My film photos sucks

[hirohhhh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But I enjoy taking pictures and hanging out with my film cameras. Also I develop all film myself and enjoy the process. Digital lost it’s magic for me, I don’t enjoy it anymore, but I make 10x better photos with digital, yet I refuse to give up film and get back to digital.

What a complicated relationship… can anyone relate to this?

Edited March 4, 2024 by hirohhhh

[pcgarner]

Funny confession! Refreshing to read!

[LocalHero1953]

I use film photography for different things: where I'm exploring visual ideas for just my own benefit. Since I am not used to that (most of my digital photography are taken from the standpoint that others have a say in whether they work or not, and I only returned to film a couple of years ago after a long break), I reckon much of my film photography doesn't achieve my aims either.

[Danner]

I am about 95% film, with the odd iPhone shot in the mix.

For me, it's all about composing and capturing the image on film, and more importantly, printing the negatives, matting and framing.  If I can produce 2-3 framed pictures each month, it's a huge success in my book.

I shoot HP5+ almost exclusively, develop in XTOL, and printed on Ilford MG FB glossy.  I also ferrotype plate a good number of my prints.  Lately (since I retired) I am making my own frames, white pine with shellac finish.

K.I.S.S. for photographic bliss.

[justaguywithaleica]

I am about 50/50 film to digital, but my heart is with film. I try to live by the rule that as long as I get 1 keeper from each roll, I'm happy and consider it a win.

[jukka]

3 hours ago, hirohhhh said:

But I enjoy taking pictures and hanging out with my film cameras. Also I develop all film myself and enjoy the process. Digital lost it’s magic for me, I don’t enjoy it anymore, but I make 10x better photos with digital, yet I refuse to give up film and get back to digital.

What a complicated relationship… can anyone relate to this?

Yup, I absolutely can. Although I would not quantify this in terms of "better" output. After committing to film only, which wasn't a conscious decision per se but more of a stating the, at the time, present reality, I haven't really given much thought to digital possibilities. Sure, when Leica comes up with a new monochrome M, I catch myself wondering what could be done with it, say, after dark, but that yearning quickly goes away.

My point being, I guess, that I find shooting film to be a different exercise with more enjoyable results, and I'm unsure as to whether I could make any actual use of digital capabilities. And to be honest, I haven't seen any revolution in artistic contributions in general despite the incredible new hardware we have – or would have access to. It's just more of the same largely and I think that's what I would do too, more of what I do anyway, but then without the enjoyment of analogue processes and with the pain of having to stair yet another screen. 

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, hirohhhh said:

 

What a complicated relationship… can anyone relate to this?

The traditional 'hit rate' for a 36 exposure film should be about 3 frames on average if you are self critical and can edit your own pictures. And post processing whether in the darkroom or on the PC is 80% of good film photography. None of the great film photos by the great photographers are untouched by manipulations in the darkroom, it doesn't happen. So give yourself the freedom to realise you don't have to come away with 36 photos, one great photo will do, and make changes to your basic negative as it's only a starting point and not the end.

[williamj]

I'm curious to know whether this is because you have more keepers with digital per shot taken or whether you just shoot more with digital and so get more keepers. One of the promises of digital is that your photos will be better and you could argue that that has contributed to the decline of photography as a well paid profession. But maybe you just shoot more freely with digital and if that is the case maybe you should not consider the cost of film when you take photos :). Cheers.

[hansvons]

14 hours ago, hirohhhh said:

Digital lost it’s magic for me, I don’t enjoy it anymore, but I make 10x better photos with digital, yet I refuse to give up film and get back to digital.

I'm wondering what in your digital images is 10x better. 

However, I cannot corroborate that; quite the opposite. I find it depends a lot on the genre (ruling out AF, etc, as you use M cameras for both film and digital). Action-driven photography, like shooting on the street or events, or even worse sports, can be more challenging on film since you can't machine-gun an action. Similar things can be said about unstaged family photos. But when shooting more static subjects that require only a good eye and sense for the moment, I find shooting on film more focused and thus, the hit rate increases.

Maybe something in your workflow is off? I find digitalisation, the process from the negative to a ready-edited photo, the biggest bottleneck. But it doesn't need to be. I'd say, for my part, I've figured it out and enjoy the process a lot, as the results are always more tangible, particular, and timeless than the digital equivalent would be.

 

13 hours ago, Danner said:

For me, it's all about composing and capturing the image on film, and more importantly, printing the negatives, matting and framing.  If I can produce 2-3 framed pictures each month, it's a huge success in my book.

I shoot HP5+ almost exclusively, develop in XTOL, and printed on Ilford MG FB glossy.  I also ferrotype plate a good number of my prints.  Lately (since I retired) I am making my own frames, white pine with shellac finish.

I can relate to that very much. I find 30-40 great prints in a year is a pretty good yield. I'm in the same ballpark for prints.

I don't do wet printing and have my workflow digital from the negative onwards, as I grew up with that in the nineties and 2000 as postproduction in filmmaking was already digital. I like the process so much that I stopped ordering prints and purchased a large format printer that will hit my doorstep next week. 

 

13 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I use film photography for different things: where I'm exploring visual ideas for just my own benefit. Since I am not used to that (most of my digital photography are taken from the standpoint that others have a say in whether they work or not, and I only returned to film a couple of years ago after a long break), ...

That is precisely how I do it. Digital for journalistic shoots or campaigns that need a quick turnaround (I also use B&W film for that, depending on the timing) and film for the rest, which is about my research of subjects in a more extended series over the years. Below are two images from my series Beach, shot on Kodak 5207 250D Visison3 on a 35mmSummicron ASPH, home dev in Fuji C41 and scanned with the Sigma70mm Macro mounted to my SL2-S and the indispensable Valoi Easy35. I use Capture One for conversion and editing because I want complete control and speed. The print version is 70cm x 50cm, roughly resolving 5K. The images below are 2K large. Click to enlarge. 

 

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!

 

 

[Smudgerer]

25 minutes ago, hansvons said:

I'm wondering what in your digital images is 10x better. 

However, I cannot corroborate that; quite the opposite. I find it depends a lot on the genre (ruling out AF, etc, as you use M cameras for both film and digital). Action-driven photography, like shooting on the street or events, or even worse sports, can be more challenging on film since you can't machine-gun an action. Similar things can be said about unstaged family photos. But when shooting more static subjects that require only a good eye and sense for the moment, I find shooting on film more focused and thus, the hit rate increases.

Maybe something in your workflow is off? I find digitalisation, the process from the negative to a ready-edited photo, the biggest bottleneck. But it doesn't need to be. I'd say, for my part, I've figured it out and enjoy the process a lot, as the results are always more tangible, particular, and timeless than the digital equivalent would be.

 

I can relate to that very much. I find 30-40 great prints in a year is a pretty good yield. I'm in the same ballpark for prints.

I don't do wet printing and have my workflow digital from the negative onwards, as I grew up with that in the nineties and 2000 as postproduction in filmmaking was already digital. I like the process so much that I stopped ordering prints and purchased a large format printer that will hit my doorstep next week. 

 

That is precisely how I do it. Digital for journalistic shoots or campaigns that need a quick turnaround (I also use B&W film for that, depending on the timing) and film for the rest, which is about my research of subjects in a more extended series over the years. Below are two images from my series Beach, shot on Kodak 5207 250D Visison3 on a 35mmSummicron ASPH, home dev in Fuji C41 and scanned with the Sigma70mm Macro mounted to my SL2-S and the indispensable Valoi Easy35. I use Capture One for conversion and editing because I want complete control and speed. The print version is 70cm x 50cm, roughly resolving 5K. The images below are 2K large. Click to enlarge. 

 

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!

 

 

Interesting post...........can I ask where you source your Kodak Vision 5207 filmstock, and do you just buy a 400' can and load cassetes yourself?

I thought I still had some 5207 in my freezer, I do but it turns out to be 7207, 16mm single perf', and obviously not good for use with my 35mm still cameras. 5219 500T would also be nice to find too.

[hansvons]

I have a guy in Berlin loading cine film from large rolls into 35mm canisters. https://35mmdealer.de I'm sure there are similar offerings in the States. I also use 5219 a lot, mainly without an 85 in daylight, as this was my preferred approach for music videos and TVCs when I wanted porcelain-like skin tones. 5219 is also quite suitable for B&W conversions when developed in C41, as it shows a steeper gamma than 5207. In B&W, it looks a bit like Delta 400 with slightly darker skin tones. You only have to get rid of the rem jet when home developing, which is pretty easy, actually.

[Smudgerer]

21 minutes ago, hansvons said:

I have a guy in Berlin loading cine film from large rolls into 35mm canisters. https://35mmdealer.de I'm sure there are similar offerings in the States. I also use 5219 a lot, mainly without an 85 in daylight, as this was my preferred approach for music videos and TVCs when I wanted porcelain-like skin tones. 5219 is also quite suitable for B&W conversions when developed in C41, as it shows a steeper gamma than 5207. In B&W, it looks a bit like Delta 400 with slightly darker skin tones. You only have to get rid of the rem jet when home developing, which is pretty easy, actually.

Thank you for the Berlin contact, I will get in touch with him. I live in the EU now, but before in the US I used to have my labs there in DC or Seattle load some cassettes for me from my short-ends when they could, or they'd let me use their facilities to do it myself. I love 7219, and was always amazed how well such a small frame size, S16, stood up to full cinema projection. Vision films are by far the best colour films-tocks out there, cine or stills.

[Smudgerer]

Thanks again for the Berlin contact, I went to the website and saw that they offer 30m rolls of XX!.........been wanting to find a source for that for a while, now I've ordered a can!

[hansvons]

5 hours ago, Smudgerer said:

I went to the website and saw that they offer 30m rolls of XX!

I love 5222. I use it for portraits and similar work. Back in the day, I regularly used it for music videos. Great stock!

Edited March 5, 2024 by hansvons

[Bill Clark]

This gent jump started my business a long time ago.

Just do a google search and see if anything interests you and maybe help you. There are several videos as well as internet sites to check out.

what counts are posing, lighting and composition. 

Google this: monte zucker

 

Edited March 6, 2024 by Bill Clark

[pixie]

Movie Film shoot. Beaches, Toronto. North Hollywood! Fuji color.

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!

Leica M. 50mm Summicron. 

[willeica]

On 3/4/2024 at 5:20 PM, hirohhhh said:

but I make 10x better photos with digital

How do you identify that they are 10 times better? What makes one photo 'better' than another one is often a matter of personal taste. 'Oppenheimer', this year's Best Picture at the recent Oscars, was shot on film and I have not heard anyone say that digital would have been 10 times better. To stretch the issue a bit further, I have never heard anyone say that Carter Bresson's images would have been better if he had been able to use digital. Are you confusing a perception of better 'image quality' with 'better photos'? 

What you are saying is not uncommon since the 'digital turn' as many people today confuse perceived 'better IQ' with 'better photos'. This forum is full of it, particularly when a new camera appears and suddenly your old camera cannot take photos as good as those which the latest model can capture or at least in your head that is the case. The digital v film argument is a subset or offshoot of that debate. There is a huge personal element in all of this, of course, and you need to satisfy yourself about what is important to you and what pleases you the most. Anything else is a distraction.

William 

[Anbaric]

On 3/5/2024 at 9:27 AM, hansvons said:

I have a guy in Berlin loading cine film from large rolls into 35mm canisters. https://35mmdealer.de I'm sure there are similar offerings in the States. I also use 5219 a lot, mainly without an 85 in daylight, as this was my preferred approach for music videos and TVCs when I wanted porcelain-like skin tones. 5219 is also quite suitable for B&W conversions when developed in C41, as it shows a steeper gamma than 5207. In B&W, it looks a bit like Delta 400 with slightly darker skin tones. You only have to get rid of the rem jet when home developing, which is pretty easy, actually.

I wonder if he's interested in doing 5294 (equivalent to Ektachrome 100D)? Now that branded Ektachrome is so stupidly expensive, they may be a gap in the market in Europe.

[Eclectic Man]

Sigh, I bought a reel of 35mm lithographic film in the 1990's, and have used about, ohh, 60cm of it.  It has been in the bottom of my fridge since then.  I did spool some of it into an old 35mm cassette for use in my R5, but what cassette do people use for 35mm photography?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Mikep996]

I take pretty much the same percentage of bad digital pics as bad 35mm film pics.  So the difference is that numerically a digital outing produces a lot more bad pics than a film outing!    I'd say that 2 or three "good" photos per 36 is typical.   That means that on a 35mm outing (2 rolls) I might have 65 bad pictures; on a digital outing there will be hundreds!  😱

  I do far better with 120 film than I do with 35mm/digital.  I usually have at least 2-3 good shots on a 12 exp roll.  Theoretically, I should be able to get exactly the same percentage of good shots regardless of the format but that doesn't happen in (my) real life!🙄