Film or lens

[Jewl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 8 Stunden schrieb lmans:

But if you take any of your lens and change the film within that same lens...... what might you end up with? IE...change the film from Fine grain to coarse.....  Will the degree in product outcome in a lens change be equal to a film change if the film change is 'wide' such as suggested? jim

For me the main influence of the look comes from the film stock! Which is fundamentally different when shooting digital. There the lens makes the difference. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Jewl

[Advertisement]

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

[Ouroboros]

Film, in any format, and you can manipulate any given silver halide film with different iso settings, developers, different dilutions, times and temperatures. Most of us know that.

It’s one of the strongest reasons why I detest forum-level obsessions with megapixels, ‘look’, bokeh and pointless repetitive maximum aperture photography which plays almost universally to the lowest common denominators of ‘me too’ and ‘just because’.

Give me a thinking photographer’s work any day, it’s built on curiosity, creativity and expertise.

[Aryel]

Best is to try it out yourself. Seriously, just shoot two different film stocks with the same group of lenses. Record everything and see… 

One suggestion if you are shooting black and white: the developer/dilution/etc is at least as critical as the film stock…

[lmans]

I think the topic for digital compared to film cameras is entirely different for sure, if you shoot digital, there is no 'film' option, although I suppose cameras have settings which can change the look of the image.

But in general, when shooting a film camera, for me..... since I do little post in the dry darkroom, (software), ....I know the choice of film makes a huge difference. I also know my lens are older, which I have purposely done.... or I purchase a lens that is retro in style. But given my situation, the bigger of the two variables would be the film. 

[ramarren]

Never really thought about it in the context of the question, at least not these past 25-30 years.

However, I choose my lenses because I like how specific ones render both on digital and on film capture. Film capture ... I beat up all the prior specificity in processing that I once did in the darkroom by applying pretty much the same processing to all different films, with few exceptions ... HC-110 @ 1:49 dilution with continuous agitation for 7-8 minutes at room temperature (73-76°F). I like the inconsistency of the process, and I adjust the EI of the films to suit what I think will work as I'm shooting.

The key is that I'm not looking for technical perfection from film captures, I'm looking for the medium's defects and character so as to find an expressive feel. Beating up the processing exaggerates the film's characteristics ... The lens's rendering doesn't change so much. 

G

[Martin B]

Definitely film [and development] selection! Much easier to tell differences by specific films than telling which lens type was used (at least this is for me). 

Lens selection is secondary followed after I selected the film type (B&W or color negative, color slide, and film speed). Focal length is first followed by the lens speed (plus lens size) for the kind of photography I intend to use the lens for. 

[Huss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is an example of how film stock can affect the image more than lens choice.  Film is Foma 400, which has a very light if any anti-halation coating.  This means that light sources will bloom, and light edges will glow.  All Foma films behave like this.  It is a really nice effect for back-lit portraits.

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!

[Huss]

One more, as above.

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!

[Steve Ricoh]

5 minutes ago, Huss said:

Here is an example of how film stock can affect the image more than lens choice.  Film is Foma 400, which has a very light if any anti-halation coating.  This means that light sources will bloom, and light edges will glow.  All Foma films behave like this.  It is a really nice effect for back-lit portraits.

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!

That’s a clincher! 
How about Foma 200 and 100 regarding the glorious halation?

[Huss]

56 minutes ago, Steve Ricoh said:

That’s a clincher! 
How about Foma 200 and 100 regarding the glorious halation?

They both do it too.

[adan]

On 1/30/2023 at 2:42 PM, 250swb said:

However Kentmere now in 120 peaked my interest

And now you've piqued mine - my local store is tracking down how to get Kentmere in 120.  

I note Ilford's press release says Kentmere in 120 format was a common request on the customer survey Ilford did last year.

I know I mentioned the desire when I took the survey - I'm always on the lookout for "vin ordinaire/du table" films like the late, great Verichrome Pan/Selochrome films for box cameras.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/kentmere-pan-100-kentmere-pan-400-now-available-in-120-format/

[Matlock]

20 minutes ago, adan said:

And now you've piqued mine - my local store is tracking down how to get Kentmere in 120.  

I note Ilford's press release says Kentmere in 120 format was a common request on the customer survey Ilford did last year.

I know I mentioned the desire when I took the survey - I'm always on the lookout for "vin ordinaire/du table" films like the late, great Verichrome Pan/Selochrome films for box cameras.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/kentmere-pan-100-kentmere-pan-400-now-available-in-120-format/

I have tried the Kentmere 120 in my Rolleiflex Tele and can recommend it.

[Stuart Richardson]

In the case of M cameras, I think the film is usually going to drive the image quality more than the lens if you are talking mainly about sharpness, the exception being if you use notably soft lenses with slow film. Since 35mm is such a small format, the characteristic of the film tends to overwhelm the major differences between lenses unless you are looking very closely. That said, it also depends on how different the films you are comparing, and how fast they are. If you are comparing Tmax 100 to Delta 100, you will definitely see some differences in the film, but the lens will be more significant, as they are both slow, sharp films. But if you are comparing Bergger films to Tmax, well then the film will be the decisive difference. It also depends a lot about what the lens comparisons are that you are doing. Because certain characteristics will be decisive depending on the photo. For example, if one lens has a lot of distortion and the other doesn't, of if one has beautiful bokeh and a lot of glowy spherical aberration and the other is a super sharp modern lens. Like most things in photography, the answer is more often "it depends" than a decisive decision.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[iPacific]

The choice of lens is much more important. You can see many differences between a summilux 35 and summicron 50 

but the differences between portra 400 and portra 160 is not that significant 

[Steve Ricoh]

Film and what you do to it affects the result, eg souping, meaning chemically altering the latent image by subjecting it to a variety of chemical compounds, and using heat to speed up the rate of reaction. 

[Huss]

On 2/5/2023 at 6:28 AM, iPacific said:

The choice of lens is much more important. You can see many differences between a summilux 35 and summicron 50 

but the differences between portra 400 and portra 160 is not that significant 

I would assume the original question is about using the same focal length lenses, but different lenses vs diff types of film.

 

I think everyone here understands that an image with a wide angle lens will look different than that with a 50mm lens.

[250swb]

On 2/5/2023 at 2:28 PM, iPacific said:

The choice of lens is much more important. You can see many differences between a summilux 35 and summicron 50 

but the differences between portra 400 and portra 160 is not that significant 

There are two ways to determine how photographs look, a technical way and a more sophisticated emotional way. Clearly the lower technical standard is the impact of the lens assuming the photographer chooses the best lens to represent the intended image. But with film the photographer has a very wide choice to effect the emotional response to the image, so B&W, or colour, grainy, fine grain, contrast, tone, etc. and these aren’t minor choices when compared with angle of view or aperture.

[iPacific]

8 hours ago, 250swb said:

There are two ways to determine how photographs look, a technical way and a more sophisticated emotional way. Clearly the lower technical standard is the impact of the lens assuming the photographer chooses the best lens to represent the intended image. But with film the photographer has a very wide choice to effect the emotional response to the image, so B&W, or colour, grainy, fine grain, contrast, tone, etc. and these aren’t minor choices when compared with angle of view or aperture.

Did you do the darkroom work by yourself?

Even C-41?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[iPacific]

12 hours ago, Huss said:

I would assume the original question is about using the same focal length lenses, but different lenses vs diff types of film.

 

I think everyone here understands that an image with a wide angle lens will look different than that with a 50mm lens.

My bad wrong example.

Noct 50 is far differences with APO 50
but the differences between Kodak and Fujifilm is not that significant

[iPacific]

2 hours ago, iPacific said:

My bad wrong example.

Noct 50 is far differences with APO 50
but the differences between Kodak and Fujifilm is not that significant

Meanwhile you can simulate a film characteristics by Lightroom and VSCO, but you can't simulate the optical characteristics of lenses