Why ℗ Analogue Film in a digital Age?

cliveh · Aug 10, 2014

Maris said:
I've done the mathematics and can confirm that film is heavier after exposure. The increase in weight comes entirely from the subject matter. That's why cameras are made light-tight except (obviously) for the lens. The increase in weight absolutely confirms the physical link between subject and photograph.

For the record the increase in weight of an 8x10 sheet of medium speed film receiving a middling exposure is of the order of 10^-23 kilograms...in words "ten to the minus 23 kilograms". Do the calculation yourself. Check my numbers.

10^-23 kg is a very small mass but it it incomparably greater than zero. For those who doubt that such a small mass can have an perceptible effect I propose the following experiment. Instead of film place your eye at the focal plane of a camera, look at the back of the lens, and make an exposure. Did you see anything? Yes, of course! Ten to the minus 23 kilograms is not a lot of mass but it has impact because it arrives with a muzzle velocity of 300 000 kilometres a second!

Maris, can you quote an approximate % in weight gain of film after exposure and can this technique be used to way a human soul after death?

Maris · Aug 10, 2014

cliveh said:
Maris, can you quote an approximate % in weight gain of film after exposure and can this technique be used to way a human soul after death?

Ah, too easy. How about a friendly challenge? I've calculated the percentage. Now you calculate it. Lets compare numbers further along in this curious thread. As for the weighing of souls check out the research of Dr.Duncan MacDougall. May be be a bit off-topic for APUG.

markbarendt · Aug 10, 2014

Been a fun day, spent it in and out of the darkroom trying to sort out a color float issue with some RA4 prints. I succeeded. Took about 8 runs to figure out, solve, and prove the fix but I'm back to reliability.

Part of the joy I find in analog photography is sorting out problems in processes I can touch, where my fingers (well my gloves) get wet.

peter k. · Aug 10, 2014

When a film exposure happens the film heats up, it expands, chemical changes occur, the camera rocks back (very) slightly, and so on. Unravelling the energy budget is not trivially easy. When everything comes back to a steady state the silver halide crystals in the film have become "bent" or "wound up". They are carrying chemical potential energy which is subsequently released by development when the silver halide crystals break down into metallic silver and halide ions. Unexposed silver halide crystals haven't been "wound up", they don't carry the critical chemical potential energy, and they won't develop.[/QUOTE]

Awesome and 'Olly enchilada, .. I have a new respect .. next shot I take with my 4x5, I will gently pat it on its back.. and say thank you.. for not going off, now please explode into a beautiful picture. ;-)

Thanks for the poetic description.. and explanation of the cause and effect. It's great!

pbromaghin · Aug 11, 2014

A light wave and a light particle walked into a bar. The wave turned to the particle and said, "Which one of us am I?"

cliveh · Aug 11, 2014

The barman says 'we dont serve Neutrinos', a Neutrino walks into a bar.

Ko.Fe. · Aug 12, 2014

F5B&W said:
Hi. I am trying to understand myself better on a sleepless night. I have two wonderful Nikons, among others, a D700 and a F5. Also. a Rolliecord V. In this day and age of digital I ampulled to keep my bulk loaders full of FP4 and HP5.

I don't understand my reluctance to embrace digital. Has anyone had a similar experience

L

I also keep thinking about. One "think" just came to my mind.
Here is almost nothing wrong with film. But a lot of things went and going wrong on 0_1 side. Just look what crap, sorry, crop they call as digital MF.

Rtcjr · Aug 12, 2014

Isn't it just very satisfying, if not cool, to take high quality photos with gear that is - in my case - completely void of electrical dependency (except for my light meter). What a great feeling of being in the moment when I am working with a manual system and knowing it is on me to get it right. I was in Yosemite last year, my first big trip using film and I underestimated that feeling. All that travel and expense, scouting locations and timing the light, get it right! This is such a great added benefit to shooting film, for me it enhances the experience.

One day we were walking the valley floor, checking out the shops. My wife had the dslr with her, I took a few shots. That feeling, the nerves of getting it right, just not there. 4GB of space to get it right and I can't excited about that.

Theo Sulphate · Aug 13, 2014

The degree of involvement is part of the satisfaction. When you've made a good photo and know that you yourself selected the shutter speed, aperture, focus, and composition, you can be proud of that. If you've made a mistake, at least you know what you've done wrong and there's still satisfaction knowing that, flawed as it may be, the result is your work alone.

It's similar to a manual transmission and an automatic. Sure, the high-tech automatics today can shift in a few milliseconds and blip the throttle on a downshift, but the driver involvement and sense of accomplishment is zero compared to doing it well yourself and understanding what you're doing. There's more flexibility, too. I have sports cars ranging from 1984, with no automation at all (e.g. no stability control) to 2008, with all sorts of computers for keeping you safe. I definitely prefer knowing I made it around a tight corner at high speed without going off and that it was due to my skill, not the traction control. If I screw up, I accept that, too.

I know these distinctions aren't exclusive to analog photography; similar satisfaction exists with digital as well - possibly in a different way. But I think there's a line where things become too easy, personal involvement is less, and satisfaction is less. I don't know where to draw that line.

removed-user-1 · Aug 13, 2014

Just jumping in here without having read this entire thread. This might have already been mentioned.

I teach digital photography, and I do use DSLR cameras from time to time. Every semester I have students who ask me why I still use film as well as digital, so I've given this subject some thought. I have various "soft" reasons for using film, such as "I really like Rodinal" or "Nothing else looks like than a fine silver gelatin print." But the real reason is much more practical, and it paid me a visit this summer.

Hard drives crash.

Yes, I know, make backups, I usually do. Yes, I know, there is data recovery software (what a pain! but it did help). So, I had a massive hard drive failure this May and lost perhaps 20% of ten years' worth of digital work. Meanwhile I still have the first negatives I ever shot, made way back in 1981 or so.

To me, this is a dead-serious argument for shooting film, and simply scanning it if a digital file is needed.

Bill Burk · Aug 16, 2014

I was in front of a Red Scarlet yesterday and found myself speechless... I tried my usual banter... you know... "It's not about the resolution, it's about"... Anyway I was being interviewed and had lots of speech problems. I'm too shy for this kind of thing.

But I was able to think clearly enough to wonder when I left, you know the cheapest film cameras are capable of amazing artistic results...

Do they say the same thing about the cheapest digital cameras?

Bill Burk · Aug 16, 2014

Bill Burk said:
I was in front of a Red Scarlet yesterday...

p.s. I did a slide show using my old Kodak Carousel 550 projector. I was amused when one of the tech's asked the other... "Is the camera running?" because my fan sounded like the Red's (the Red fan runs when the camera is idle).

jovo · Aug 16, 2014

One reason I resist digital is the way the industry has 'sold' itself. If I had bought the hype for the Nikon D1, I'd have had to replace it a few years later with the next generation's improvements, and then the next and so on. Meanwhile, the photographs I would have made would be lacking because the equipment was lacking. Now a 16mp camera is within reach (just barely), and I know a 24mp model will follow that etc. However, every frame of film I've exposed with my LF and MF cameras are equal in quality over the years I've been using them. And, as has been said on this thread already, I have immediate access to those negatives plus negatives my father shot in the 1940s. In 75 years, will any digital files that haven't been constantly resaved on whatever new platforms come along also be easily available? I don't think so.

markbarendt · Aug 16, 2014

jovo said:
One reason I resist digital is the way the industry has 'sold' itself. If I had bought the hype for the Nikon D1, I'd have had to replace it a few years later with the next generation's improvements, and then the next and so on. Meanwhile, the photographs I would have made would be lacking because the equipment was lacking. Now a 16mp camera is within reach (just barely), and I know a 24mp model will follow that etc. However, every frame of film I've exposed with my LF and MF cameras are equal in quality over the years I've been using them. And, as has been said on this thread already, I have immediate access to those negatives plus negatives my father shot in the 1940s. In 75 years, will any digital files that haven't been constantly resaved on whatever new platforms come along also be easily available? I don't think so.

Great points.

The digital business model is like buying a subscription rather than owning a set of tools.

ME Super · Aug 16, 2014

rthomas said:
But the real reason is much more practical, and it paid me a visit this summer.

Hard drives crash.

Yes, I know, make backups, I usually do. Yes, I know, there is data recovery software (what a pain! but it did help). So, I had a massive hard drive failure this May and lost perhaps 20% of ten years' worth of digital work. Meanwhile I still have the first negatives I ever shot, made way back in 1981 or so.

To me, this is a dead-serious argument for shooting film, and simply scanning it if a digital file is needed.

You get no argument from me on that account. But backups are surprisingly simple to automate. I probably made my backup solution more complicated than I needed to, but I had some hardware just sitting there doing nothing so decided to put it to use. All you need for onsite backup is a hard drive and some software. My hard drive is a 2TB drive with its own power supply that I hooked up to my raspberry Pi (this is my unused hardware and its so low power (it pulls about 3 watts) it won't run the hard drive unless the hard drive has its own power supply - if you have only 1 computer or don't mind leaving it on all the time you don't need the Pi). I paid about a hundred bucks for the hard drive. For backups I use Syncback Free, which cost me nothing. Aside from the initial configuration, my onsite backups of my data are completely automated, as they also are for the kids' computers.

For me, it's about presentation. Slides, protected on a wall or a screen, look better than a digital photo on a TV or computer screen.

pbromaghin · Aug 16, 2014

markbarendt said:
Great points.

The digital business model is like buying a subscription rather than owning a set of tools.

Ooooh. Very, very good.

Two23 · Aug 17, 2014

I quit using film in 2005, but then started shooting 4x5 again in 2011. I now own & use a Leica, Rolleiflex, several 6x9 folders, and some box cameras. Still shooting the 4x5, mostly with 100-170 yr. old lenses. I almost only use b&w film. I don't know, I sort of got tired of the "digital look" to everything I did, and I really love the feel of the old (pre WW2) cameras and the look of the uncoated lenses. Everyone is running around with a digital camera now. I like to be a little different.

Kent in SD

F5B&W · Mar 6, 2015

I think I've figured it out. Analogue is able to capture fractional values - the greys of a greyscale. The waves of a sound. No matter if the value results in a binary 1 or 0. It's the fractional value, the gradation, the imperfection that I seek in order to create a photograph or a piece of music.

My human senses weren't made for binary rationality. Eyes and ears are made to sense and decipher irrational sounds and sights using our reasoning abilities to place rational understanding on irrational light and sound. Digital, by its form and elimination of the subtle, "flattens" the image and reduces the available subtleties to the senses.

At least that's my less than scientific insight. I can't wait to work with HP5 some more!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ken Nadvornick · Mar 7, 2015

F5B&W said:
Digital, by its form and elimination of the subtle, "flattens" the image and reduces the available subtleties to the senses.

That's because the 1s and 0s are only symbolic replacements substituting for real world values and behaviors. Using them as such attempts to simulate—to abstract—the real world. At least for the subset of real world qualities and depth of their abstraction that the individuals creating the simulation deem important.

The problem arises when their definition of what is important is not the same as your definition of what is important. At that point the simulation fails for you.

Ken

F5B&W · Mar 7, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
That's because the 1s and 0s are only symbolic replacements substituting for real world values and behaviors. Using them as such attempts to simulateto abstractthe real world. At least for the subset of real world qualities and depth of their abstraction that the individuals creating the simulation deem important.

The problem arises when their definition of what is important is not the same as your definition of what is important. At that point the simulation fails for you.

Ken

Exactly!

Sirius Glass · Mar 7, 2015

F5B&W said:
Hi. I am trying to understand myself better on a sleepless night. I have two wonderful Nikons, among others, a D700 and a F5. Also. a Rolliecord V. In this day and age of digital I ampulled to keep my bulk loaders full of FP4 and HP5.

I don't understand my reluctance to embrace digital. Has anyone had a similar experience

In a word?

No

removed account4 · Mar 7, 2015

threads like this are just wonderful ..
bashing digital, and putting analog / analogue / chemical based photography
in world of its own .. but they are pretty much the same exact thing, to 99.999% of the people who use them.

plenty of peopel chimp with film based-stuff, plenty of sloppy uninteresting imagery too ...

thaters gonna hate ...

pdeeh · Mar 7, 2015

Necro thread anyway. Hard to see why anyone bothered to reanimate it

removed account4 · Mar 7, 2015

pdeeh said:
Necro thread anyway. Hard to see why anyone bothered to reanimate it

yep .. the OP raised it to the top of the tower during an electrical storm
and said " GIVE MY CREATION LIFE !!"

[video=youtube;W8GRQHsAVjI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GRQHsAVjI[/video]

RalphLambrecht · Mar 7, 2015

F5B&W said:
Hi. I am trying to understand myself better on a sleepless night. I have two wonderful Nikons, among others, a D700 and a F5. Also. a Rolliecord V. In this day and age of digital I ampulled to keep my bulk loaders full of FP4 and HP5.

I don't understand my reluctance to embrace digital. Has anyone had a similar experience

L

Yes, I had a bvery hard time to move over to digital and I still like film, because of the hands-on component and I just like it as a craft.Nevertheless, digital has some advantages.So, now ,I do both;my tool box just got bigger;why limit oneself?They are just tools f creativity.I'm sure Rembrandt had more than one brush too.

Why ℗ Analogue Film in a digital Age?

removed-user-1

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency