Why shoot analogue colour photos?

[RezaLoghme]

Great pic, and I for one am not really interested which camera (film/digital, paper, developer lotion) was used, but much more in the person and context of the photo.

 

[koraks]

example

If I had watched that movie without knowing it was shot on 70mm film, I wouldn't have guessed. I also doubt I would have felt very differently about the movie.

To me, it matters if a movie is shot in film. I appreciate it if it is. But if I'm honest, I couldn't tell reliably if I wouldn't know, and the appreciation is not based on some objective image characteristic, but my personal emotional response to/kinship with a film-based approach. If I were a little more cynical (still) than I am, I'd call it a 'delusion'.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Fuji RA4 paper is exclusively made in Europe. Only a few niche products like Flex are made in Japan, but these constitute a vanishingly small segment of the already small RA4 market.

Thanks, I didn't realise that - I switched to digital printing a long while ago now.

 

[gary mulder]

If I had watched that movie without knowing it was shot on 70mm film, I wouldn't have guessed. I also doubt I would have felt very differently about the movie.

To me, it matters if a movie is shot in film. I appreciate it if it is. But if I'm honest, I couldn't tell reliably if I wouldn't know, and the appreciation is not based on some objective image characteristic, but my personal emotional response to/kinship with a film-based approach. If I were a little more cynical (still) than I am, I'd call it a 'delusion'.

As I already stated. I’m going to be corrected for this remark.

 

[koraks]

I'm not correcting you on the technical aspect of it. I'm just not in a position to do so. The reflection I offer refers to a different dimension of the construct of film appreciation. It touches closely to what @ChrisGalway remarked earlier today. I could expand on it by arguing that bragging rights accrue from the use of film, through the logic of appreciation of craftsmanship. I think for some of us, this counts. I also think some of us for who this counts, do not (yet) call a spade a spade and attempt to defend their preference on the basis of seemingly hard & fast image quality rationales - which I can sort of imagine, but it's odd if you think about it. My preference for film is mostly a romantic appreciation of getting one's hands dirty & wet, of knowing you can fail and that it'll be too late to fix it by the time you know if the failure has materialized, of those who do things in a difficult way while a more straightforward way is available. It's illogical, counter-intuitive and irrational. But then again, if we apply all this to art, it's not so weird at all.

 

[brbo]

I’m going to be corrected for this remark. But the sharp-unsharp rendering is different with a large sensor.

What's a sharp-unsharp rendering?

 

[ChrisGalway]

example

 

[ChrisGalway]

If you are referring to the background blur, that's due to the longer focal length that goes with sensor size for a fixed field of view.

 

[koraks]

Thanks, I didn't realise that - I switched to digital printing a long while ago now.

When we talk about RA4 paper, we talk about digital printing for the most part.

If you are referring to the background blur

I'm pretty sure the argument @gary mulder makes about the impression of large format doesn't allow itself to be compressed into a single, simple parameter like depth of field. Although it undoubtedly comes into play. I say that on the basis of having talked about this with him several times, having looked at examples together and my attempts (1) to translate a subtle impression into more objective terms and (2) to determine at least for myself if the effect is consistently there/recognizable. I can only say that I've not made a whole lot of progress on either front, hence my post #255 in which I want to clearly express that I do not contest his statement for the simple reason that I feel I cannot.

 

[ChrisGalway]

When we talk about RA4 paper, we talk about digital printing for the most part.



I'm pretty sure the argument @gary mulder makes about the impression of large format doesn't allow itself to be compressed into a single, simple parameter like depth of field. .....

Agreed, I was not sure what was meant by "sharp-unsharp".

I would love to see Oppenheimer in a proper (film) iMax cinema ... I'm 100% sure that there's more to the look than depth of field!

 

[Prest_400]

For the Motion Picture discussion, there are productions following a film intermediate just to capture some its characteristics.
Most notably Dune. Part 3 will be shot on film.

Dune: Why go from digital to film, and back to digital again?

If you've caught it on streaming services recently, you may have heard that the latest adaptation of Frank Herbert's magnificent Dune was shot digitally on an Arri Alexa LF then transferred to 35mm film before being scanned back to digital again. If you also wondered 'why?' read on...

www.redsharknews.com

 

[koraks]

I would love to see Oppenheimer in a proper (film) iMax cinema

Certainly; I only had the opportunity to watch it in 1080 here at home on my 15+ year old TV. Between screen size, resolution and digital compression, plenty of opportunity for the large format spirit to get completely MIA.

 

[RezaLoghme]

To stay on topic, I cannot remember any details about screen size, DoF or colour palette of the movies that impressed me most. But I remember why they impressed me.

And when talking about legendary photographs - when is a photograph an "original"? Since it is a reproductive art anyway, every print is a variation of something, yes if HBC had only one copy of the puddle jumper printed and then destroyed the negative, ok.

But I would guess that the vast majority of photos are being looked at via some chain of reproduction. Or am I wrong? Even the coffee-table books of old are showing reproductions of photos taken and enlarged by someone else before.

 

[dcy]

OK, I see what you mean, but in my mind this discussion is about still photography.

I was responding to a comment specifically to this comment --- "You think Spielberg fiddles in the darkroom and then goes on some internet forum to debate the pros and cons of Rodinol?"

That's why Spielberg's workflow was in my mind.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I think you got the difference between a Spielberg doing as he pleases, and a hobbyist in the makeshift darkroom of his 3 bedroom house.

 

[gary mulder]

If you are referring to the background blur, that's due to the longer focal length that goes with sensor size for a fixed field of view.

If you look at the example then you can see that the eyes of the actor are slightly out of focus / blurred. In my opinion that emphasises that the actors eyes are wet almost to the point that he is crying. This is the technical property of the large film size used for the artistic purpose. I think that is affect can also be had with a large sensor digital film camera. But the camera man in this case is more familiar with what the outcome will be with the camera and film he is used working with. This shot is not some thing of beginners luck. And maybe a large sensor digital film camera does not exist or is more expensive than using film.

 

[Wayne]

Only on Photrio can a discussion of film in a supposedly analog forum so quickly become a bunch of digital babble

 

[gary mulder]

I suppose that crying man are not everybody's cup of tea. Maybe thats way it is rapt-up this way in the example. So that it is not that explicit that the main public is offended.

 

[koraks]

I was responding to a comment specifically to this comment --- "You think Spielberg fiddles in the darkroom and then goes on some internet forum to debate the pros and cons of Rodinol?"

That's why Spielberg's workflow was in my mind.

I understand; sorry, I missed that particular comment. IMO it's definitely Ok to include cinematography in the scope of the discussion, but did want to make clear that there are factors at play that we may need to account for in that case.

I suppose that crying man are not everybody's cup of tea.

I honestly hadn't noticed it.

Only on Photrio can a discussion of film in a supposedly analog forum so quickly become a bunch of digital babble

'Digital babble' is inherent to the question OP asked. If you can't stand bits & bytes, the internet must be a sad place to be!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Spielberg's main cinematographer shoots in film. Both of them like the medium and what is does for their films.

Janusz Kaminski - IMDb​

​

Janusz Kaminski is a Polish cinematographer and film director. He has established a partnership with Steven Spielberg, working as a cinematographer on his movies since 1993.

 

[reddesert]

Agreed, I was not sure what was meant by "sharp-unsharp".

I would love to see Oppenheimer in a proper (film) iMax cinema ... I'm 100% sure that there's more to the look than depth of field!

Certainly; I only had the opportunity to watch it in 1080 here at home on my 15+ year old TV. Between screen size, resolution and digital compression, plenty of opportunity for the large format spirit to get completely MIA.

I saw "Oppenheimer" projected on 70mm - in a regular movie theater, not IMAX (I don't think it really requires IMAX, but IMAX is perhaps where most of the 70mm projectors are). The nonprofit theater I live near and support is equipped for 70mm non-IMAX. I also saw "Lawrence of Arabia" there on 70mm, and possibly a few others. Some movies that are made for it look amazing in 70mm. Of course, only the most visually dramatic films get a chance to be seen in 70mm.

Anyway, I'm not 100% confident that I could tell the difference between projected 35mm, 70mm, and a really good digital movie projection in a blindfold test. I can see the pixelization of digital projection in static slides like the pre-movie titles, but probably not in a moving image. I can tell the difference between a theater projection and watching a movie on a home TV - of course, anyone could. The theater is vastly more immersive.

Why is that important? Presentation matters, as does workflow. Returning to still photography, I'm grateful that the internet allows me to sample the work of many photographers that I would never get the chance to see in person, but I know that my computer screen (or worse my phone screen) isn't the same as looking at the picture on a gallery wall or even a very well-printed book, regardless of whether it's a digital or analog print.

The argument about whether film or digital is the province of mostly amateurs or professionals or whether the amateurs' or even film directors' interest is performative or not ("performative" has become the 2020s word for those used to be called "posers"), doesn't seem terribly interesting to me. It's hard to talk about other people's motivations without asking about one's own motivation.

 

[Chan Tran]

Movies shot on film is exactly what the OP question. They are shot on negative film stock and most theater will project the digitized version of the movie.

 

[Pieter12]

Movies shot on film is exactly what the OP question. They are shot on negative film stock and most theater will project the digitized version of the movie.

And how many of this forum’s members are shooting movies on color negative film?

 

[Chan Tran]

And how many of this forum’s members are shooting movies on color negative film?

I guess he should ask Spielberg as to why shoot on negative film when most likely his movies will be shown in digital form.