Why shoot analogue colour photos?

[Pieter12]

-The glowing halation of street lamps produced by Cinestill film etc. -> very much noticeable even from a scan
-Light leaks hitting the frame at random -> very much noticeable even from a scan
-Exaggerated noisiness caused by scanning a severely underexposed, perhaps overdeveloped negative -> a very recognisable look which is NATIVE to scanned C41 film
-Lens flare from poorly coated old lenses -> very much visible even on a scan.
-Unpredictable colour shifts from long expired, poorly preserved film -> very much sought after, and definitely noticeable even from a scan
-fungus/major dust problem in lens -> soft filter effect, very much visible even from a scan
-Shutter curtain issues, film advance issues, accidental double exposures -> all often considered desirable and part and parcel of an old, malfunctioning film camera and readily noticeable from a scan.

All gimmicks. The closest thing I would attribute to something creative would be the defects inherent in the colloidion process, introduced by the photographer's act of coating the glass plate.

 

[albireo]

All gimmicks. The closest thing I would attribute to something creative would be the defects inherent in the colloidion process, introduced by the photographer's act of coating the glass plate.

There you go.

'I don't find it creative, so it's not creative'.

No wonder they don't join Photrio and end up soaking up shitty technical advice from Reddit.

 

[Pieter12]

There you go.

'I don't find it creative, so it's not creative'.

No wonder they don't join Photrio and end up soaking up shitty technical advice from Reddit.

Excuse me for having an opinion. I forgot that everyone gets a trophy.

 

[albireo]

All gimmicks. The closest thing I would attribute to something creative would be the defects inherent in the colloidion process, introduced by the photographer's act of coating the glass plate.

Excuse me for having an opinion.

You know, if you showed more openness to what they like, that would probably encourage them to approach you - they might get the guts to ask you things like

'sooo Pieter, what is this collodion process anyway? You are clearly an expert - can you show me some examples? What cool effects can I get with it?'

Voila. You seed something. You get the next generation interested in collodion processing and coating glass plates. Consumables are purchased. Your hobby survives.

Win-win!

 

[MattKing]

Moderator hat on:
If you want to personalize an argument, take it elsewhere please. If necessary, the Private Conversation function works for that.
Posts in public threads are just that - public. They speak to everyone who reads the thread. Arguments between individuals - they bring rise to Monty Python references.

 

[albireo]

Moderator hat on:
If you want to personalize an argument, take it elsewhere please. If necessary, the Private Conversation function works for that.
Posts in public threads are just that - public. They speak to everyone who reads the thread. Arguments between individuals - they bring rise to Monty Python references.

From my side, it wasn't really a personal argument Matt. My point was that there's huge expertise in here, and people would love to learn from many of you film veterans, but sadly a certain gatekeeping (elitist?) attitude which is popular and often moderator-approved, on here, achieves the opposite effect.

 

[dbbowen2]

On top of other important aspects that have been mentioned, another key reason why -especially very young- modern digital photographers want to use colour film and old cameras is that they have incorporated the many failures/shortcomings/quirks of aging film cameras, film, and improper exposure and development as a crucial component of their creative process.

Let that sink in for a moment if you're >60 years old and you were there when film photography was the only thing available.

Back then, if you were somewhat serious about your photography, you probably wanted squeaky clean images, hated grain, rejoiced at every new 'ultra-fine' grain Ektarish product that hit the market, sought to achieve only the very best exposure and demanded the very best processing.

This is not a goal anymore for many film photographers. They can obtain those squeaky clean documents with any phone, any time of the day, reproducibly - repeatedly.

People the age of your grandchildren, who are visual communicators in a way you are not (images must travel fast, to all corners of the world, to all people in a group of friends, now, not tomorrow via mailed print) don't want to give up the idea of sharing visual content via tiktok/etc but are fascinated by the idea of an old device introducing a number of artifacts on to the final image that have been widely accepted as desirable.

Why are they desirable? Not sure. A different thread. The randomness? The nostalgia? Maybe both and then some.

What are those features? I can think of a few on top of my head.

-The glowing halation of street lamps produced by Cinestill film etc. -> very much noticeable even from a scan
-Light leaks hitting the frame at random -> very much noticeable even from a scan
-Exaggerated noisiness caused by scanning a severely underexposed, perhaps overdeveloped negative -> a very recognisable look which is NATIVE to scanned C41 film
-Lens flare from poorly coated old lenses -> very much visible even on a scan.
-Unpredictable colour shifts from long expired, poorly preserved film -> very much sought after, and definitely noticeable even from a scan
-fungus/major dust problem in lens -> soft filter effect, very much visible even from a scan
-Shutter curtain issues, film advance issues, accidental double exposures -> all often considered desirable and part and parcel of an old, malfunctioning film camera and readily noticeable from a scan.

And so on and so forth.

'Yes but I can rEPRoDuCe ALL of that in Photoshop and Lightroom!!!"

The users I've described up here won't own Photoshop or Lightroom. They'll probably get a Macbook pro at uni in some years. Now all they have is a Steam Deck, a phone and an ipad to do 'homework'.

Those who are slightly older, and probably own a LR subscription, and probably own a DSLR of sorts, probably can't be arsed to try and simulate the above sitting at the computer. Why, if you can achieve the real thing with a small, interesting, old object and some film?

So film, scanned film, scanned film whose development and scanning is outsourced to a lab, gives many new adopters an opportunity to get images back with 'filters' preapplied by everything that happened upstream.

Dude, coming from an older millenial.... you absolutely nailed it. All of it. Spot on. I'm in the slightly older millenial category you listed, and between my toddler and working on my old car, i just simply dont have the time to mess on the computer. My edits are white balance and maybe shadows and highlights on LR on my cell phone and thats generally it. I have many high quality prints at 12x18 using this method and its served me well. Trying to nail composition, exposure, and whatever contrast/coloring in camera on the front end makes taking photos more fun for the hobbyist imo, vs a dull grey raw file that you need to spend 20 minutes on light room touching up


It does force me to learn more about composition, exposure triangle, different techniques, etc.... and the benefit of the young folks wanting to get into film photography for "the vibes" is that you end up with people invertedly learning and falling in love with photography... just in their own way.

 

[Pieter12]

Dude, coming from an older millenial.... you absolutely nailed it. All of it. Spot on. I'm in the slightly older millenial category you listed, and between my toddler and working on my old car, i just simply dont have the time to mess on the computer. My edits are white balance and maybe shadows and highlights on LR on my cell phone and thats generally it. I have many high quality prints at 12x18 using this method and its served me well. Trying to nail composition, exposure, and whatever contrast/coloring in camera on the front end makes taking photos more fun for the hobbyist imo, vs a dull grey raw file that you need to spend 20 minutes on light room touching up


It does force me to learn more about composition, exposure triangle, different techniques, etc.... and the benefit of the young folks wanting to get into film photography for "the vibes" is that you end up with people invertedly learning and falling in love with photography... just in their own way.

One can learn immensely by just operating any camera in full manual mode. No film needed. It seems to me that a certain segment of the photo-taking population treats film like an effects filter. That teaches nothing.

 

[djdister]

I've shot film and digital shots of the same subject in the same light, and although I scan my negatives into digital files, there are times when a print from a film shot (because for me, it's all about the print) has a different look than the all-digital process. So I shoot film and I shoot digital, and let the final printed image decide which worked best for me for that image.

 

[Pieter12]

I've shot film and digital shots of the same subject in the same light, and although I scan my negatives into digital files, there are times when a print from a film shot (because for me, its all about the print) has a different look than the all-digital process. So I shoot film and I shoot digital, and let the final printed image decide which worked best for me for that image.

Congratulations on actually printing your work. Many don't.
I am well aware of the "digital curse" and have developed some post techniques to alleviate it. But part of the difference in look between film and digital sometimes boils down to the lenses.

 

[Milpool]

I think you can use fungus infected lenses on digital cameras too.

 

[dbbowen2]

One can learn immensely by just operating any camera in full manual mode. No film needed. It seems to me that a certain segment of the photo-taking population treats film like an effects filter. That teaches nothing.

I cant speak for older more experienced photographers, but most younger photographers shooting film, or beginners will normally shoot film for the idiosyncrasies of the film stock vs say a digital camera. Even Fujifilm has converted their whole approach to digital to their film recipes and emulations. Provia will look different than Portra and that will look different than Kodak gold.

Is this objectively a bad photo? Yeah probably, but its just special moments with the family captured in a fun way using intentional techniques to get that lens flare, and overexposing 500T in the daytime without a 85 filter. So to me, its a great photo that has character. To others it a bad photo. I dont think any of it matters to be honest

At the end of the day, photography is an art that each person perceives differently and I think people get excited for different things. I know personally, shooting photos on Eastman 5247 would be huge for me because its what Raiders was shot on

 

[gbroadbridge]

On top of other important aspects that have been mentioned, another key reason why -especially very young- modern digital photographers want to use colour film and old cameras is that they have incorporated the many failures/shortcomings/quirks of aging film cameras, film, and improper exposure and development as a crucial component of their creative process.

Bingo. Absolutely spot on for many.

Although I wouldn't restrict the cohort to any particular age.
I've worked professionally since the early '80's and am a member of the second age group you mention.

I returned to film after more than 20 years pure digital workflow because of the very creative elements/aesthetic you mention.

Not to mention I have a number of clients who asked if I could still use film, and were very happy when I said yes I could and would. Although the end result is printed digitally, the look appeals to them. The randomness which is not clinically clean. Clients both in their 30's and in their 60's.

 

[Pieter12]

I think you can use fungus infected lenses on digital cameras too.

You can use many film lenses on digital cameras with adapters, they will affect the look of the image. You can scratch them too, if you're after that look.

 

[Pieter12]

I cant speak for older more experienced photographers, but most younger photographers shooting film, or beginners will normally shoot film for the idiosyncrasies of the film stock vs say a digital camera. Even Fujifilm has converted their whole approach to digital to their film recipes and emulations. Provia will look different than Portra and that will look different than Kodak gold.

Is this objectively a bad photo? Yeah probably, but its just special moments with the family captured in a fun way using intentional techniques to get that lens flare, and overexposing 500T in the daytime without a 85 filter. So to me, its a great photo that has character. To others it a bad photo. I dont think any of it matters to be honest

At the end of the day, photography is an art that each person perceives differently and I think people get excited for different things. I know personally, shooting photos on Eastman 5247 would be huge for me because its what Raiders was shot on

It is a technically poor photo that could haven shot digitally.

 

[djdister]

I think you can use fungus infected lenses on digital cameras too.

You sure can. Here's a shot with a Hasselblad 350mm Tele Tessar (with some fungus) on a Fuji GFX 50R.

 

[dbbowen2]

You sure can. Here's a shot with a Hasselblad 350mm Tele Tessar (with some fungus) on a Fuji GFX 50R.
View attachment 408092

much more entry level equipment... but this was a test photo on a Fuji XM5 with a nFD 28/2.8 (less fungus)

 

[dbbowen2]

It is a technically poor photo that could haven shot digitally.

right, but that photo has literally zero post on it. Its straight scanned from the negative and printed. You cant do that with an unedited raw image

 

[gbroadbridge]

It is a technically poor photo that could haven shot digitally.

But it wasn't, and it's a great photo that tells a story.

 

[dbbowen2]

But it wasn't, and it's a great photo that tells a story.

Thank you for the kind words! Truly appreciated

 

[Don_ih]

It is a technically poor photo that could haven shot digitally.

Did someone put dog poo in your paper bag? Really...

 

[koraks]

right, but that photo has literally zero post on it. Its straight scanned from the negative and printed. You cant do that with an unedited raw image

I like your photo, and even if I didn't it wouldn't matter. But there's one technical inaccuracy in your quote above, and it's quite fundamental. Nothing about that print was 'straight'. I assume you meant with 'zero post' that you didn't alter the image after you received it from the scanner or whomever scanned it for you. But in that process, the color and contrast were strongly altered from the original. It has a very strong S-curve applied to all three color curves and the color curves are adjusted to have different gradients so as to create a somewhat neutral color rendering across the tonal scale.

In reality, a color negative is very much like a digital RAW file. It's an "unviewable" piece of data that needs to be interpreted to create a meaningful image. This process does not rely on any inherently encoded, absolute benchmark that can be regarded as the 'true' look of the photo.

While this might seem a bit of technical pedantry, I think it has significance in the discussion. When people say they like the colors/contrast/overall look they get from the color negative scans they get "straight from the lab, no post", what they really appreciate is an interpretation that the scanner/software/lab operator has made of their color negative film. It's a factor that's beyond the conscious control of the photographer. In that sense, it's in the same list of things @albireo mentioned. I might call them "happy accidents".

Just like there's no inherently 'correct' encoding of an image in a color image, there's no encoding of a universal norm in these 'happy accidents': they're not inherently good or bad. They are appreciated by some, avoided by others. We all make our own decisions, for our own reasons. I've seen the argument put forth before on this page that one doesn't "learn" anything from these happy accidents - probably because they're inherently mostly uncontrolled (or even uncontrollable). Be that as it may, I'd counter this by arguing that not everyone is out to learn all the time.

Some just want to have fun in their photography, and if people derive fun from happy accidents as created by flares, lab-controlled color rendition, lensbaby swirls, light leaks etc., then anyone else will just have to stick up with that. You don't like it, just look away. This seems easy enough to me; I don't like football so I don't watch it, and I don't go out berating football fans for their lack of intellectual development while watching a match.

The question put forth in this thread is why people choose to shoot color film if they will process/use the results in the digital domain. Happy little accidents can apparently be one of those reasons. Some will agree, others won't. Those who don't agree can leave it to others to enjoy.

I'd like to coin the term "orthophotography": 'correct photography'. It's a non-existent entity that's considered sacred by some, going by their fervent attempts to keep others on the right path. I wonder if we were to put it as literally as this, they'd still recognize it as such.

 

[Ardpatrick]

My youth was recorded on Kodachrome film - mostly slides, but some movies too.
And I have seen many, many, many enjoyable "slide shows" over the years.
Some that I've put together seem to have been appreciated by the viewers.
So like anything else, it isn't the medium itself, but how it is used.
Here (in multi-coloured shirt) I'm probably about 15. Doesn't the dog look happy that the camera has Kodachrome loaded in it?
View attachment 407793

You look like your Dad!

 

[Agulliver]

One of the things I say to the twenty-somethings that I know who are into film, and who come to me for advice....is that their way of doing things may very well not match mine. And that is OK. While I'm happy to explain my methods and preferred techniques, they are not The One True Way and if someone wants to experiment with Lomography Purple in a Holga they should damned well go and do so. Then let's look at the results, see if we can figure out what the photographer likes and dislikes and use my experience and knowledge to help *them* get the results *they* want. That may be hella-halation. It may be light leaks. It may involve funky film. It may involve photographs that, from a pure Ansel Adams style technical point of view are "bad". But they are the creative brainchild of an individual who wants to do something different. A bit like rock musicians discovering distortion.

30+ years ago I inherited an original Diana (under the Sinomax name). I never did anything with it because it's not my thing. But 10 years ago I gave it to someone who *likes* toy cameras with plastic lenses and light leaks. And they've had a blast with it. That means an unloved camera is getting some use, and some Ektar is getting sold that otherwise wouldn't. And someone is very happy shooting film. That's a win in my book.

There are myriad reasons to shoot CN film. Is any of them objectively "wrong"? I have my doubts.

 

[dcy]

That's not what the marketing is for. If a movie is shot on film now, it's seen as a selling point, to prove the production team cares about the character of the film - and not just about the profitability. It's distinguishing - and even people who can't see a difference (i.e., almost everyone) pick up on that.

Yeah. When I hear a movie was shot on film, the vibe I get is similar to when I hear that a movie used practical effects instead of green screen.