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

[trondsi]

With all this arguing back and forth, I wonder how many folks here have actually tried a real-world comparison between a film and digital image. I have. I did it several years ago, and I was able to fairly closely construct a setting such that the two could be compared.......

Interesting comparison. I generally agree, BUT I think I have noticed one thing that maybe more die-hard film vs digital testers can confirm; the fact that you can make out the grain in the film does not mean that the scanned image is as good as it gets. Grain behave weirdly, and I sometimes notice details that appear "sharper" than the apparent grain.The interaction between scanner and grain can make the film look more grainy than it is under ideal conditions. I also wonder about lens differences here; is it the same or similar lens? Having said that, I don't think film can compete with quality digital cameras in resolving power at this point. So it is quite possible that you're right (that no sharper scan would have produced any more resolution in this case) but I thought I should point it out. I also agree that the film image has a certain charm lacking in the digital image.

 

[George Mann]

Never shot digital seriously by the way (outside comercial).....and will not shot digital !!!!!

with regards

I have never been happy with digital in any form (audio, video or photo), as it is at best an imperfect artificial facsimile that does not resemble how we actually see and hear things, and at worse, a gross, vile assault on the senses!

I am able tolerate digital video as presented by my high definition computer monitor, but it looks disturbing on nearly every modern tv that I have seen.

I hate the phony sound of digital audio with a passion, and find it very fatiguing to boot.

The image quality of nearly all digital cameras largely deviate from the way that reality looks thru our own eyes. In fact, most of them are so bad that they are highly flawed!

But if I could combine the image characteristics of both the Canon 1DS MKIII, and the Leica M60 into one relatively compact camera (with a stellar 35mm lens), I may find it to be acceptable.

 

[removed account4]

recently i had some photographs up at a gallery
and someone was looking at one of the prints
with a magnifying glass. the people hosting the event
got nervous and contacted me. i had to explain
that the person was a real photographer and
he was admiring not neither the photograph, nor the technique
nor the size of the image, but how many lines per millimeter were in the print
so he could discern if was worth lookng at. the host asked why on earth
someone would do that instead of looking at the photograph ,,, i didn't really have
an answer, but i said this person was a really serious photographer usually the ones
who aren't as serious have their nose to the glass looking at the grain.

 

[faberryman]

...i said this person was a really serious photographer usually the ones who aren't as serious have their nose to the glass looking at the grain.

I generally look at all aspects of a photograph, both the aesthetic and the technical. Does this make me non-serious? I'd hate to learn that is the case after so many decades of doing photography.

 

[tomfrh]

and the technical. Does this make me non-serious?

No, it just makes you honest. You'll notice that most shooters who insist that the technical aspects are irrelevant tend to have pretty sweet gear...

 

[cliveh]

Sometimes, if you are absorbed in photographic technicalities, you can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[cooltouch]

Look at this pls. :
www.petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-film-digital/

Their results with 35mm pretty much correspond to my own findings. I have known for some time that my medium format shots compare very favorably with higher res digital images, which is a big reason why I like shooting with medium format even more than before. And when I'm shooting 35mm in any sort of serious context, I prefer Fuji Provia or Velvia for slides and Kodak Portra for negatives. Actually, I prefer these emulsions for my medium format work also. B&W with medium format, I still like Tri-X.

 

[tomfrh]

Their results with 35mm pretty much correspond to my own findings

Yep, me too.

Their original page is worth reading (the petapixel version is condensed):

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

It has more data and images, and includes interesting quirks of various systems, eg the bayer filter missing single-pixel red objects.

 

[removed account4]

Sometimes, if you are absorbed in photographic technicalities, you can't see the wood for the trees.

i agree cliveh
but i guess different strokes for different folks
some people would rather miss the trees and the woods and be absorbed in technique and afterwards
count how many lines / mm their prints show ... not my cup of tea ..

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
In addition I have strong hope if this shot isn't made by Henry Cartier Bresson wich I did not remember...

The photo is by Henri.

 

[trondsi]

i agree cliveh
but i guess different strokes for different folks
some people would rather miss the trees and the woods and be absorbed in technique and afterwards
count how many lines / mm their prints show ... not my cup of tea ..

It's a bit like painting. Some people care only for the subject matter of the painting, not so much HOW it was painted. Others care ONLY for how it was created (as in 'action painting' or what not), not what it looks like or if it looks like anything at all. Some people enjoy the whole package. Nobody is 'right' or 'wrong' per se.

 

[removed account4]

It's a bit like painting. Some people care only for the subject matter of the painting, not so much HOW it was painted. Others care ONLY for how it was created (as in 'action painting' or what not), not what it looks like or if it looks like anything at all. Some people enjoy the whole package. Nobody is 'right' or 'wrong' per se.

never said anyone was wrong but such an extreme is, kind of extreme ...

 

[paul ron]

Why bother comparing digital to analogue in the first place? We've been over all that so many times.

Why anyone wants to take up shooting film is asking why do people start trying pastels?
Lets hope we get more film users, maybe we can have a comeback of film choices n supplies again with higher demand.

What I really dont get... they are coming out with a 4x5 digital senso for LF... but the file size will be enormous plus the price of this thing can buy you a VERY nice car.
Digiheads have been complaining about storage in clouds n drives giving them problems... ooops there goes years of work!... oh lets not forget to upgrade the media formats too? floppies to HD floppies to CDs to DVDs... etc etc etc. yeah my index card file box storing 4x5 film, is big enough for 35 years.

 

[DREW WILEY]

On our trails on the weekends, people frequently stop and look at my big camera and big wooden tripod and ask if I still do film photography. I politely reply, Is there any other kind?

 

[trendland]

The photo is by Henri.

Well Theo - So my remind wasn't too bad.
with regards

 

[removed account4]

snip snip snip ( sorry paul ron )

Why anyone wants to take up shooting film

.....
not sure why, but seems people are. i was at the last photo store in the region ( brick + mortar chain )
i asked the manager if he had any short date 120 film he said they can't keep it in the store ... and sell 300 rolls a week
( last week's numbers ) he said he hasn't seen anything like it in recent years ..
so getting back to the OP

seems plenty of people are reading this fantastic article and others like it, and the you tube videos blogs, and vidlogs,
and everything else .. and buying cameras wherever they can find them or borrowing them from whomever and sticking FILM in them ...

 

[trendland]

Why bother comparing digital to analogue in the first place? We've been over all that so many times.

Why anyone wants to take up shooting film is asking why do people start trying pastels?
Lets hope we get more film users, maybe we can have a comeback of film choices n supplies again with higher demand.

What I really dont get... they are coming out with a 4x5 digital senso for LF... but the file size will be enormous plus the price of this thing can buy you a VERY nice car.
Digiheads have been complaining about storage in clouds n drives giving them problems... ooops there goes years of work!... oh lets not forget to upgrade the media formats too? floppies to HD floppies to CDs to DVDs... etc etc etc. yeah my index card file box storing 4x5 film, is big enough for 35 years.

It is much more worst Paul. If grandma smith would decide to make me a birthday present with a new phase one bolide at 120Mp - I would not use the stuff from further reasons.
I would soon sell it as "special second hand offering" in unused and new condition.
Looking at the price : > 50.000,- bucks today. But what about of a used one in 4,5 years? Less than 4.500,- bucks from my point. With a terrible expensive sports car you will never louse such money in percentage.
.....but grandma smith will not buy that car as my birtsday present. ....
with regards

 

[OlyMan]

Some of us never stopped. My twin boys turned 16 the other day. I've been taking a photograph of them on their birthday every year. Ever since I took the very first photographs of their two frail little bodies in their hospital incubators at 11 hours old, with pipes sticking out of every orifice.

And what's more each year I've used the same camera.

 

[cooltouch]

And what's more each year I've used the same camera.

Now, that's cool. I still have the same Nikon I used to take the bulk of baby pics of my daughter. But I also tended to use whatever was handy on her birthday. Could have been the Nikon, might have been the wife's EOS Rebel. MIght have even been the Canon AF35ML on occasion when I didn't feel like lugging around an SLR.

 

[cooltouch]

snip snip snip ( sorry paul ron )
.....
not sure why, but seems people are. i was at the last photo store in the region ( brick + mortar chain )
i asked the manager if he had any short date 120 film he said they can't keep it in the store ... and sell 300 rolls a week
( last week's numbers ) he said he hasn't seen anything like it in recent years ..
so getting back to the OP

seems plenty of people are reading this fantastic article and others like it, and the you tube videos blogs, and vidlogs,
and everything else .. and buying cameras wherever they can find them or borrowing them from whomever and sticking FILM in them ...

Great news! I just wish more people around here were converts. Up until about a year ago, Houston (a town whose greater metropolitan area includes some 5 million inhabitants) had two for-real camera shops. Then one of them closed. We're down to just a single real camera shop left. The alternative is to shop for photo gear at Target or Walmart or Best Buy. Good luck finding film at any of those places though. Fortunately Walgreens and CVS still carry a couple of rolls in stock. But our for-real camera shop still has a good selection, fortunately.

 

[removed account4]

Great news! I just wish more people around here were converts. Up until about a year ago, Houston (a town whose greater metropolitan area includes some 5 million inhabitants) had two for-real camera shops. Then one of them closed. We're down to just a single real camera shop left. The alternative is to shop for photo gear at Target or Walmart or Best Buy. Good luck finding film at any of those places though. Fortunately Walgreens and CVS still carry a couple of rolls in stock. But our for-real camera shop still has a good selection, fortunately.

fingers crossed !
maybe the reboot of tmz/p3200 will
convert a few more .. ? i figure
the stuff will be sold though amazon as well as
regular venues just in case a regular shoppe is out of reach ..
i saw 2 RISD students one walking down the street with a MF camera on a tripod
and another wtih a 4x5 camera the other day
was the first film shooters i have seen in months ( maybe a year or 2 ) .. not to mention
i've recently learned of local high school students who received film cameras and
plans of darkrooms in basements .. so who knows ??/
hope its not just a year of the dog thing ( over exuberance / burning candle at both end )
either way the more the merrier ! ( hope processing infrastructure gets ramped up just in case )

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's easy to learn. Just throw away your electronic gadgets. Then it's called Photography, period - no need for a modifier. It's been real ice cream all along. Call the neo method Imitation Ice Cream, just like food labeling laws.

 

[cooltouch]

It's easy to learn. Just throw away your electronic gadgets. Then it's called Photography, period - no need for a modifier. It's been real ice cream all along. Call the neo method Imitation Ice Cream, just like food labeling laws.

Well, I'd give credit where credit's due. Thus I wouldn't call it "imitation." Artificial, yes. Imitation, no.

 

[removed account4]

Just throw away your electronic gadgets

all the electronic gadgets ?

light meters, enlargers, timers, film processors artificial light, modern cameras ( 50s-90s ), modern conveniences ?
some may also suggest shooting color film and chrome film is artificial too, and one should only be exposing black and white..
the wet plate guru in NY state has thrown all his electronic gadgets away ...
where do you draw the line ?

 

[faberryman]

It's easy to learn. Just throw away your electronic gadgets. Then it's called Photography, period - no need for a modifier. It's been real ice cream all along. Call the neo method Imitation Ice Cream, just like food labeling laws.

I agree that it should be just called photography without the modifier. Needlessly adding the film or digital descriptor does nothing to improve the final image. Calling for throwing way "electronic gadgets" also will not improve the final image. My guess is that you have had to plug in your densitometer along the way. Referring to digital as imitation photography only reveals the religion you espouse, not the quality of the images you make.