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.
-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.
Excuse me for having an opinion. I forgot that everyone gets a trophy.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Congratulations on actually printing your work. Many don't.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.
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.
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.
I think you can use fungus infected lenses on digital cameras too.
It is a technically poor photo that could haven shot digitally.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
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.
View attachment 408092
It is a technically poor photo that could haven shot digitally.
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.
It is a technically poor photo that could haven shot digitally.
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.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
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?