"Star" is asking :"How to become an analogue photographer"?

faberryman said:

Probably older film users who wanted to make it sound special. I shoot film. I don't shoot analog.

Click to expand...

Not realy - imagine car drivers with E-cars would ask you : "Are you still driving an analogue car " ?
with regards

PS : "Say again pls. - "analogue car" ??
You will not mean my new BMW Sports Car"...
- just imagine such strange conversation to understand the "little" conflict!

tomfrh said:

Is it young people who started with digital who call it "analog"?

Click to expand...

Meanwhile I hear people (especially young peple) calling a face-to-face conversation without technical means "analog"...

trendland said:

Easy maths : 4,5 x 6 has 2,8...x the space of 35mm film. 6x7 has (around) 5,2

Click to expand...

It’s 2.7 and 4.3 respectively.

Assuming 6x7 and your low estimate of 8mp, a 6x7 is equivalent to 34mp, long short of your “minimum of 55”

AgX said:

Meanwhile I hear people (especially young peple) calling a face-to-face conversation without technical means "analog"...

Click to expand...

Never heard that one yet. I hope I never do.

cliveh said:

A film camera combines physics, mechanics, engineering, chemistry, an elementary time machine and magic all in one beautiful tactile instrument.

Click to expand...

Well said, +1
Jens

Shooting with film cameras was never referred to as "analog" until the advent of digital photography. Film photography become known as "analog" only as a means of contrasting it with digital, an intellectually lazy practice. There is little that is inherently "analog" about film. In fact, because film is particulate based -- that is, discrete particles operate in an off-or-on situation -- it shares properties with digital imaging.

Despite the over-usage of the term, a much more appropriate designation for film-based photography is "organic." Organic chemistry is any chemistry which is based on carbon-chain molecules. And many of the chemicals used in film photography meet this definition. So, from now on, I will refer to myself as an Organic photographer and let others figure out what I mean. It shouldn't be too hard.

It is precisely the combination of inorganic and organic chemistry that made photography happen. Silver salts and other light sensitive compounds together with reducing agents and such. Daguerreotypes are purely inorganic imagery besides the fixing salts that may be taken in the organic section. Heliogravure OTOH is based on organic molecules. Since its invention gelatine plays an indispensable role, the organic spongy matrix that holds the inorganic compounds in suspension.

Photochemical is perhaps still the best descriptive.

cooltouch said:

So, from now on, I will refer to myself as an Organic photographer and let others figure out what I mean. It shouldn't be too hard.

Click to expand...

Well, it will certainly be trendy. Will you also be gluten free? Why not be a photographer without the labels.

tomfrh said:

Tech pan maybe. Fine grained normal film 10-20MP, grainy stuff <10MP

Click to expand...

This is only true when scanned. The actual resolution of the positive, and/or negative is much higher!

cooltouch said:

... So, from now on, I will refer to myself as an Organic photographer ...

Click to expand...

Already I can imagine you standing at the entrance to Whole Foods, photographing young couples wearing pesticide-free cotton clothing, sandals, and backpacks.

faberryman said:

Well, it will certainly be trendy. Will you also be gluten free? Why not be a photographer without the labels.

Click to expand...

That is what I prefer actually, but when pushed . . .

Gluten free? Not even.

cooltouch said:

Despite the over-usage of the term, a much more appropriate designation for film-based photography is "organic." Organic chemistry is any chemistry which is based on carbon-chain molecules. And many of the chemicals used in film photography meet this definition. So, from now on, I will refer to myself as an Organic photographer and let others figure out what I mean. It shouldn't be too hard.

Click to expand...

All photographers are ORGANIC photographers, although there are cameras which are motion triggered and do not entail the need for an organic being to operate them
All organic photographers use either digital cameras or chemical processed film cameras.

George Mann said:

This is only true when scanned. The actual resolution of the positive, and/or negative is much higher!

Click to expand...

I am referring to the amount of detail in the negative or transparancy. Actual measurable detail visible under the microscope (as opposed to spurious theoretical numbers). Everyone's who's looked at this over the years tends to arrive at answers between 10 and 20 MP for ordinary fine-grained 35mm.

tomfrh said:

I am referring to the amount of detail in the negative or transparancy. Actual measurable detail visible under the microscope (as opposed to spurious theoretical numbers). Everyone's who's looked at this over the years tends to arrive at answers between 10 and 20 MP for ordinary fine-grained 35mm.

Click to expand...

What you are describing is at best a flawed method of making such a determination!

George Mann said:

What you are describing is at best a flawed method of making such a determination!

Click to expand...

Why do you think measuring the practical resolving power of film is such a poor method? What's your preferred method for determining the amount of detail that film can capture?

tomfrh said:

Why do you think measuring the practical resolving power of film is such a poor method? What's your preferred method for determining the amount of detail that film can capture?

Click to expand...

From my point this is a real good question ! Perhaps the answer is also real good : " Because the practical resolving power is much much dependable from the characteristics of your personal workflow."
And this is no general point of film characteristics. In such issues some often forget : The "practical" result isn't limited from films - it is limited from scanning technique AND from lenses.
So in fact- most given results from practice shows the capability of your scanning machine (and your workflow) .
The reference of films is allways the print via optical enlargement. The look on a computer monitior isn't a comparision.
But it might be a reference for digital.
Nevertheless also with digital the reference should be a real print .
From my point it is allowed to state then
: " An analogue print " to make clear the whole workflow is without digital - So it is Not restricted from digital steps.
with regards

I agree with tomfrh. If one examines the actual strip of film to determine the amount of particles that responded to the light, then this is the most accurate measurement. It might be tedious, but if/when one determines the number of particles per millimeter of film, this should be an accurate determination of film resolution. Particles per millimeter can be converted to line pairs per millimeter (a common term for determining and comparing resolution), which can then, through a simple calculation, determine a given piece of film's MP content.

For example, if a very fine grained film is examined -- one that resolves 100 lppmm, for example -- this corresponds to (24mm x 100lppmm x 2) x (36mm x 100lppmm x 2) = 34.56 mp.

The x2 is necessary to convert from line pairs per mm to lines per mm, or pixels (or dots) per mm.

If one foregoes the conversion to lppmm in the above example, then this means that the pixel (or particle) count must be 200 particles per millimeter. Thus (24mm x 200ppm) x (36mm x 200ppm) = 34.56mp

But let's say one counts "only" 100 particles per millimeter on a film strip, then we're looking at (24mm x 100ppm) x (36mm x 100ppm) = 8.64 mp

So, determining a type of film's resolution is independent of any sort of lens or interpretation. It's just observation, measurement, and math. Obviously a limiting factor in terms of an image's results is the resolution of the lens being used to produce the image. 100lppmm is a very high number for any given lens. Typically the best I've ever seen with lens resolution tests is around 70lppmm. So let's use that number instead of the film's theoretical limit:

(70lppmm x 24mm x 2) x (70lppmm x 36mm x 2) = 16.9344 mp. Which is, if you ask me, a real world number, one that accurately reflects a fine-grained film's working resolution.

cooltouch said:

I agree with tomfrh. If one examines the actual strip of film to determine the amount of particles that responded to the light, then this is the most accurate measurement. It might be tedious, but if/when one determines the number of particles per millimeter of film, this should be an accurate determination of film resolution. Particles per millimeter can be converted to line pairs per millimeter (a common term for determining and comparing resolution), which can then, through a simple calculation, determine a given piece of film's MP content.

For example, if a very fine grained film is examined -- one that resolves 100 lppmm, for example -- this corresponds to (24mm x 100lppmm x 2) x (36mm x 100lppmm x 2) = 34.56 mp.

The x2 is necessary to convert from line pairs per mm to lines per mm, or pixels (or dots) per mm.

If one foregoes the conversion to lppmm in the above example, then this means that the pixel (or particle) count must be 200 particles per millimeter. Thus (24mm x 200ppm) x (36mm x 200ppm) = 34.56mp

But let's say one counts "only" 100 particles per millimeter on a film strip, then we're looking at (24mm x 100ppm) x (36mm x 100ppm) = 8.64 mp

So, determining a type of film's resolution is independent of any sort of lens or interpretation. It's just observation, measurement, and math. Obviously a limiting factor in terms of an image's results is the resolution of the lens being used to produce the image. 100lppmm is a very high number for any given lens. Typically the best I've ever seen with lens resolution tests is around 70lppmm. So let's use that number instead of the film's theoretical limit:

(70lppmm x 24mm x 2) x (70lppmm x 36mm x 2) = 16.9344 mp. Which is, if you ask me, a real world number, one that accurately reflects a fine-grained film's working resolution.

Click to expand...

Fine from your examples. But before some get confused now we should make clear first : to make a determination of a thin black line on white ground you just have to count lp/mm and from your example that means in digital you definitive need the min. of 2 lines of pixel. (one pixel for black/one pixel for white).
So 100lp resolution definitivly is describing 2400 x 3600 x2 = 4800 x 7200 = 34,56MP resolution.
Thats not the fact. It is the contrast of 1:1000 ! So it is just theoretical. Kodak gave with introduction of new Ektachrome films >200lp resolution.
That would give theoreticaly 9600x14400 = 138,24 Mp with 35mm.
And it is objective reachable in Kodak research laborathorys. But you can't reach it with a camera (because a lens can't reach 200lp and you can't have a contrast of 1:1000 in normal pictures.
(in film tests of manufakturers they use a
grid (the lines of resolution tests) with is projected under laboratory condition with the help of special lenses simular to microscop optics of best characteristics)
So it is just a theoretical test standard to
compare different films.
The film in color c41 and E6 and [very special] in bw isn't the limiting factor within your "system of resolution" - it is ALLWAYS the lens wich may limit the theoreticaly power of modern emulsions.
In digital it is (meanwhile) the same - the
digital sensor isn't the first limitation - it is your lens.
BUT IF YOU MIX A FILM WORKFLOW VIA SCANNING THE SCANNER IS THE FIRST LIMITATION. TO COMPARE DIGITAL AND FILM ONTO A SCREEN IS THE NEXT FAILURE WICH LET MANY SAY = 6mp digital looks better than ISO 100 films.
Imagine you would expose data from 60Mp digital onto film and then you look at resolution.
Or imagine you would print datas of different digital cameras for comparison onto normal paper via cheap ink jet machines.
What is the reference you would get.?
It would then nothing say about your camera comparison but it would tell you somethink about the characteristics of you lousy ink jet workflow.
Think about

with regards

PS : Very special is the system resolution between film and lens : IF your lens would reach 120 lp/mm and your film is
(theoretical from 150lp/mm [within lab conditions].. ) your system resolution isn't in the middle of each factor (here this would be 135lp/mm) it is ALLWAYS below the aritmethic mean.
But seriously in 35mm high resolution bw films with special characteristics (700lp/mm WITHIN LABS) in combination with Leica M lenses of modern type gave an extrem high resolution at F 5,6/F8 with tripod.
I've seen such results and I like to compare them with digital cameras of big sensor type.(like Leica S2 system - digital midt format).
But it make no sense to have a scan of this films for comparision.
It make no sense to compare such films with prints of normal optical enlargement (with workflows of normal darkrooms)
You definitive have a need of high tech darkrooms with best "rodenstock"enlarger lenses (the > $3000,- class) at F5,6/F8 AND best experienced darkroom operators.
Then you will get the todays optimum with simple 35mm.
In 120 midt format with such film - film is superior in comparision to 120Mp digital - beliefe me. The same is with 4x5 and higher formats.
But you definitive need a true basis to compare. It make no sense to scan 35mm / 120 films / 4x5 inch with a good epson flat bed scanning maschine.
In such test the result is allways the same : 35mm digital is better than 4x5 bw (delta 100) but imagine : this All says nothing about 4x5 delta100 but everythink about your epson flat bed workflow.

tomfrh said:

Why do you think measuring the practical resolving power of film is such a poor method? What's your preferred method for determining the amount of detail that film can capture?

Click to expand...

Fist of all, I highly agree with trendlands response. I believe that only the highest quality prints can even begin to serve as a legitimate medium for comparing the quantitative properties of film (optical analog print) vs. digital.

Second, I have always argued that the molecular composition of film makes it impractical to judge it's resolution at the molecular level due to it's refractive and granular structure, even using the lines of resolution tests, which fails to tell the whole story.

How I prefer to judge an image is on how realistically it mirrors the actual scene.

Cooltouch,

Yes I very much agree with comparing by observing the information on the film, ie by testing. It’s a fair comparison and doesn’t rely on potentially spurious theoretical assumptions.

in my case I compared by shooting a world map. It was a good reference because it has many different lines and fonts at different scales.

I used the same sharp lens on the film and digital cameras.

I shot at different distances to find the point where the film could resolve the same level of detail as the digital.

I found that my 35mm film (velvia) was equivalent to around 15MP digital sensor in terms of raw resolving power, which is similar to what other people have measured.

George Mann,

We were talking about resolving power, not aesthetic qualities. You said the actual resolution of the negative/positive is much higher than what I said.

I love film, but I don’t understand this game of pretending a 35mm frame can resolve hundreds of megapixels.

The biggest problem with comparing the resolution of these 2 formats is the lack of identical media, which would also have to be capable of each formats full, native resolution, without degradation or artifacts.

Instead of looking at the resolution, how about looking at the picture?

tomfrh said:

George Mann,

We were talking about resolving power, not aesthetic qualities. You said the actual resolution of the negative/positive is much higher than what I said.

Click to expand...

This is my own quantitative preference.

tomfrh said:

I love film, but I don’t understand this game of pretending a 35mm frame an can resolve hundreds of meapixels.

Click to expand...

78mp is the most accurate theoretical limit.

cliveh said:

Instead of looking at the resolution, how about looking at the picture?

Click to expand...

This is how I prefer to compare them!