Ludwig Gretch Posted October 22, 2008 Share #61 Posted October 22, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Please. Can you please stop being so full of it? .....Here here!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 Hi Ludwig Gretch, Take a look here Anyone "gone film?" Let's hear your story.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest stnami Posted October 22, 2008 Share #62 Posted October 22, 2008 buckets yes buckets! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted October 22, 2008 Share #63 Posted October 22, 2008 Please. Can you please stop being so full of it? Wow, why the nastiness? As the creator of a global tribute to Kodachrome, I have pretty good inroads as to when Kodachrome is going to dissapear. So there is no point in asking what will I do when it is gone, now is what matters. And I am really shooting more and more of it, I love the way it looks, the way it makes me think. I want this to be one of the most important things I do in my career, that's no bull. What a dumb thing to say, that I am full of it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 22, 2008 Share #64 Posted October 22, 2008 Won't be filling any buckets with that Kodachrome stuff.......... a bit pricey theses days Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marke Posted October 22, 2008 Share #65 Posted October 22, 2008 Ned, what hole did you just crawl out of? Good to see you around again. How the little one? I hate digital. It never occurs to me to even shoot in digital (except weddings). No matter what I do, I see in film-ways. Digital is just crap. (I still own a M8 and I love it, but I just don't take it out and my vision is just not the same as opposed to when I hold my M4P or M7). That's what I've been hearing more and more from guys like you. Uh, that's a compliment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 22, 2008 Share #66 Posted October 22, 2008 What a dumb thing to say, that I am full of it? Maybe he rides pushbikes and doesnt like carbuncles? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted October 22, 2008 Share #67 Posted October 22, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) It would be interesting to ask the same question on a Canon forum (if one were to exist) Shame on you Mr Barton for making asking such a question in the Leica forum! A quick gander through the Analogue Photography User Group shows a wide range of cameras being used for film, and funnily enough the same old 'tell me what kind of camera for pictures of my dog' posts as well.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 22, 2008 Share #68 Posted October 22, 2008 It was a rhetorical question. You didn't HAVE to go and do it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckhorn_cortez Posted October 22, 2008 Share #69 Posted October 22, 2008 The mind twisting rationalizations people make for working a certain way are a bit baffling. Isn't the idea to be making interesting images? Conflating a specific workflow with success in imaging making ("I get more keepers") is really an observation of one's comfort level (or discomfort level) with a workflow - and not a fact that can be universally applied to a workflow. As for making scanned film look like a "wet darkroom print" - here's a suggestion. Shoot film and make wet darkroom prints. Or, use a quality service bureau for scanning and processing; or learn how to scan and post process a bit better. If you want an exact wet darkroom look from scanned film, then use a digital enlarger; print on photo paper and splash your way through developer, stop bath, and fixer. If you know what you're doing in scanning, post processing, and wet darkroom work - the final print from a digital enlarger will be indistinguishable from a print made directly from a negative on the same kind of photo paper. By making claims about a certain process that you want ubiquitously applied - AND that can be easily proven false - you've only highlighted your own perceptions based upon personal, or self-defined limitations. My solution is to use the workflow and output method that is best for the image. Consider the final product before you make the exposure - and tailor the workflow to match the aesthetic, instead of the other way around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckhorn_cortez Posted October 22, 2008 Share #70 Posted October 22, 2008 Wow, why the nastiness? As the creator of a global tribute to Kodachrome, I have pretty good inroads as to when Kodachrome is going to dissapear. So there is no point in asking what will I do when it is gone, now is what matters. And I am really shooting more and more of it, I love the way it looks, the way it makes me think. I want this to be one of the most important things I do in my career, that's no bull. What a dumb thing to say, that I am full of it? Here's the one I don't get and maybe you could explain further. "...the way it makes me think." How and what does Kodachrome make you think? Does it give you a better ability to see or find an image in someway? If so, how? I've probably shot 4,000 rolls of Kodachrome in 35mm and 120 format, and all I ever think about what is what I'm seeing and why, and how to convey what I'm seeing to the fullest. While a film may have a specific color palette rendering - for me, that's an aesthetic choice in making the image. It's another tool in the kit along with other decisions like camera / format choice. But it's not something that "makes me think" - it's a choice that's preplanned as part of the imaging workflow. As I'm always looking for ways to expand my personal approach to image making, I'm trying to find out what I may be missing in Kodachrome affecting the way I think. I'm truly interested in you expanding on this a bit further. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alw Posted October 22, 2008 Share #71 Posted October 22, 2008 I´m just making the move...selling my Canon 5D and the lenses! :) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted October 22, 2008 Share #72 Posted October 22, 2008 Here's the one I don't get and maybe you could explain further. "...the way it makes me think." How and what does Kodachrome make you think? Does it give you a better ability to see or find an image in someway? If so, how? I've probably shot 4,000 rolls of Kodachrome in 35mm and 120 format, and all I ever think about what is what I'm seeing and why, and how to convey what I'm seeing to the fullest. While a film may have a specific color palette rendering - for me, that's an aesthetic choice in making the image. It's another tool in the kit along with other decisions like camera / format choice. But it's not something that "makes me think" - it's a choice that's preplanned as part of the imaging workflow. As I'm always looking for ways to expand my personal approach to image making, I'm trying to find out what I may be missing in Kodachrome affecting the way I think. I'm truly interested in you expanding on this a bit further. Well, in order to answer this question, lets limit it to how shooting film makes me think in the initial reply. Depending on the film in use, ie: color slide, negative, black and white, Scala, DR5, infrared, etc, one often tends to be best off considering the limitations of a film. It is when a photographer decides to play off of those limitations that the often deliberate athestetic arises. Sure, a given medium may impart similarities, but the original does it best by cutting to the point. If shooting negative film is like walking on sand, then shooting Kodachrome is like walking on concrete, you hit a solid limit, not a lot of padding. In terms of Kodachrome, I have seen it do amazing things in the right light or lighting combinations. For instance, I have seen Kodachrome look like Rembrandt's "Aristotle contemplating a bust of Homer" in terms of sharp fall off of mid tone to shadow. The chromatic distribution of Kodachrome is more intricate where as a film like Velvia is more truncated, less nuance, less range of color: Rembrandt, Aristotle Contemplating a Bust of Homer Sometimes how I think when I am shooting Kodachrome is like a painter rendering in the way of a Dutch Master in exposing for the highlights and noticing when similar light comes about. The fact that Kodachrome has very narrow latitude in terms of exposure and distribution of contrast makes me think differently about the light I am looking at. I am not saying I only shoot Kodachrome in this particular light, I am saying Kodachrome's inherent limitations make me think in terms of that range and to be aware of all the possibilities among others. There may be other mediums or even films close to Kodachrome in appearance and behavior, but it is very easy to focus on Kodachrome it self and work to get the best imagery I can out of it due to consistency. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted October 22, 2008 Share #73 Posted October 22, 2008 today I developed some prints. what fun I had I confess that I shoot films more and more and my analog cameras are turning to be nr 1 camera But I still see some use with digital medium under low light. It can recover heavy underexposing. As John51 example shows, that films make fore and back grounds separate at more harsh way compared to digital. I like this way really and notice the same thing with B&W. I like the price of bw films like Retro 100 30meter rolls. Now it costs 18 euros in half of the old price, yeah! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckhorn_cortez Posted October 22, 2008 Share #74 Posted October 22, 2008 Well, in order to answer this question, lets limit it to how shooting film makes me think in the initial reply. Depending on the film in use, ie: color slide, negative, black and white, Scala, DR5, infrared, etc, one often tends to be best off considering the limitations of a film. That's a given - and not limited to film imaging. I'd have to say, really not much of point. I've had to consider image making limitations in a number of imaging systems - photographic, motion picture, video, and IR. At some point, you don't even consider that anymore it's just a technical issue to be dealt with as part of working to the final image. It is when a photographer decides to play off of those limitations that the often deliberate athestetic arises. Sure, a given medium may impart similarities, but the original does it best by cutting to the point. I'm not sure I understand this what does "cutting to the point" mean? If shooting negative film is like walking on sand, then shooting Kodachrome is like walking on concrete, you hit a solid limit, not a lot of padding. Yeah, Kodachrome has a limited dynamic range. So does Provia, and Velvia. They're all fairly close in not having "a lot of padding." I don't see why this makes Kodachrome special - it's just part of the film's characteristics. In terms of Kodachrome, I have seen it do amazing things in the right light or lighting combinations. For instance, I have seen Kodachrome look like Rembrandt's "Aristotle contemplating a bust of Homer" in terms of sharp fall off of mid tone to shadow. I've seen the same thing with Kodak color negative film and a custom filter I had built - just a different way of achieving the same type of look. You wait for the film to find the right conditions, I manufacture what I want. The chromatic distribution of Kodachrome is more intricate where as a film like Velvia is more truncated, less nuance, less range of color: I really can't relate much to this one as I think Velvia is right up in the top two worst films I've ever used. Sometimes how I think when I am shooting Kodachrome is like a painter rendering in the way of a Dutch Master in exposing for the highlights and noticing when similar light comes about. You'd have to do the same thing with all chrome films. The fact that Kodachrome has a very steep characteristic curve with a small toe and shoulder just means you have to know how to read a subject carefully with a light meter - and then apply Zone system visualizing techniques to color photography; and where to place the exposure - not all that difficult with a little practice - and something you need to do with any film. The fact that Kodachrome has very narrow latitude in terms of exposure and distribution of contrast makes me think differently about the light I am looking at. I am not saying I only shoot Kodachrome in this particular light, I am saying Kodachrome's inherent limitations make me think in terms of that range and to be aware of all the possibilities among others. I'm not sure I understand "...and be aware of all of the possibilities among others." Do you carry other cameras loaded with different films so you can match (in your mind) a film's rendering qualities to the lighting situation you see? There may be other mediums or even films close to Kodachrome in appearance and behavior, but it is very easy to focus on Kodachrome it self and work to get the best imagery I can out of it due to consistency. Well, this is where you and I part ways. I don't want to work to get the best out of a type of film, I want to make the most interesting photograph I can make - incorporating the workflow as an integrated aesthetic to produce a print (in most cases) that meets my personal criteria for a successful image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 23, 2008 Share #75 Posted October 23, 2008 buckhorn_cortez If a particular type of film produces an image quality, no matter how narrow the criteria may be or even if it is a myth then it serves it's purpose to the individual It's one thing to write stuff on the net but one sorta has to back it up image wise as well, how about a link to your images Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted October 23, 2008 Share #76 Posted October 23, 2008 Well, this is where you and I part ways. I don't want to work to get the best out of a type of film, I want to make the most interesting photograph I can make - incorporating the workflow as an integrated aesthetic to produce a print (in most cases) that meets my personal criteria for a successful image. And I do this too, I use whatever medium I feel I should to get the final result. But in the case of Kodachrome, it is a lot more than just a film, it is an era that is coming to a close, so I want to have fun making the best images I can on it while it is still around. I'll have the rest of my life to shoot digital, been shooting it for over 14 years already, why not have fun with something as unique as Kodachrome while I still can is what I say. If you are passionate about what you do regardless of how you arrive there, then you are going to get the most out of life, and there is no right or wrong, better or worse in that. It's just the way it is and will always be......and no one should ever judge you for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 23, 2008 Share #77 Posted October 23, 2008 That is what a visionary does, sees opportunity in everything and has the heart to make it happen.. Are you really comparing yourself to a visionary now? I know you are always refering to yourself as the best in the business and blabla, but the visionary thing is a little too much. You've been auto-tapping yourself on your own back for such a long time now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 23, 2008 Share #78 Posted October 23, 2008 Ned, what hole did you just crawl out of? Good to see you around again. How the little one? That's what I've been hearing more and more from guys like you. Uh, that's a compliment. I crawled out of the hole that forum owners try to burry me in It's good to see you around, too!!! Especially since I thought we lost you to the Canon unappealing (to me) Digital fairy-tale world. The boy is doing great. I'm sad for your Zoomer. Must be terrible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DuquesneG Posted October 23, 2008 Share #79 Posted October 23, 2008 What a dumb thing to say, that I am full of it? I think what he meant was full of yourself, referreing to the "I am a visionary" thing. I was a little down and it gave me a gi-normous guffaw, so I'm glad you said it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DuquesneG Posted October 23, 2008 Share #80 Posted October 23, 2008 Earlier you said: "We all know that scanned film doesn't look like film printed through an enlarger on chemically-developed paper, unless it is treated by software." That's the bit that doesn't make any sense, and the bit that you're carefully ignoring in your replies. Ignoring? I stand by my statement 100%. VueScan is software. SilverFast is software. Every scanner has its own proprietary...software. If you assumed I was necessarily talking about CS3 or some plugin, that was your error. I've done a lot of scanning and a lot of printing, and have no recollection of ever doing "PP trickery" or making sure my scans were further "treated by software". Straight out the scanner, a quick curves adjustment to set the contrast (the digital equivalent of multigrade printing), a once over to remove dust spots, and then straight onto fine art paper. If the results please you, there's no reason for us to discuss it further. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.