Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Getting a wet/optical print made from a lab and getting a whole roll done of that are two different things. Here’s where I would send my negative if I wanted a traditional optical print of a particular image. https://phtsdr.com/services/printing/ 

Most photo labs were scanning negatives and making prints on photo paper from the scans 25 years ago (I worked at one), so it depends how “back in the day” you’re intending to go here.

The reasons to shoot film vary, but with color especially, it has nothing to do with it being better than what’s available today. From an archival perspective it’s notably worse than inkjet printing and something to be wary of. 

Personally, I think the argument for shooting color film these days is really, really weak. In fact, the only reasons I can understand are an irrational personal enjoyment of it for whatever reason (maybe you just really feel strongly about highlight rolloff/retention over shadow detail), a fear or wariness of digital archives and needing a physical record (though this is easily and better solved by just making small prints from you digital files…that’s a better archive than a strip of negatives in many ways) or a deep attachment to a specific (but also specifically flawed) color rendering.  

Black and white film is a different story for a few reasons - that’s something that’s easier to argue for to my mind.

Even still, trying to justify shooting film at this point is almost going to always involve some sort of mushy justification that is very personal, possibly emotional, maybe artistic etc and veers quite far from any sort of scientific or rational justification. 

Edited by pgh
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/6/2025 at 2:38 AM, pgh said:

Getting a wet/optical print made from a lab and getting a whole roll done of that are two different things. Here’s where I would send my negative if I wanted a traditional optical print of a particular image. https://phtsdr.com/services/printing/ 

Most photo labs were scanning negatives and making prints on photo paper from the scans 25 years ago (I worked at one), so it depends how “back in the day” you’re intending to go here.

The reasons to shoot film vary, but with color especially, it has nothing to do with it being better than what’s available today. From an archival perspective it’s notably worse than inkjet printing and something to be wary of. 

Personally, I think the argument for shooting color film these days is really, really weak. In fact, the only reasons I can understand are an irrational personal enjoyment of it for whatever reason (maybe you just really feel strongly about highlight rolloff/retention over shadow detail), a fear or wariness of digital archives and needing a physical record (though this is easily and better solved by just making small prints from you digital files…that’s a better archive than a strip of negatives in many ways) or a deep attachment to a specific (but also specifically flawed) color rendering.  

Black and white film is a different story for a few reasons - that’s something that’s easier to argue for to my mind.

Even still, trying to justify shooting film at this point is almost going to always involve some sort of mushy justification that is very personal, possibly emotional, maybe artistic etc and veers quite far from any sort of scientific or rational justification. 

But photography is an art. I love the texture and colours. I love the process.

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 M7, Voigtlander 28mm f2, Kodak UltraMax 400

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, colonel said:

But photography is an art. I love the texture and colours. I love the process.

Leica M7, Voigtlander 28mm f2, Kodak UltraMax 400

I understand that. I think I covered that more or less. Art certainly is mushy! (Not a dig, I myself am much more interested in art than in technology or its ability to render things perfectly). 

As an aside, I don't understand the convention of listing all the gear etc that made the picture! As a viewer, I know that those are basically the least important factors that go into it.  When we go into a gallery or a museum or look at a picture in publication that stuff is almost never listed (with good reason, I think). I digress...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 8/15/2025 at 2:25 AM, pgh said:

As an aside, I don't understand the convention of listing all the gear etc that made the picture!

I just think it's interesting because this is (also) a gear forum, an exhibition is not. When i store my negatives i write what I shot that roll with and the developer and dilution for b&w, I like to have the reference.

Edited by Bliz
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2025 at 1:25 AM, pgh said:

As an aside, I don't understand the convention of listing all the gear etc that made the picture! As a viewer, I know that those are basically the least important factors that go into it.  When we go into a gallery or a museum or look at a picture in publication that stuff is almost never listed (with good reason, I think). I digress...

So much of photography is about either 'art' or 'equipment', and nothing is discovered on first appraisal, which is looking at the image. So if you like the image and maybe consider it art why not take advantage of a lesson in art that was never available before an Exif file or a simple notation of camera, lens, film etc. I mean nobody has ever been able to describe a painting in terms of paint depth have they, but photography can the different. And it's being polite and considerate and honest, a photo without a description of the basic essentials could be seen as evasive or admission of not even understanding how the camera has made the photograph that the photographer is saying is his/hers. 

But that isn't really the point because many people go into an exhibition or museum already with an understanding of the images they are likely to be seeing, so that is why you don't see explanations, because the audience is already educated. But this can't happen on camera gear forums because we aren't all educated in each others techniques. Ansel Adams went to great lengths to educate people with descriptions of his techniques alongside his photographs and published in many books on the art of photography. If we all opened up like Ansel Adams and many more great photography educators about what they do to get the images you see we wouldn't have the embarrassment of so many crappy photographs posted. After all understanding what you like the look of is as important as knowing what you don't like the look of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I mean nobody has ever been able to describe a painting in terms of paint depth have they, but photography can the different.

Mmm, not quite.  

I have and do spend a lot of time in art galleries, and when seeing a work of art for the first time (not just a painting), I look at the work to see what I think; I read the little description, which will give the artist, the year the work was made, its history and what it is made from (marble, concrete, gouache or oil on canvas or board); and that gives me a sense of the style of the work, its historical significance and the technique (eg, impressionist and post-impressionists having the benefit of improved oils and their transportability, enabling the Impressionists at first to paint in situ).  I will then look closely at the object to see the detail of the work - brush strokes, paint thickness etc.  Some will be worked incredibly well, with fine brush strokes and dense paint, others with immediacy with quick strokes and the canvas showing through.

I’m not alone in that, I don’t think.

But, I agree with you turning to photographs - the make of paint or the manufacturer of the paint brush or chisel is completely irrelevant.  When looking at a photograph, I go throguh pretty much the same process - initial impression, read the description (when and where the photo was taken), then look more closely at the image (resolution, distortion, corner and edge detail, paper and quality of printing), then go back to my initial observation of the work at viewing distance to think about light, composition and overall impression, armed with that detailed knowledge.

I cannot think of ever thinking about the camera or lens used, other than film or digital, format, focal length and aperture (if all that is there).  Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica, Noctilux or Elmarit - who cares?  It’s about how that is used, and the resulting image.

Sorry if this comes across as nitpicking …

Edited by IkarusJohn
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Helpful contribution.

Well try talking to a few painters, I assure you you'll discover they have a very material interest in colors, papers, canvases, easels and frames. Thinking taking an interest in the material means used to produce an art piece is somehow beneath an actual interest in art as someone who wants to make art themselves, is a weird take.

Edited by Bliz
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Bliz said:

Well try talking to a few painters, I assure you you'll discover they have a very material interest in colors, papers, canvases, easels and frames. Thinking taking an interest in the material means used to produce an art piece is somehow beneath an actual interest in art as someone who wants to make art themselves, is a weird take.

I think you misunderstood my post.  I agree with you.  Did you miss the bit where I said I would look closely at a work of art to get a sense of the thickness of paint, brush strokes etc, before you commented that my post was not “terribly universal”?

Anyway, in the context of looking at photographs, I suspect, though it is not clear from your contribution, that you agree with @250swb and me.  Or do you not?

Edited by IkarusJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bliz said:

More as your own way of viewing the matter, which isn't terribly universal tbh.

Maybe not in this forum, but I guarantee it’s much much more universal than trying to ascertain camera and lens or whatever. 

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

it's being polite and considerate and honest, a photo without a description of the basic essentials could be seen as evasive or admission of not even understanding how the camera has made the photograph that the photographer is saying is his/hers. 

This is a surprising conclusion to me. I don’t list any of these things on my website or any place I ever publish my work, and it’s not to be evasive. It’s because it is essentially immaterial to the content of my work. Of course I do often accompany photographs with the basic essentials of information - but that never includes the gear. 

I get that this forum is a different place, but when I see this stuff under pictures it greatly detracts from the picture itself. That’s just my read of it. It makes every picture look like a fundamentally technical exercise (and indeed, many present that way). And to be honest, I don’t think it really matters all that much if someone who makes a great picture knows how they made it. It’s easily understood that they indeed know their tools if they’ve made just a few really good pictures. That’s all the proof I need. Some of the best photographers I’ve known were really not all that great technically - but it just didn’t matter. They were curious about the world, they were engaging people, they knew how to get the trust of other people, and they worked hard at learning about the stories they were telling. All of that paid off much more. 

Different strokes I suppose. 

Edited by pgh
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

I cannot think of ever thinking about the camera or lens used, other than film or digital, format, focal length and aperture (if all that is there).  Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica, Noctilux or Elmarit - who cares?  It’s about how that is used, and the resulting image.

I was answering to this. Given that the interest in gear displayed by most photography enthusiasts is way too much for their own good, I still don't think it is strange to have an interest in what gear was used to take a picture. Is it the main element that contributes to the final result? Of course not, but still I find it natural. As I said if you talk to painters (I can't paint but have a couple of friends that are decent water colour painters that do exhibitions), you'll see them talk about their gear quite a bit, not just about technique or the more "noble" sides of their craft.

Edited by Bliz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @pgh on this.  Mostly.

When I stroll through the various image threads on this forum, I often come to the conclusion that they are relatively pointless.  In most cases, someone posts an image taken with [x] camera and [y] lens saying "isn't this lens lovely", and it's completely meaningless in isolation.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy these threads and I do learn a little from them (after careful consideration), but without direct comparison of another image taken on the same camera with a different lens, but using the same settings, I don't think they establish anything.

Sadly, in many cases, example photos of a given lens are pretty unremarkable ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This photography forum, like all other photography forums I've seen*, is heavily gear focused - inevitably here, because it's about Leica. So, here, I provide the info about camera, lens, film etc, partly to make it clear I'm conforming with forum rules about using Leica equipment, but also because I suspect many viewers will be curious (as often I am).

Outside this forum, I never state which equipment I use, on my own website, FB, insta or elsewhere.

 

* Is there a photography forum anywhere in the universe that discusses photos as images beyond 'nice shot', and without descending into abuse? Is there any forum hat discusses photos for how they display their subject matter or how they express emotions/opinions/stories rather than their technical qualities?
FTAOD, the answer is 'no'!

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

, I often come to the conclusion that they are relatively pointless.

You were anticipating finding a majority of meaningful pictures like in the selected and cherry picked exhibition of an artist, on an online forum?...

 

Btw all *this* really does sound a bit pointless. If you don't care about the gear info ignore them, it's not some disturbing image that will be burnt in you subconscious regardless. I really fail to see the problem.

Edited by Bliz
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a Leica specific forum, there are many places where it is just about the picture, but here, gear is a big part of it all. It’s our platform to nerd out a bit, it’s also nice from a community perspective to share with people who have similar interests in my opinion. It’s like any club/forum really. 

For my project work, the gear is never mentioned and the photos are rarely shared here but for everyday snaps, it’s a great place to share your love of photography and cameras, lenses. I think people tend to overthink this stuff.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bliz said:

You were anticipating finding a majority of meaningful pictures like in the selected and cherry picked exhibition of an artist, on an online forum?...

No

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2025 at 3:25 AM, pgh said:

As an aside, I don't understand the convention of listing all the gear etc that made the picture! As a viewer, I know that those are basically the least important factors that go into it.  When we go into a gallery or a museum or look at a picture in publication that stuff is almost never listed (with good reason, I think). I digress...

It is extremely interesting to know what equipment people are using. As film cameras don’t embed this in the picture it is essential that it is written down. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, colonel said:

It is extremely interesting to know what equipment people are using. As film cameras don’t embed this in the picture it is essential that it is written down. 

I always encourage people to include this information under images shared on the forum (including digital ones), but many omit it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...