Harman PHOTO: Calling all film shooters - Film Photographers Survey 2024
-
A
- Thread starter Henning Serger
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy 35mmx100 ft developing spiral
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale Krauss Tessar Zeiss 150mm f/4.5 (France, c1919)
- Started by Manual Camera
-
For Sale For Sale: 35mm ƒ/2.8 Olympus OM Shift Lens - Clean, complete. $200
- Started by Kodachromeguy
-
Want to Buy WTB: Pentax LX for parts, or.
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Voigtlander Helomar 240mm f/3.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
Did it yesterday. Fun survey.
I think #17 is not 100% clear, at least I had to read/think for a bit. 1) fully disagree to 5) fully agree was more logic for me.
I noticed that too. In the comments I specifically said I'd be interested in super 8 and std 8 cine film. Ilford used to do 35mm and 16mm cine film but stopped in the late 90s. As far as I remember they did HP5+ and FP4+.
For 8mm I'd think FP4+ or Delta 100 would be the only options. Phoenix would look a mess due to the grain.
I am always in the market for B&W negative cine film as I can process and scan it at home.
I don't think they've made 8mm since the 1960s.
I know there is a science behind surveying (which I know nothing about), but can you spend a few seconds on which aspects Ricoh/Pentax survey got wrong?
To be extra clear, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion and not contesting your observation. I rarely like filling out surveys (though I enjoyed both, Ricoh's and Harman's, but that's mostly because I care about the topic) and maybe if I understood more about them I might tolerate some if I understood that survey designers put some knowledge and effort into them...
@brbo it's too much to begin to address, and I've already completed the survey so I'd have to pull tricks to get it to open again, so I have to go by memory here. I'll try to summarize my main criticism into a few points:
1: No clear conceptual design underlying the survey. The makers of the survey didn't seem to have a specific expectation of which factors might relate to each other. Surveys are often used to test certain relationships (i.e. how does price influence willingness to buy etc.), but the data resulting from this one won't allow much in the way of explanatory analysis.
2: OK, you might argue that they weren't trying to do anything explanatory, and instead try to explore customer views instead - i.e. emphasis on descriptive statistics. But in this case, the makers didn't seem to have a clear idea of the total spectrum they were trying to cover - there were areas in which pretty common preferences didn't fit well into the survey items, and preferences that were left unexplored entirely. There was also a conspicuous lack of attention for basic demographic factors, which you virtually always want to know in market research (Harman's survey is very brief in this regard, too, but at least touches upon some of the essentials).
3: Lack of use of routing; sometimes, you have certain questions that apply only if someone answered in a particular way on a preceding item. This wasn't used, and instead, they stuck with a half-a$$ed compromise involving poor follow-ups that didn't work for some use cases, and poorly for the cases where they did apply.
4: Most importantly: mixing several constructs into single items, which invariably results in poor data quality. If you ask for two things in the same question (provided this is sensible to begin with, which is usually not the case) and then don't think about the answer categories really thoroughly, you end up with responses that aren't representative.
5: Long lists of answer options that weren't MECE, resulting again in poor data quality as well as annoyance with respondents: try answering questions that have 20 answer categories - how diligently will you do this, especially if you run into several of these in the same survey?)
...and probably some more.
They'll get something from their survey alright, but the quality of the resulting data will be quite poor. Overall it's just very confused, fuzzy and essentially high-school level. Which is OK if you're doing a school project, but doubtful if you're a multi-billion corporation doing market research. In my view, at least.
In all honesty, they did pretty much everything wrong. But hey, sometimes getting it wrong is better than not getting it at all. There's that.
1: No clear conceptual design underlying the survey. The makers of the survey didn't seem to have a specific expectation of which factors might relate to each other. Surveys are often used to test certain relationships (i.e. how does price influence willingness to buy etc.), but the data resulting from this one won't allow much in the way of explanatory analysis.
2: OK, you might argue that they weren't trying to do anything explanatory, and instead try to explore customer views instead - i.e. emphasis on descriptive statistics. But in this case, the makers didn't seem to have a clear idea of the total spectrum they were trying to cover - there were areas in which pretty common preferences didn't fit well into the survey items, and preferences that were left unexplored entirely. There was also a conspicuous lack of attention for basic demographic factors, which you virtually always want to know in market research (Harman's survey is very brief in this regard, too, but at least touches upon some of the essentials).
3: Lack of use of routing; sometimes, you have certain questions that apply only if someone answered in a particular way on a preceding item. This wasn't used, and instead, they stuck with a half-a$$ed compromise involving poor follow-ups that didn't work for some use cases, and poorly for the cases where they did apply.
4: Most importantly: mixing several constructs into single items, which invariably results in poor data quality. If you ask for two things in the same question (provided this is sensible to begin with, which is usually not the case) and then don't think about the answer categories really thoroughly, you end up with responses that aren't representative.
5: Long lists of answer options that weren't MECE, resulting again in poor data quality as well as annoyance with respondents: try answering questions that have 20 answer categories - how diligently will you do this, especially if you run into several of these in the same survey?)
...and probably some more.
They'll get something from their survey alright, but the quality of the resulting data will be quite poor. Overall it's just very confused, fuzzy and essentially high-school level. Which is OK if you're doing a school project, but doubtful if you're a multi-billion corporation doing market research. In my view, at least.
In all honesty, they did pretty much everything wrong. But hey, sometimes getting it wrong is better than not getting it at all. There's that.
Last edited:
As an aside, what are you using to scan?
@koraks, thanks for that!
I remember listening to the debates some of my mates had on this topic when I was at uni and it sounded that much thought had to go into designing surveys, properly. That was some time ago, before internet made surveys much more ubiquitous so at the time I didn't have much chance to recognise underlying principles that were explained to me in practice. And now I try to avoid them as plaque, so thanks again for pointing out that there are, as with all things, indeed good and bad surveys. Even though that intentions behind are mostly good.
I remember listening to the debates some of my mates had on this topic when I was at uni and it sounded that much thought had to go into designing surveys, properly. That was some time ago, before internet made surveys much more ubiquitous so at the time I didn't have much chance to recognise underlying principles that were explained to me in practice. And now I try to avoid them as plaque, so thanks again for pointing out that there are, as with all things, indeed good and bad surveys. Even though that intentions behind are mostly good.
I just use one of those rather generic devices available under multiple brand names from multiple retailers. It's not going to produce results good enough for a film festival but it's nowhere near as bad as some people claim. Given that I'm having fun with film and posting to social media or sending the occasional DVD out to family members it's good enough. Some of my footage is going to be used in a music video, shot on std 8mm Foma Cine Ortho and scanned on my amateur device. And not because it looks crap. But because it looks sufficiently good.
For B&W negative I scan with the device then import into an older version of Vegas editor which I bought some time ago (no pesky subscription and it does everything I need up to 2K and 5.1 sound). I can invert it there, stretch or compress to get the speed right, tweak the brightness and contrast and so on....to produce a decent enough result which can be output in a variety of digital formats. What I can't do is produce something which can be projected traditionally. Though most B&W film can be reversed, it's a rather cumbersome process. With the negative film, I have been known to film an afternoon event and have the resulting movie up on social media that very same evening.
Regarding the Pentax survey, basically everything @koraks says. It's a mess. I don't think they really tested it enough, and it smacks of nobody sitting through the process imagining they're a customer who hasn't seen the survey before. I still completed it as best I could, because I want them to know I'm supporting their endeavours and what I use film cameras for. Ilford/Harman have been doing these surveys for years and are clearly well clued in with the process. I organised a survey regarding a conference for five years in a row and definitely didn't nail it first time around. The biggest help I had was sending out a test version to 10 people who were able to complete it and tell me about any issues.
Thanks, I've wondered about that, actually. People are very harsh in their criticism of quality without being specific.
As for the Pentax survey, they may only be after the answer to one or two of those questions and not really care about the rest. But I agree with the points made by Koraks.
I hope their results are better than the election polls we do here in the US. Actually, I think film selection is better than our politicians.
If you're interested here is a short clip. I didn't even clean the film before scanning and it's been subjected to YouTube's compression but it's a decent idea of what the scanner can do with 8mm film. Foma Cine Ortho 400 so a bit of grain. The main issues with these scanners are that they use lossy compression themselves and save as MP4 with no means of adjusting the quality. And while they photograph each frame separately the MP4 files are created at 20fps. That can lead to frame bleed when slowed down to the correct speed, but honestly the results aren't as bad as some will tell you. And mine doesn't damage the film.
That looks pretty good. Looks like it got the frames accurately. It is a shame that you can't opt to get the output as a stream of individual images, though - that would allow you to do a lot more. But I guess these things are still designed and marketed as a way to get old 8mm & super8 reels digitized, and they figure people just want video files.
Done. Very good survey.
And looking at the questions it seems that Harman has understood the importance and problematic of the film price level for the film renaissance.
And looking at the questions it seems that Harman has understood the importance and problematic of the film price level for the film renaissance.
Done.
Done.
Yes, it's aimed at people with old family films they can't otherwise watch because they don't have a projector or don't know how to use one. It won't bring out all the beauty of Kodachrome but it has a decent try. And the way I use mine these days isn't really how it was intended, B&W negative mostly. But it does the job and the next best product costs 5x more I believe.
It does have framing and exposure controls. But what would lift it to a more serious machine would be an uncompressed mode, or less compressed mode, and as you say an option to save individual frames or to output at user defined frame rate. My films are shot at a variety of frame rates, 12, 16, 18, 24, 25 fps. None is shot at 20fps but that's a common speed to transfer 18fps super 8 film in what were NTSC territories. BTW it does super 8 and regular 8 film. And mine must have had a few hundred hours use as I first used it to transfer the family films I made in the 80s and 90s, then my late grandfather's from the 60s and 70s before concentrating on films I'm making now.
Back to the subject of the Harman survey, I really did think that the questions indicated that they're making a serious effort to discover what every film user wants.
Zrobione, wysłane 
No.18 should have multiple choice options : I started bulk loading AND shoot more expired films
No.18 should have multiple choice options : I started bulk loading AND shoot more expired films
Zrobione, wysłane
No.18 should have multiple choice options : I started bulk loading AND shoot more expired films
I continued bulk loading but found a supply of something very similar to HP5+ under the name of "Exeter Pan" at about half the price. Probably won't last forever but I shall use it while I can.
That wasn't an option LOL.
Done
Done. As a result of my feedback I'm very confident they'll soon be introducing color slide films in 200, 400 and 1600 speed.
Done.
But one point made me really a bit angry:
There is a list of BW film "brands" to say which ones you've used in the last 12 months. There are listed e.g. tiny film repackaging-rebranding companies with no own production at all like Kosmo, JCH, FPP.
But a film manufacturer with meanwhile three own produced products - Film Ferrania - is not listed.
Sorry Harman guys, you should do better.
But one point made me really a bit angry:
There is a list of BW film "brands" to say which ones you've used in the last 12 months. There are listed e.g. tiny film repackaging-rebranding companies with no own production at all like Kosmo, JCH, FPP.
But a film manufacturer with meanwhile three own produced products - Film Ferrania - is not listed.
Sorry Harman guys, you should do better.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |