The comeback?

Frank Dean,  Blacksmith

A
Frank Dean, Blacksmith

  • 4
  • 3
  • 25
Woman wearing shades.

Woman wearing shades.

  • 0
  • 1
  • 35
Curved Wall

A
Curved Wall

  • 5
  • 0
  • 74
Crossing beams

A
Crossing beams

  • 9
  • 1
  • 99
Shadow 2

A
Shadow 2

  • 5
  • 1
  • 69

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,838
Messages
2,781,658
Members
99,724
Latest member
jesse-m
Recent bookmarks
0

George Mann

Member
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
2,846
Location
Denver
Format
35mm
Does not sound or look better to me at all. More convenient, yes. But not at all better quality.

I find that this is only really true when viewing slide film thru a loupe, as the best digital cameras today readily outperform film scans.
 

George Mann

Member
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
2,846
Location
Denver
Format
35mm
I never scan, only print optically to get the best from negative film.

Someday we may have real quality analog printing services at a fair price. Until then, it will remain a luxury few can afford.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
I find that this is only really true when viewing slide film thru a loupe, as the best digital cameras today readily outperform film scans.

i can understand the excitement about looking at chromes, no matter the size, through a loupe
but unfortunately i never look at anything through a loupe ! i like to look at things enlarged or contact printed from a distance ..
and the thing i don't understand ( and believe me i have tried to )
is that i tend to see over and over and over again with photographers big and small, expert and novice
is they spend all their time arguing about how wonderful things look under a loupe or how prints don't look good if you have
your loupe out and you are inspecting every square inch of the 30x40 image or 8x10 or 4x6 ...
images are supposed to be looked at from a certain distance not up close, aren't they?
i don't get the magnifying every square inch thing ... unless that is how you like to look at images
up close and personal... or the point of the image was to demonstrate micro contrast and / or a plethora or lack of grain ...
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,661
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
Other than the "instant" convenience of it, I can't think of one thing it really does better, unless you are obsessed with high ISO performance.
I'm obsessed with high iso performance. D5, 70 to 180 micro nikkor zoom, f 16 1/500th iso 80,000+, close ups of my cats. Amazing.

I can honestly say I've never framed a digital print. I have Cibachrome, a couple RA4 prints, and a bunch of fiber b+w dry mounted prints hanging on the wall.
I need to print a couple and hang them up.
 

CMoore

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
6,220
Location
USA CA
Format
35mm
Gelatin silver prints were considered an alternative process for the massive alternative process photography exhibit at the Lonsdale Gallery at the Photrio Symposium organized by Bob Carnie in Toronto this past summer. Surprising perhaps, but I think it reflects today's reality. Despite the posturing around here, how many members actually have a darkroom and regularly make wet prints.
I have a darkroom, and if i want a picture made from my Negs, it is silver gelatin, usually 8x10, that i make with my Beseler Enlarger.
For the life of me, i cannot understand why people would shoot film, and then go digital from that point on.
Why not just shoot digital.?
The cameras of today are awesome tools. I am completely envious of Friends that use a Digital SLR, they can damn near shoot in the dark.
But for me, The Whole Point of shooting film is BECAUSE i can then use my darkroom. There is no digital equivalent of the red light darkroom with its enlarger and chemicals. The "slow", hands-on experience of a darkroom has no comparison in the digital world.
On the other hand.....THAT is exactly what a lot of people "hate" about the whole film thing.
I have no doubt that most photographers are smarter and happier to shoot digital. Film is definitely not for everybody.
It has nothing to do with anything being "better".....it just a matter of enjoying one process more than another. They are two different things.

Just to confirm my point of view......i am speaking as an Amateur/Hobbyist, not a professional.
I understand that some pros still DO use film, of course. I am simply admitting that i completely understand WHY a Professional/Commercial photographer might be "Digital Centric" at this point.
 
Last edited:

Berkeley Mike

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
651
Location
SF Bay Area
Format
Digital
I have a darkroom, and if i want a picture made from my Negs, it is silver gelatin, usually 8x10, that i make with my Beseler Enlarger.
But for me, The Whole Point of shooting film is BECAUSE i can then use my darkroom.
Film is definitely not for everybody.
It has nothing to do with anything being "better".....it just a matter of enjoying one process more than another. They are two different things.

Pardon the editing. I am a commercial photographer and teacher. Having my own darkroom (1979) changed photography for me. Working in darkrooms as a professional for myself and many others (1982-1993) changed photography for me. Using BW labs for my prints (1994-1999) changed photography for me. By the time I got to that point I started to shoot digitally which changed photography for me. I gained back so much time and spent so much less money: time/money/quality.

Darkroom processing is slow and sucks up time but, that said, the way we process our thoughts and emotions also takes time. That may be one of the reasons some shooters like the darkroom process. However film shooters often cannot see past the speed/convenience of digital process is if it were mandatory. Key is understanding how to use tools and when.

For most of my commercial work my Lightroom processing can be pretty brisk, a function of accumulated experience and some pretty pat definitions of what works commercially. However, for the more personal work one must rein-in that speed and convenience of digital process and allow the internal thought process to move along. This means mid-process snap-shots, shutting the computer off and walking away to look at the image later, reshooting, all sorts of devices to develop the vision.
 

RPC

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
1,628
Format
Multi Format
I'll stick to darkroom work and wet prints. I will never wrap my head around using a medium that produces images with algorithms and software manipulation in-camera and out. No aspect of it has changed photography for me, even its convenience. Film is slower but the quality level is worth it. Even with a basic darkroom setup one can manage to develop film and make prints in a timely fashion and no time is spent having to manipulate with a computer. As such, I see digital as being an "alternative process" to film, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:

Berkeley Mike

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
651
Location
SF Bay Area
Format
Digital
So you are sold on the mechanics of the film process: relative densities of silver shaped by specifically managing light during capture and some pretty general manipulation of light through dodging/burning, specific and general temperature and chemical values and paper varieties. Going back into my files I have some pretty elaborate dodging and burning masks that look for all the world like cucoloris; what a nightmare.

Left behind were glass negs, and silver/pewter plates as superior methods were introduced. The hue and cry of users of those "arcane" media parallels today's from film users. Statistically, as late as 2002 with a billion rolls used, 98% of film was utilized by the general population and most of that was C-41. The ramp-up from computers to digital cameras and camera phones, by that 98% of shooters, gutted film use. As such, film is, statistically, an alternative process; an artifact of the evolution of photography. Film folk do not want to hear that.

I have an Instructor in my department that has been teaching film for 45 years at the school. The number of sections of his basic film class have gone from 5 in 2009 to 1 in Spring 2019. Yet he will not believe that film is not central to photography even though he cannot fill classes. I have another Brookie who had his own BW lab in Oakland which suffered the typical demise as digital capture gained prevalence. He teaches two Pro classes, ANY WAY HE WANTS!!!, but uses no film in any assignments and no one uses film. Yet he will not believe that film is not central to photography even though he teaches Pro without it!

That is a pretty weird system of denial. I point that out and I am the department film-killer. Don't shoot the messenger.
 

faberryman

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
6,048
Location
Wherever
Format
Multi Format
Film and gelatin silver printing is now an alternate process. I have no problem with people practicing that craft. I do it myself, along with other hybrid and digital processes. What I don't get is shooting film, having someone else process and scan it, putting it up on Instagram, and making claims as to authenticity.
 
Last edited:

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,042
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
I have an Instructor in my department that has been teaching film for 45 years at the school. The number of sections of his basic film class have gone from 5 in 2009 to 1 in Spring 2019. Yet he will not believe that film is not central to photography even though he cannot fill classes.

So you have an educator that started teaching film photography when Nixon was president, has served students for his entire career, and he actually thinks his work is important even though he teaches fewer students? Well color me surprised. :laugh:

Film is important to those that appreciate it. So is digital. I think that the one section the old timer still teaches is filled with students that are lucky to have a teacher that thinks what he has to offer is still relevant. I don't think a credible argument can be made that mastering film technique should be a requirement for students simply because companies aren't making film cameras anymore and the world values speed that film can't provide. But dipping your toes in the friendly waters of film photography certainly can't hurt a student, and will very likely help.
 

Berkeley Mike

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
651
Location
SF Bay Area
Format
Digital
Imagine viewing a shot made with Adox CMS20 II on that thing!
The proper viewing distance for that 20x24 Polaroid is abut 7 feet. The closer you get the more of the "technological limits" we see. It is unlikely that we would see much difference in acuity. Certainly, we might see styles of tonal range, dynamics and such but not sure what else to expect; we can't see such a difference in "grain/pixels" at a proper viewing distance.

Now, just like the pixel-peepers we might sashay up to the print with a loupe and marvel at what we see but then you are no longer appreciating the photography but the technology. May as well sift through a sample of tile colors with our hands to appreciate a mosaic.
 

RPC

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
1,628
Format
Multi Format
So you are sold on the mechanics of the film process: relative densities of silver shaped by specifically managing light during capture and some pretty general manipulation of light through dodging/burning, specific and general temperature and chemical values and paper varieties. Going back into my files I have some pretty elaborate dodging and burning masks that look for all the world like cucoloris; what a nightmare.

Left behind were glass negs, and silver/pewter plates as superior methods were introduced. The hue and cry of users of those "arcane" media parallels today's from film users. Statistically, as late as 2002 with a billion rolls used, 98% of film was utilized by the general population and most of that was C-41. The ramp-up from computers to digital cameras and camera phones, by that 98% of shooters, gutted film use. As such, film is, statistically, an alternative process; an artifact of the evolution of photography. Film folk do not want to hear that.

I have an Instructor in my department that has been teaching film for 45 years at the school. The number of sections of his basic film class have gone from 5 in 2009 to 1 in Spring 2019. Yet he will not believe that film is not central to photography even though he cannot fill classes. I have another Brookie who had his own BW lab in Oakland which suffered the typical demise as digital capture gained prevalence. He teaches two Pro classes, ANY WAY HE WANTS!!!, but uses no film in any assignments and no one uses film. Yet he will not believe that film is not central to photography even though he teaches Pro without it!

That is a pretty weird system of denial. I point that out and I am the department film-killer. Don't shoot the messenger.

I base my view on my own darkroom work and knowledge of how digital images are produced and 18 years of experience as a color corrector of both film and later digital images in a lab that convinced me that qualitywise there was absolutely no advantage of digital over film other than its quickness. This was after seeing thousands of both film and digital images. In fact the eventual dominance of digital caused nothing but problems for color correctors. The main cause was due to limited dynamic range requiring white balance and exposure and other settings to be pretty much right-on to prevent degradation unlike negative film. Film was very consistent in color balance and exposure, digital was all over the place. Yes, you can avoid this by working in RAW and appropriate software but then there goes your convenience over film. Our lab received images from hundreds of photographers considered pros but the problems were always consistent. The dodging and burning occasionally needed for printing in darkroom work (which I rarely have to do with film) has an equivalent need in digital. No advantage of digital there over film. As many know, It is actually far easier to lose highlights in a digital file if overexposed than film.

Film photography is the oldest medium, and tried and true compared to digital which still has problems that must be overcome to assure consistent, quality images compared to film. I have seen it with my own eyes over and over. That is why digital to me is the alternative process, not film, despite its convenience and use.
 
Last edited:

markjwyatt

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
2,417
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Film and gelatin silver printing is now an alternate process. I have no problem with people practicing that craft. I do it myself, along with other hybrid and digital processes. What I don't get is shooting film, having someone else process and scan it, putting it up on Instagram, and making claims as to authenticity.

If you process and scan it yourself and put it on Instagram is it authentic [film photography]?
 

Berkeley Mike

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
651
Location
SF Bay Area
Format
Digital
I base my view on my own darkroom work and knowledge of how digital images are produced and 18 years of experience as a color corrector of both film and later digital images in a lab that convinced me that qualitywise there was absolutely no advantage of digital over film other than its quickness.

Film photography is the oldest medium, and tried and true compared to digital which still has problems that must be overcome to assure consistent, quality images compared to film. I have seen it with my own eyes over and over. That is why digital to me is the alternative process, not film, despite its convenience and use.
I appreciate your years of practice; this kind of anecdotal data evolves into a solid base of information. I have a similar experience in other venues and it is hard to deny one's accumulated experience. However, given the pool of shooters and their proportions regardless of how you feel about it, film is an alternative process.

By analogy, land lines and Princess phones, "tried and true compared to digital which still has problems that must be overcome to assure consistent quality" (can you hear me now?) are alternative methods of phone communication.

Like I indicated, film folk resist this definition even as their numbers dwindle.
 

faberryman

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
6,048
Location
Wherever
Format
Multi Format
Yes, you can avoid this by working in RAW and appropriate software but then there goes your convenience over film.
Of course you can avoid all this by shooting RAW. Why any serious photographer would rely on jpegs is beyond me. I doubt many do.
 

RPC

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
1,628
Format
Multi Format
I prefer land lines as they are always better sound quality than mobile phones, which sometimes have pretty poor sound.
 

RPC

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
1,628
Format
Multi Format
Of course you can avoid all this by shooting RAW. Why any serious photographer would rely on jpegs is beyond me. I doubt many do.

All the images we got at the lab were jpegs. Consumers and snapshooters use jpegs, even many pros. It is very commonly shot format and that's where the convenience in digital really lies. As I pointed out earlier you can shoot and work in RAW but you lose convenience, but if you don't you can lose quality. I doubt if many digital shooters here at Photrio shoot and work with RAW before conversion.
 
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:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom