so when super big prints are needed ....... well ..... there is eassy way....... so fine flatbad scanners can take 12x16" prints (analogs) to scan..... from that point it is very eassy......