Jump to content

photographing with film ...


vic vic

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

andy.. im not cartier bresson... none of us is cartier bresson.. none of us will never be... why, cause bresson and many photographers in that era had a special pole position.. or i should say - a huge un-explored fields... we dont have it... even in this great dramatic change now with digital technology we simply dont have new fields to explore in terrms of pure photography.... we can find our ways of expression... our voices, we still have enough room to be highly creative... but we dont have what bresson had... we dont have what kerteshz had, or koudelka, or who evr u take from those great legends.... the novelty of the medium.. the new fields where they were the first to walk through...

 

cratier bressons with his inovation could allow himself to be not so creative printer etc.... even ralph gibslon could allow but no... he prefers to treat his stuff in darkroom by its own... an ya - it looks just like that - superior - SPIRIT....

can u imagine irving penns photographs without his abilities to control and to use his superior skills????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marc Wrote:

 

"Conversely, if we evangelize the melding of the process with-in the modern age of digital ... spend time, talent and energy on the art of scanning, of producing digital prints of stunning beauty that showcase the character and charms of film ... then maybe film will survive, even thrive. With a growing body of film practitioners, technology will turn it's attention back toward assisting in this endeavor once again rather than viewing it as a temporary bridge from the age of film to the all-digital age."

 

I'm wondering if any body heard what Marc is saying here?

 

Wilfredo+

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, this kind of mentality is what will kill film, not preserve it.

 

People are simply learning the skill set required to shoot and process digital files. It isn't Bull@#$t, it's a different route to what we all had to learn about exposing film and processing in the darkroom ... which while different, had the same end objectives. Good wet darkroom technique is very complex and generated complex discussions, spawned books and had it's gurus and devotes.

 

Marc,

 

You make some excellent points, but you also miss a few. Ken shoots reversal and views it with a Prodovit. Since you have a Leica in your avatar, I presume you use it. The process of making the picture you want requires some preparation and then previsualization. The rest comes from experience in reading the light and knowing what combination of f-stops and shutter speeds with a given focal length will give you what you expect. Neither Ken nor I need to burn a lot of film to get what we want, and I have a high hit rate and imagine that Ken does as well. I don't need to tell you that slowing down and thinking will translate into much better images. And BTW, it isn't WE who are doing the ranting... :) Of course, neither of us shoots weddings!

 

To quote a working pro and friend who shoots 100% digital for his day job and all Leica M for anything personal:

 

"People are grasping at straws trying to convince themselves that because digital can now out resolve 35mm film in some cases, that it MUST be superior. Usually it’s someone that has just dropped a fairly large sum on a DSLR system and is trying to justify their expenditure….and they wonder why this fantastic new piece of equipment isn’t turning them into Walter Loss, Jr., HCB, Ralph Gibson or Helmut Newton. Bah! The fools….digital is a tool for me, and when I feel like using a little Canon Elph for happy snaps. I have to show you some recent inkjet prints of mine...(deleted) . They are 13x19."

 

Lets face it. Film and sensors do not respond the same way to light and frequently the rendition is quite different. There is a time and place for each medium. I have to wonder if these people have suddenly gone blind. Your illustration is a good one.

 

For what it's worth, I have tried get what I want with a digital camera and was neither satified with the output nor did I enjoy the process. I still use a Canon at work, mainly for auctions, but I live on a computer there for 10 - 12 hours/day and want as little to do with computers as possible. Thankfully I don't have to make a living with my cameras!

 

I've used Leicas for 35 years because of the way the help me see and for the surprisingly good results I consistently get. Pure pragmatism.

 

As for my skill set with film, when I did my own B&W, after getting some expert help and doing a little experimentation, I standardized on one developer and two films and two high-silver-content variable contrast papers. I'll admit freely that I never found a pro lab in NYC which could duplicate my work. Wouldn't have expected otherwise, would you? Unlike the digital world of today, there wasn't a new developer every six months which made my old developer totally incompatible and obsolete! :)

 

As for K II, K 64, E-6 or C-41, it's all down to the lab and the processor and scanner and the care of the operator. I have a good lab and I imagine you do too. Mine uses the last big Agfa machine with Kodak chemistry and my German friends who care about quality mainly appear to use Kodak Q-Labs for all their color work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve

 

You forget that some film users prefer to be like Cartier-Bresson and allow a third party to do the developing (and scanning) for them ;)

 

Andy,

 

It's quite important to understand what CAN be done with a negative. It is not at all necessary to do the output so long as you know what you want. I no longer do my own B&W as you well know because I haven't the time and as mentioned above, could never find a lab which could duplicate my work. Color seems less of an issue and the large prints I get from a friend are very acceptable. Still, they do not come close to the dye transfer prints I used to get. I understand that Cibachrome comes close, but I've not needed anything of that quality lately... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done William.

 

As this is the Film forum I naturally support the use of film, it has been faithful to me.

I never get tired or sick of those wonderful slide images that I have accumulated over the years.

The shear brilliance of those wonderful Leica lenses that have to be seen to be believed.

The total simplicity of film cameras compared to Digicams.

Check out the new M8, compared to the Film M Line.all this so we can immediately review the results.

I enjoy what I got, love the feel, to wind on, fire that shutter and knowing that when I get

my film processed I am going to have something to be proud off, that I can pass onto my grand children.

Never have to care about JPEG, TIFF, or RAW etc, etc, or worry about storage on disc

I have the option to Scan, Print or Projection, and view at any time without the aid of any electrical source,

I have thousands of slides that I have taken for 37 years that I still marvel at.

In photography my interest is Railways and Avaition,

Several editors from American and British Rail magazines are telling the younger generation to shoot film preferable slides,

as there is no guarantee of their digital files longevity, so is that a WARNING.

 

 

Remember any idiot can design something complicated, but it takes a genius to build it simply.

 

Ken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is a totally valid point of view. You can do exactly the same thing digitally by shooting Jpegs and having the 1 hr lab or whoever print the images.

 

I guess that the point I was making was that if you want control over the process you have to learn certain skills whether it's for film or digital. Different skills, but skills none the less.

 

Steve

 

I couldn't agree more. Regardless of what you do, it's worthwhile learning the skills to do it to the best of your ability. I have never been very happy with commercial processing, so prefer to make the mistakes myself. But then, I don't sell any of my pictures, so I only have myself to please.

 

I still have a foot in both camps and enjoy using both film and digital. I know that others will disagree, but I have found that RAW files have made the process of producing better images easier. I don't think that the shot I posted the other day looking through the Louvre arch could have been done with film as the tonal range was huge (you know where this is and what the sun was like on Saturday). But, the information is there in the RAW file and can be extracted. You can't do this with film.

 

Yet, there's nothing like looking at a sheet of slides when you have got it all right. This can be a challenge with a real M, but when it comes together, it's worth it.

 

From my point of view it all depends upon what kind of mood I'm in and whether I just want to carry the M and the meter, or the beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Andy, I agree about the slides, especially medium format :-)

 

I stopped relying on film prints from the local 1hr labs when I bought a scanner. I soon realised just how many compromises there are - with the labs near where I live at least. Images typically has the saturation and contrast bumped up, to make them more 'vivid' I guess.

 

Now if I use a lab at all I prepare a digital image and make sure all 'enhancement' is switched off when the image is uploaded to their server.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all....

 

william... u defenetly rite about the response differances between film and the sensor - very true...

but here.. look at it this way:

1. every film has its character... there are more natural looking films (at least in broad lighting conditions), there are less so... but al of them have character (of course i love it myself). but it means that there is no real dramatic advantage between film and sensor... each one responds in its own way.. none of them fully and totally truthful to the eye... simply becuase that the eye has abilities that film doesnt... the ability to adjust itself acording to conditions.

2. it is true that on calibrated scanner (and all in all calibrated system) u will get the slide almost exactly as on light table (at least in terms of color repro)...

but... if u calibrate your camera in given lighting conditions u will get very accurate colors too.... all u need is a special card (with color charts etc) and photograph it in the same ligting conditions as u gonna make your pictures... this is very good for studio work and for planned photo sessions even on location, but less usable in photo-journalistic works... although even here u can prepare profiles that are more or less equvalent to various usufull conditions.

3. on sensor... color rendiotion depends on the software too... and many software (especially the generic softwares of digi back manufacturers) do very good job.. so is photoshop and silverfast that can give u great control and quality. so ya - it is a little work - true, but so it is in the darkroom of course :-)))

 

wilfredo.. while i defently agree with marc.. i think that if i take his words as a main strategy to promote or defend the film then i will kill the film... seriously... dont get too much into your own emotions... the desteny of film in long terms not depends on me u or marc... it depends on the new generation young photographer... those who just strted to study in their art schools, or those who are not born yet...

for those - they will born into the digital which will be even better by then.... so what the film will offer to them.. scaninng??? ya true.. as marc says.. it has its advateges but not that drastical... plus, the digital will improve... plus.. as i mentioned previuosly, with some attitude in the software editing - u can get some very good "film-like-look" - many things depends on the work with software too.. and the softwares are really good...

so, personally, i think that analog photography should be presented as working method of its own... and darkroom should be there an important part... true.. this will put the film into the "niche"... but man.. open your eyes.. it is already a "niche" :-)))))

plus.. i will repeat it... the new generation has totally different attitude to the darkroom issues... the simply were not envolved in the trasition from analog to digital... they are clean of all those "aggitations" and "debates" which one is better... they (the youngs) are fully capable to realize the differances with clear and opn mind... all they neeed is a good exposure to the analog photography and its virtues...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vic, you write:

 

hi all....

 

wilfredo.. while i defently agree with marc.. i think that if i take his words as a main strategy to promote or defend the film then i will kill the film... seriously... dont get too much into your own emotions... the desteny of film in long terms not depends on me u or marc... it depends on the new generation young photographer... those who just strted to study in their art schools, or those who are not born yet...

for those - they will born into the digital which will be even better by then.... so what the film will offer to them.. scaninng??? ya true.. as marc says.. it has its advateges but not that drastical... plus, the digital will improve... plus.. as i mentioned previuosly, with some attitude in the software editing - u can get some very good "film-like-look" - many things depends on the work with software too.. and the softwares are really good...

so, personally, i think that analog photography should be presented as working method of its own... and darkroom should be there an important part... true.. this will put the film into the "niche"... but man.. open your eyes.. it is already a "niche" :-)))))

plus.. i will repeat it... the new generation has totally different attitude to the darkroom issues... the simply were not envolved in the trasition from analog to digital... they are clean of all those "aggitations" and "debates" which one is better... they (the youngs) are fully capable to realize the differances with clear and opn mind... all they neeed is a good exposure to the analog photography and its virtues...

 

 

This is not an emotional issue for me, but more of a pragmatic issue. From my experience in the religious world I've learned not to be fanatical or dogmatic about anything. If film survives along with dark room printing, wonderful! But if we could get better scanners, printers, papers, inks, etc. that rival dark room prints, that's a major achievement and would present a more secure lasting place for film in the greater scheme of things. I believe this is what Marc is suggesting. Teachings kids dark room photography is fine, but the new generation used to instant gratification is a generation that will hardly pursue such a dicipline, even if they have a "wow" experience. Only a few would be attracted to dark room printing and the smell of Dektol in the end because quite frankly, there are many fabulous giclée prints to be seen in many photography museums already! It is idealism to think that teaching young people alone will accomplish this. We older folks know that nothing stays the same, all things evolve. I started printing when I was 16 years old back in 1972. I did 35mm printing as well as large format printing from view cameras. I had the opportunity to study at the then New York Institute of Photography back when it was an actual school with great programs and teachers. There will always be a nostalgia for that, but I can't tell you how happy I am with the digital darkroom. Learning the new technology with no teachers was agonizing but well worth it. I can print to my hearts content now, there seems to be no end to the possibilities, and all from the comfort of my bedroom. Below is something I did just for fun last Monday that illustrates how endless the possibilites are with this new technology. The actual 12X16 print itself rivals anything done in the darkroom shot with a medium format or even large format camera.

 

In my book, merging or evangelizing (to use Marc's word) the old technology of chemical imaging with the new technology of digital imaging is a great form of evolution.

 

Cheers,

 

Wilfredo+

Benitez-Rivera Photography

© Wilfredo Benitez

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi wilfredo.. whats up man.. :-))

 

wilfredo.. do i seem to u like any kind of religous fanatist???

 

man im fully pragamtic, besides photography - pragmatizm is my job so to spaeck...

pragmatism needs very good and very carefull analyzes - that is what i have done when told what i have told above...

 

man - listen to yourself - and marc u too man.. again... i defenetly agree with u about scaning and all that stuff. man - i do it myself... and as i told - when im going to add now digi back... believe me.. i dont do it with full exitement.. i do it only because i felt a real need it... so im very deep in love with film.. and i have no intentions to stop using it.. ya - even the slides for color works... of course the b/w has no replacement for me...

 

but listen.... u talk about improved scanners :-))) what is wrong with the existing scanners that both marc and me mentioning alot of times... imacons and creos... man those are scanners that dont give u much to desire.. u only have to know how to work with their generic softwares.. and actaully even the photoshop can do great job with its files.. the scanners are amazing... use them on full resolution and u willl have microscop :-))) just learn how to use the software..

 

about printers and inks and papers... well - lets put it rite way... papers are amazing basically... especially the german papers... inks.. well may be some improvements will be essensial... printers too have some way to go still - agree... but then - if all those things will improve and come up to the darkroom level - who needs the darkroom and the film then if this is the way u present things.. the digital backs will improve too - their software is cool and will improve even further ... so why should any one use film and scaning with such a good stuff in the full digital workflow??? besides.. i can tell u for sure... all the companies in field of photography that make scanners (creo/leaf and imacon) put all thier force and labor on the development of the digi backs.. not scanners :-)))))))))) be realistic man :-))))

 

kids??? who are kids.... some of those i have described already work as assitents... in about year or two they will begin their career and some of them will become next juornalists and fashion photographers and commercials and wedding etc etc.. those are big boys and girls :-))))

 

imidiate gratification or what ever it is :-)))) common - get out of it... it is u who are so agitated and so influenced by all those talks - not the youngs... u, me, and all of those who began photography before the digital conquire listen to this bulshit (wether it is true or not)... they see it as obvious... and they have no problem to come and to explore new ways of thinking.. ya - what seems to u old fashion - to those youngs it is totally new way.. and many of them really enjoy it far beyound the "one time wow expireince"....

 

make analyzes.. a really critical analyzes of the state of affairs ...

 

na dman (wilfredo) i use my mp camera... the idea of m8 does not exite me at all... i will buy it if it is as good as u would expect from leica... i will buuy it if i feel a need for it and i will add the needed lenses to it because of the crop factor.. ya i will do it if needed... but it is not as exiting as the mp camera at all... i dont feel any desire for it...

and u... i understand u.. u bought a film camera when digital m knocking on the door... leave all those thought - make your photos - u do it very well... and ya... scan a couple of frames on creo or imacon - study how to work with software (or let the scanner man do it - usually they do know how to work with it) and u will see how good your image is...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Victor, how are you doing? I was just reading this very intersting thread, and the one things which really came into my mind is the passion involved. There is a combination, I think of judgement, passion, and reason which goes into the activity of the devoted film photographer who goes into the dark room. (I wonder if there is an essay to be written on this: A Critique of Judgement and Photography). And I think it is just great that you are able to express and share your devotion and excitment to this medium with others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi illan - im very well thanks... how r u?? well come back :-))))

ya thanks... i was very enthusiastic myself when i found out clearly that the young people really think differently about film - i mean totally differenetly... and there is the hope that the qualities and virtues of film will be reserved - im quite sure about it... wether it is a big niche or a small niche - it depends on the exposure the youngs will recieve and the ability of them to have REWARD from film based photography, or in other words if they have good teachers that will show them what can be done with it...

about e.kant in photography :-))) noce idea .... oh - add "pure photography" :-)))) i will look into this option :-)))))))))

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vic,,, that's why I prefer to teach than photograph at times... now if we can get the teenager beyond the novelty factor of film...)))))).... beyond uniform grey,explore visually as art form, tap into a fresh air.......and not let the dream police get them

Link to post
Share on other sites

very true imants... im with u :-))))

i cannot say that i love to teach that much... but soometimes it is a good thing and chalanging and actually enlighting even for the teacher...

about the "novelty of film" for those youngs... this is the exactly the point... it was beyound the "novelty".. it was a different fresh air to look at photography as art... to study how to explore their developing "vision"...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Victor.

I'm alright. Super busy as I'm entering what I hope will be my last year in the PhD, so in addition to workin on my thesis I'm also busy with applications for post-docs and funding for whatever I end up doing next year.

 

I agree with your assesments entirely. Now I guess it's just up to some bright individual to think photography through Kant! Perhaps there's a research grant in this somewhere....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your assesments entirely. Now I guess it's just up to some bright individual to think photography through Kant! Perhaps there's a research grant in this somewhere....

 

I think we had one of those on this forum for a while - you don't want to go down that route, trust me ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 15 years later...
On 10/8/2006 at 12:37 PM, Michael-IIIf said:

 

Vic,

 

I was at the Modernism exhibition in London this summer accompanied by a pro-photog friend and while marvelling at the texture lustre and tonality of the exhibited B&W prints we got onto this very subject. His view was interesting; he reckoned no-one is printing such beautiful prints these days because the papers just don't have the quantity of silver that they had in the middle of the last century, but he reckoned the good thing about the growth of digital media, and the decline of analogue, mean analogue is bound to become a minority-interest art-based activity and as such it might be worth some manufacturer's while to start producing silver rich papers again. They will be expensive but if I could get some of the results I saw from those '20s and '30s prints I would buy them.

 

Michael

I am sick and tired about hearing that old wives' tale...that films and papers today have 'less silver' in them. It's simply not true! There is a certain minimum amount of silver halide that is required to coat an emulsion. Period. This is determined by the requirements of the product. I talked with a Kodak engineer about this, and he told me (after he laughed) that there may have been some small improvements in efficiency in the coating of say, Tri-X over the last 50 years, but it would scarcely amount to 5%. 

The D-max of papers is not directly related to 'silver content'. There may be other changes that have had some impact on the appearance of prints (the quality of paper stock, additives such as brighteners, etc.) or other components that have been banned because of health regulations (cadmium?). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy thread resurrection Robin. That has to be a record.

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!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...