Going nuts

[PiroStitch]

I must be going nuts, well more so than I already am. Having gone through a number of my photos during the past few months, my preference has been towards the photos captured on film. My immediate rationale to this is that I spent more time composing, visualising and appreciating what I was about to capture on film, not to say that I go on a spray and pray approach when using digital. I have noticed that I do operate more consciously when it comes to film. Is it part of the process of further appreciation for photography, or other somewhat craziness on my behalf?

This isn't a film v digital debate, but would appreciate your own thoughts on this.

[Reschsmooth]

I can't answer for you, but I am confident that I have an internal bias towards the photos I have taken on film (E6 or B&W) compared to similar photos taken on digital. So far, my process with film is purely analogue so I think I invest more of myself in the process than simply uploading photos taken to the computer and doing some post work on them. I also am considerably more deliberate when I capture with film than with digital as I feel I can take one or many shots with digital with little consequence, whereas there is a real cost to every shot on film.

In the end, my feelings upon seeing the roll come out successfully form the tank and then seeing the first contact sheet appear is symptomatic of how I feel about my film photos versus digital.

[surenj]

My immediate rationale to this is that I spent more time composing, visualising and appreciating what I was about to capture on film, not to say that I go on a spray and pray approach when using digital. I have noticed that I do operate more consciously when it comes to film

Wouldn't it be great if one could translate the process of slowing down from film to digital. Afterall, the outcomes should be comparable. This would only apply if the style of photography is compatible with a slower thoughtful approach.

[biggerry]

could translate the process of slowing down from film to digital

i reckon its time for a session with a maximum of 20 shots - thus forcing one to really consider each frame and take the time to prep and execute it. I recall this was quite successful outing on this forum some years ago (before my time)

[Matt. K]

Film images look different to digital. The grain stops the eye from skidding along the surface...it has bite. This slows down the appraisal process and viewers tend to take a little more time studying the image. This 'real world grit' gives the image a little extra authenticity. That's my take on it anyway.

[Reschsmooth]

could translate the process of slowing down from film to digital

i reckon its time for a session with a maximum of 20 shots - thus forcing one to really consider each frame and take the time to prep and execute it. I recall this was quite successful outing on this forum some years ago (before my time)

I think further conditions would be required such as no deletion to arrive at the 20! That is, you have one theoretical roll of 20 shots (why not make it 24!)

[chrisk]

I'm not sure I agree with Matt, I think it's a nice explanation but is it real ? I dunno about that. If you shoot at higher iso's yes I agree, there is something appealing to the eye about film grain; but if you're shooting at 200ish then there is no real grain to speak of. I think it's a combination of placebo effect and I also think piro is onto something cos you do tend to take more care and time shooting film.

About 3 weeks ago I did an engagement shoot and the groom-to-be is a mad photographer. he asked me to shoot a few rolls with his Leica m4 and a summicron 35/1.4. I took my time with the shots and the compositions. The intimidation factor was also gone so people were more relaxed and natural. It was a real effort so alot of the shots turned out to be wonderful. I also think with the rangefinder style adds to your ability to compose cos you can see so clearly the scene in front to you, what's entering the frame before hitting the shutter was awesome. I also adapted to the focusing style very quickly and indeed found pre focussing easier and more fluid than a dslr. Metering was a pain in the butt though, I had to use my d700 to meter and that was far from an enjoyable experience in changing light conditions.

Similarly to most things you have to work for, the end result is all that much sweeter. Even if in a quantative sense, it isn't really that much sweeter at all.

I enjoyed it so much that I have done some cursory searches for an m4 on eBay and at foto riesel. Don't have the courage to pull the 3k trigger though. lol

[Reschsmooth]

I enjoyed it so much that I have done some cursory searches for an m4 on eBay and at foto riesel. Don't have the courage to pull the 3k trigger though. lol

There are other rangefinders that may suit at a lower cost (and the lenses are the real killer):

Nikon S2/S3
Mamiya 7/7II

[biggerry]

could translate the process of slowing down from film to digital

i reckon its time for a session with a maximum of 20 shots - thus forcing one to really consider each frame and take the time to prep and execute it. I recall this was quite successful outing on this forum some years ago (before my time)

I think further conditions would be required such as no deletion to arrive at the 20! That is, you have one theoretical roll of 20 shots (why not make it 24!)

sure, why not 24... and yes of course there are no deletions, thats the whole point 20 (or 24) chances.

[gstark]

could translate the process of slowing down from film to digital

i reckon its time for a session with a maximum of 20 shots - thus forcing one to really consider each frame and take the time to prep and execute it. I recall this was quite successful outing on this forum some years ago (before my time)

I think further conditions would be required such as no deletion to arrive at the 20! That is, you have one theoretical roll of 20 shots (why not make it 24!)

sure, why not 24... and yes of course there are no deletions, thats the whole point 20 (or 24) chances.

And cover the LCD too.

24 frames, no deletions, no chimping.

[PiroStitch]

Interesting and valid points being made. I've reduced the amount of chimping I do, made a mental note of the settings and mentally re-adjust to suit the environment.

@Rooz - I've seen M6s that go for cheaper than what you've seen. Also don't expect anything less than $1k for lenses. Personally I wouldn't touch anything besides a noct, summilux or summicron.

[Matt. K]

Rooz
You might take more care and time framing your image when your'e shooting film....but you are shooting many more frames when you are doin digital....so better hit rate? I don't think it's a compositional, aesthetic difference that we are looking at. I think film has its own unique characteristics and granularity that cannot be yet precisely captured digitally. I have scanned many thousands of B&W and coloured negs in all formats and made digital prints from a cross section of them. Film is organic and analogue...it's dirty and has random imperfections. Scratches, dust, airbells, stains and reticulation. This gives it a look that's hard to emmulate using software. Hard, but not impossible. Traddionally a negative was printed using an enlarger which required the image to passed through an optical system for the second time. Scanning a frame of film also uses further optics. This too can alter the quality of the original image. The number of variables involved with manufacturing film, exposing it, processing it and producing prints from the negative are staggering. I can think of at least 40 off the top of my head. The true number is more likely to be around 80 or 90. This too gives each negative and print its individual signature. Most 20 year olds today have never shot a roll of film. They only know digital photography. I think regardless of the tools we use and the methods we employ....the end product will stand or fall on the consumate skill of the operator, or just plain good luck. But there is sheer pleasure to be had handling fine cameras and optics. I think we have all fallen under the spell of the joy of the magic of photography in one way or another. And once we get hooked in our own individual way we are hooked for life.

[Reschsmooth]

Matt, on the other thread about 1.4 vs 1.8, you said:

Modern digital SLR cameras can shoot at 1600 ISO and give results just as good as 400 ISO film back in those days. Even better.

For the sake of discussion, are you saying that, on the one hand, digital imagery can produce photos that are technically as good (if not better) than film, but on the other, you are saying that film has an aesthetic quality that cannot, as yet, be emulated by digital? If so, I will call you an economist.

That said, I printed a photo of a shot I took from Govett's Leap, I think, printed on FB paper that has a depth, particularly in the shadows, that was just beautiful, if I do say so myself. The only "PP" was choosing grade and burning in one small section. I don't know if I could replicate this with digital.

Which leads me to an EOI in advance of what may be reality - I plan to get a V700 Epson scanner. I propose the following challenge (not competition):

1. I will scan a negative as best I can.
2. I will email the file to whomever wants it on this forum
3. Whomever takes the file can manipulate it as they wish.
4. I will print in the darkroom from the same negative and scan the print (correcting to replicate the physical print).
5. We can then compare and contrast.

This is not designed to be a pissing contest, but a challenge to compare the two technologies.

Who is in?

[chrisk]

There are other rangefinders that may suit at a lower cost (and the lenses are the real killer):

Nikon S2/S3
Mamiya 7/7II

yes, i like the nikon S...the SP is wonderful to look at.

@Rooz - I've seen M6s that go for cheaper than what you've seen. Also don't expect anything less than $1k for lenses. Personally I wouldn't touch anything besides a noct, summilux or summicron.

yeah, ive seen an m4 go for as low as like $1200 but they are not serviced and they look a bit rough. id want the VF very clean and a very very clean body if i were to go the leica route and id suggest they are around the $2200 mark and add another $800 for a basic 50mm lens....$3k. if i wanted the 35/1.4 i think from memory it was around $2500 but i may be wrong.

if i bought a leica id wanna know it was in great shape and working perfectly, i wouldnt wanna be trying to repair one.

Rooz
You might take more care and time framing your image when your'e shooting film....but you are shooting many more frames when you are doin digital....so better hit rate?

very good point.

I don't think it's a compositional, aesthetic difference that we are looking at. I think film has its own unique characteristics and granularity that cannot be yet precisely captured digitally. I have scanned many thousands of B&W and coloured negs in all formats and made digital prints from a cross section of them. Film is organic and analogue...it's dirty and has random imperfections. Scratches, dust, airbells, stains and reticulation. This gives it a look that's hard to emmulate using software. Hard, but not impossible.

i haven't shot film for 10 years apart from a few fleeting experiences with the leica and an f4 so i don't have the recent experience you do with it. but i have seen the results and i guess im not all that fussed with it unless im shooting like an 800 iso film or pushing a 400 film. i dont tend to see that "organic" nature in the prints that you do personally. they may be a bit less refined i suppose, im looking at a couple of shots right now actually to suss it out that i took in 1989 !! in the hunter valley. am also looking at some of my wedding photos which are also film and the regular wedding shots during the day dont look much different to digital. there is some cross processed stuff that looks awesome and some indoor mono that looks great aswell, but the regular portrait outdoor stuff i couldnt tell if it was film or not. your eyes are more astute and can see it i suppose.

Most 20 year olds today have never shot a roll of film. They only know digital photography.

well, i can understand that...why would they want to ? most couldnt afford it anyway. i can only speak for myself but i think in so many ways we are fortunate cos we shot at a time when the cameras were film and the really good cameras were too expensive so we bought crappy old film cameras and got used to sunny 16 cos thats all we COULD do. i remember "upgrading" getting my first eos, i think maybe a eos 500 from memory with matrix metering and an LCD panel and thinking this is as GOOD AS IT GETS ! lol but hey i also drove like a 67 beetle where i controlled the wipers using a piece of rope tied to them and looped thru the quarter panel windows. while i look back at that with fondness, i personally wouldn't want to go back to that thank you very much. lol

But there is sheer pleasure to be had handling fine cameras and optics. I think we have all fallen under the spell of the joy of the magic of photography in one way or another. And once we get hooked in our own individual way we are hooked for life.

absolutely concur which is why i honestly believe that the placebo effect has a large part to play in our interpretation of the results. handling fine pieces ? sure. i loved holding that leica for many reasons. it wasn't as ergonomic or easy to hold as the d700. matter of fact, it didn't do anything as well as the d700. but it sure as hell made me smile ! lol

i think i may end up taking pats advice and looking into an old nikon S and maybe even go back to buying a couple of trays a blackout bag and all the chemicals and really take myself back 25 years....i should stop posting about this now before i spend even more money.

[aim54x]

Which leads me to an EOI in advance of what may be reality - I plan to get a V700 Epson scanner. I propose the following challenge (not competition):

1. I will scan a negative as best I can.
2. I will email the file to whomever wants it on this forum
3. Whomever takes the file can manipulate it as they wish.
4. I will print in the darkroom from the same negative and scan the print (correcting to replicate the physical print).
5. We can then compare and contrast.

This is not designed to be a pissing contest, but a challenge to compare the two technologies.

Who is in?

I would be keen to see this happen.....please make it a straight scan (low contrast with no sharpening/dust reduction). I have been experimenting a bit with different ways to emulate film from digital, and recover the film "feel" from scans.

[Reschsmooth]

i think i may end up taking pats advice and looking into an old nikon S and maybe even go back to buying a couple of trays a blackout bag and all the chemicals and really take myself back 25 years....i should stop posting about this now before i spend even more money.

Come over our place one evening - we can crank up the enlarger, trays and chemicals, a bottle of red and away we go (I am not inviting you on a date, ok - you are a good looking bloke, but I do have standards )

[surenj]

could translate the process of slowing down from film to digital

i reckon its time for a session with a maximum of 20 shots - thus forcing one to really consider each frame and take the time to prep and execute it. I recall this was quite successful outing on this forum some years ago (before my time)

20 or 24 shots I am keen.

[surenj]

Which leads me to an EOI in advance of what may be reality - I plan to get a V700 Epson scanner. I propose the following challenge (not competition):

1. I will scan a negative as best I can.
2. I will email the file to whomever wants it on this forum
3. Whomever takes the file can manipulate it as they wish.
4. I will print in the darkroom from the same negative and scan the print (correcting to replicate the physical print).
5. We can then compare and contrast.

This is not designed to be a pissing contest, but a challenge to compare the two technologies.

Who is in?

I am in. Very excited! it would even be interesting to compare some actual prints.

[biggerry]

Well there is two events to be had here

1) 24 shot Session

2) Film vs Digital (yeah i know its not a competition, but a little friendly competition is always healthy)


I am in for both - lets make them happen.