Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BerndReini

The look of film

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While I am getting a new M8.2 after my upcoming 21/1.4 and 50/0.95 purchases, film is it for me... If you have an hour to spare you can hear all about my switch to film on a recent interview I did for Inside Analog... Download it from iTunes here (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=291806626)

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert, yes it is Ektar and it does scan beautifully. It also exaggerates the difference in color temperature between the late afternoon sun on the woman and the blue shadows on the asphalt.

 

Mitch, I agree, I usually shoot between f8 and f11 when shooting street photography. However, the film is ISO100 and the woman was running across the street, so I had to shoot at a fairly wide asperture.

 

Here's what my street photography with my M8 looks like. this is a photo that is part of a solo exhibition and not something I consider a snap shot. Everything is done purposefully and there is nothing I will try to argue away. Take it or leave it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I have to say I am kind of relieved that digital and the people who use it solely over film have all started to mature..

 

I hear a lot less "film is dead" garbage than I did a few years ago and I think it has a lot to do with folks not only settling down in the digital race but seeing that one is not better than the other across the board, but different in fun and advantageous ways.

 

There is no way I could shoot 100% digital, it would not be right for me, so I have gone to great lengths to make sure that I can shoot film for years to come.

 

I think we are darn lucky to be in a time when we have both available to us and that is really all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the people on this thread have never been the "film is dead" crowd. Heck, I am still upset that Polaroid and their wonderful Type 55 film went under. Horses for courses.

 

Ricky, great broadcast, thanks for sharing, I am listening to it as I am typing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the people on this thread have never been the "film is dead" crowd.

 

Oh I know, it was more of a general statement..:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense taken. I think this was the whole point of me starting this thread. I just wanted to tell people: "hey, I love the M8 as much as anyone, but there's still room to play." This is probably one of my favorite threads on this forum, no heated arguments, just fun. This is in the end what it's all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

James,

 

I don't blame you for laughing, I deserve it. In our defense though, I am not sure whether you own an M8 or not; it is an incredible camera, sharper than negative film, more dynamic range than slide film, and unbelievably flexible and convenient. Once you use one of these bad boys, it is really easy to forget about your film M.

 

I'm not laughing at you, but with you. I'm not an M8 user but I have seen plenty of examples of what it can help one to achieve, its definately a great digital camera. Film has its own qualities and it is interesting to find that many digital converts eventually return to using film as well, and surely that's one of the great things about the M8, that you can use it alongside a film M with such ease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks James. The mods should use this as a sample thread for forum courtesy. I've been reading so many threads lately, in which people attack each other that this is really a delight. It turns out that we can all get nalong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Luis D

I love to shoot film. The cost and hassle and lack of quality to have developed and scanned (or hassle and time if I will do by myself), not so much. I also much prefer the clarity of digital compared of film, at high ISO. Of course, that last one is not so evident with an M8 as with any current DSLR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert, yes it is Ektar and it does scan beautifully. It also exaggerates the difference in color temperature between the late afternoon sun on the woman and the blue shadows on the asphalt.

 

Mitch, I agree, I usually shoot between f8 and f11 when shooting street photography. However, the film is ISO100 and the woman was running across the street, so I had to shoot at a fairly wide asperture.

 

Here's what my street photography with my M8 looks like. this is a photo that is part of a solo exhibition and not something I consider a snap shot. Everything is done purposefully and there is nothing I will try to argue away. Take it or leave it.

Hi BerndReini,

Very nice picture with Kodak Ektar 100 Iso : great colors and good contrast

I think that this film is really for digital scanner

 

Just a little comment

I agree with KM-25 :"film is not dead" and i add that it's the "coming back".

I have 2 M8 since 5 months and also a M7 and a reflex R8

 

The M8 gives me immediate pictures and they are nice,it's true !

but i think something is lacking.

The answer was given by my Leica adviser : "it lacks the "Matter"( or the "Substance" if you like).and i agree with him....

and i would like to continue to shoot with the two cameras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care what other people shoot. Whatever floats your boat!

I just have to say, it really depends on your personal situation and point of view.

For me, personally, I find shooting film far more practical, easier to deal with, less hassle than digital. This is because I don't shoot professionally!

No deadlines, no art directors, no pressure. I shoot a roll of film, drop it off at the lab in the morning and pick it up in the afternoon. Costs five bucks for developing.

Get home and boot up the light table, have a look at the frames and choose the ones I want to scan. Blow the dust off and scan frames; email or read internet forums while film is scanning. If my exposures were correct, minor PS tweaking and I'm good to go!

But digital...Just the though of facing all the little thumbnails on my screen - doubled because I am paranoid so shot RAW and JPEG! I just can't bear it!

That's how it works for me anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Luis D

For me, personally, I find shooting film far more practical, easier to deal with, less hassle than digital. I shoot {a roll of film, drop it off at the lab in the morning and pick it up in the afternoon. Costs five bucks for developing.

Get home and boot up the light table, have a look at the frames and choose the ones I want to scan. Blow the dust off and scan frames} If my exposures were correct, minor PS tweaking and I'm good to go!

 

I took the liberty to put inside brackets some of your workflow. If you will subtract, what it left in bolded type is my digital workflow. How yours is "far more practical, easier to deal with, less hassle", I donot comprehend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I took the liberty to put inside brackets some of your workflow. If you will subtract, what it left in bolded type is my digital workflow. How yours is "far more practical, easier to deal with, less hassle", I donot comprehend.

 

That's the point. It is better for ME. It may not work for you, and that is fine. I'm trying to stress the importance of finding what works best for YOU and not worrying about what others do.

Besides, by subtracting parts of my workflow, you change it, so we are now discussing a new workflow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped shooting film professionally (well, 99% anyway) when the kid at the camera store opened my exposed 50 sheet box of 4x5 film to "get the rolls out." It was taped shut and marked "exposed film do not open" in red and black magic marker. Strike one. I had already taken my E6 line out because my wife, the bookkeeper, couldn't stand the smell. Strike two. Then the county wanted me to pay extra fees to dispose of the b&w chemicals. Strike three.

So there was no choice but to go digital. Time saved, quality, ecologically, going digital was the best business decision. But if my time was my own, I'd probably shoot a lot more film.

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Luis D
Tby subtracting parts of my workflow, you change it, so we are now discussing a new workflow.

 

Yes that was the point, what I guess you missed

My workflow omits all the steps "drop it off at the lab in the morning and pick it up in the afternoon. Costs five bucks for developing.

Get home and boot up the light table, have a look at the frames and choose the ones I want to scan. Blow the dust off and scan frames" and goes straight from capture to "If my exposures were correct, minor PS tweaking and I'm good to go!". So I see where you may just prefer to go these extra steps because you love working film and your film cameras, you donot still explain how it is "easier to deal with, less hassle".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes that was the point, what I guess you missed My workflow omits all the steps "drop it off at the lab in the morning and pick it up in the afternoon. Costs five bucks for developing.

Get home and boot up the light table, have a look at the frames and choose the ones I want to scan. Blow the dust off and scan frames" and goes straight from capture to "If my exposures were correct, minor PS tweaking and I'm good to go!". So I see where you may just prefer to go these extra steps because you love working film and your film cameras, you donot still explain how it is "easier to deal with, less hassle".

 

I guess he's talking about the 'look through three-thousand shots, catalog, tag and back-up onto external hard disk, go to Apple Store to buy two more terabyte disks, make coffee, obsessively search all three-thousand images this time looking for dead pixels or sensor dust, decide that Aperture is in fact better than C1, and Lightroom really stinks, but then Lightroom's interface is nicer, take a look at the Leica forum, sort though images again this time looking to see whether IR has contaminated skintone, or maybe these should be black-and-white, decide that what you really need is another lens, or maybe a second M8, realize what you actually need is to go to the Apple Store and buy a third terabyte disk, and..."

 

That part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, or maybe the film opponents are talking about this: get your color film processed only, process black and white yourself. Put everything on a flatbed scanner and scan as low resolution Jpegs, sort through everything, then scan about fifty per cent of the pictures again at a higher resolution and as Tiffs because surely once you see all the detail, the picture won't be quite as boring as it looked at low res. Then you take the five or ten best photos and clean them from dust in Photoshop, at which point you realize that every photo really sucks except for one really good one.

 

The really good one is the one that "photogdave" spotted immediately on the contact sheet that his lab provided, and then had them print beautifully on black and white fiber paper, which cost him very little compared to what some of us (and I am guilty!) spend on the newest digital technology including upgrades etc. Heck, I probably spent more money on UV/Ir filters than I used to spend on a year worth of processing.

 

So I can definitely see both sides here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess he's talking about the 'look through three-thousand shots, catalog, tag and back-up onto external hard disk, go to Apple Store to buy two more terabyte disks, make coffee, obsessively search all three-thousand images this time looking for dead pixels or sensor dust, decide that Aperture is in fact better than C1, and Lightroom really stinks, but then Lightroom's interface is nicer, take a look at the Leica forum, sort though images again this time looking to see whether IR has contaminated skintone, or maybe these should be black-and-white, decide that what you really need is another lens, or maybe a second M8, realize what you actually need is to go to the Apple Store and buy a third terabyte disk, and..."

 

That part.

You nailed it!

To everyone else: once again, I'm not saying my way is better than yours. I'm just saying it works better for ME. It's cheaper for Me. It's less hassle for ME.

ME ME ME ME ME!!!!

Do we understand each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Luis D
I guess he's talking about the 'look through three-thousand shots, catalog, tag and back-up onto external hard disk, go to Apple Store to buy two more terabyte disks, make coffee, obsessively search all three-thousand images this time looking for dead pixels or sensor dust, decide that Aperture is in fact better than C1, and Lightroom really stinks, but then Lightroom's interface is nicer, take a look at the Leica forum, sort though images again this time looking to see whether IR has contaminated skintone, or maybe these should be black-and-white, decide that what you really need is another lens, or maybe a second M8, realize what you actually need is to go to the Apple Store and buy a third terabyte disk, and..."

 

That part.

 

Merely to have a digital camera in the hand does not triggers a compulsion to capture many times more shots for me, or for everyone. Why become a wonton shooter just because donot pay for film? Especially with digital I can review on the spot. If anything, for me it is necessary to shoot more shots with film, because I don't know if I got exactly what I wanted until after development. For other parts of your sermon, such as dust, skintone, b&w conversion, and decision to buy another lens, I donot see what has to do specifically with digital. All can be a problem with film and scanning as well.

 

Don't mistake that I object against shooting film. It should be the artist to choose his medium freely, with no need to defend. What I do object against is the putting of fictional arguments that donot hold reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Luis D
You nailed it!

To everyone else: once again, I'm not saying my way is better than yours. I'm just saying it works better for ME. It's cheaper for Me. It's less hassle for ME.

ME ME ME ME ME!!!!

Do we understand each other?

 

I understand you say "It works better". I donot understand "it's cheaper". If you shoot in any significant volume, and donot upgrade your equipment merely because there is a new model, digital is cheaper. That fact can be disputed (as can any fact) but not disproved. Also I donot understand "it's less hassle" because there are many additional steps and time with film between capture and a digital file (develop and scan).

Share this post


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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...