Why shoot analogue colour photos?

[Agulliver]

I use Japanese knives. I do not claim to be competent with them. But I have to have *some* knives in the kitchen, and I like how these ones feel.

In fairness, @RezaLoghme said "Expensive Japanese Knives". Mine aren't expensive. They are the price of a decent set of knives, whether Japanese or Western. I think a product you use every day and lasts for many years (your knives, your bed, your couch) is a logical place to spend a little extra and get a good one that you enjoy using.

Define "expensive". My partner's knives are fairly expensive and on our trip to Japan earlier this year she picked up another over there for £115. Sounds like a lot when you can pick up a knife for a few dollarpounds but as you say, if it's something you use a lot and want to last your lifetime....it's a worthwhile investment. And £115 was at the cheap end of the knives in the shop we visited - a specialist knife shop in Kyoto.

A bit like cameras. A lot of people would never understand why people spend money on SLRs or medium format cameras. But the people who use them understand. The majority of people wouldn't understand why we spend money on film and developing and cameras when a phone can do it all. A Japanese-trained chef understands the true value of a good Japanese knife. Why spend hundreds or even thousands on a camera when a phone does most of it? And to a non-enthusiast that's a serious question.

 

[st1]

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'.

Given your attention to detail on some other matters, I'd wager that with sufficient experience in film production, and access to properly maintained and calibrated kit, you would most definitely be able to tell the difference between film, digital, digitally projected film scans and digital printed to film. But as you know, cynicism and inexperience often go together in photography discussions.

 

[Pieter12]

Motion picture is quite different from a still photo. You are seeing 24 frames per second, things like sharpness and grain are much less apparent. It is a different way of experiencing an image, there is motion and sometimes a sound track with dialog, sound effects and music, all adding to or distracting from the image itself.

 

[dcy]

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.

Sometimes I long for the immersive nature of a movie theater... Then I remember how annoying other moviegoers are and the feeling passes.

 

[Pieter12]

Sometimes I long for the immersive nature of a movie theater... Then I remember how annoying other moviegoers are and the feeling passes.

I don't know. Today, there are fewer moviegoers in the theater, you might enjoy it more.

 

[st1]

Motion picture is quite different from a still photo. You are seeing 24 frames per second, things like sharpness and grain are much less apparent. It is a different way of experiencing an image, there is motion and sometimes a sound track with dialog, sound effects and music, all adding to or distracting from the image itself.

the picture being in motion is what allows filmmakers to so often play with the trope of the apparently still/frozen image, where format, sharpness and grain are all perfectly apparent.

what makes it a different experience is that the differences from the previous frame create a narrative. the still photographer sometimes wants to create a narrative with just the one frame, and the lack of temporal dimension allows the viewer to linger on other aspects like technique.

 

[Pieter12]

the picture being in motion is what allows filmmakers to so often play with the trope of the apparently still/frozen image, where format, sharpness and grain are all perfectly apparent.

what makes it a different experience is that the differences from the previous frame create a narrative. the still photographer sometimes wants to create a narrative with just the one frame, and the lack of temporal dimension allows the viewer to linger on other aspects like technique.

The film grain in a still scene in a motion picture still dances around the screen, making it less apparent or at least different from a still image.

 

[st1]

The film grain in a still scene in a motion picture still dances around the screen, making it less apparent or at least different from a still image.

the grain buzzes yes but it is no less apparent, if anything it is usually more apparent precisely because of the buzz

 

[dcy]

Define "expensive". My partner's knives are fairly expensive and on our trip to Japan earlier this year she picked up another over there for £115. Sounds like a lot when you can pick up a knife for a few dollarpounds but as you say, if it's something you use a lot and want to last your lifetime....it's a worthwhile investment. And £115 was at the cheap end of the knives in the shop we visited - a specialist knife shop in Kyoto.

Yeah... My knives are just a small step down from that. The current price of my knives is $95 for each of the larger ones (the Gyuto and the Santoku) and it goes down from there for the smaller ones. When I bought them, it felt like a pretty serious decision. Up to that point we had only ever bought the knives you find in a department store. But we had just moved to a new country, didn't have any household stuff, and it felt like the right time to buy something better.

Looking back, it was the right call. Take your £115 example. After 10 years, you've paid less than £1/month to get something that improves your quality of life.

A bit like cameras. A lot of people would never understand why people spend money on SLRs or medium format cameras. But the people who use them understand. The majority of people wouldn't understand why we spend money on film and developing and cameras when a phone can do it all. A Japanese-trained chef understands the true value of a good Japanese knife. Why spend hundreds or even thousands on a camera when a phone does most of it? And to a non-enthusiast that's a serious question.

Yeah. I paid over $1,000 for my mirrorless camera, buying it used, already several years old. I've easily dropped another $1,000 on lenses. I struggled to explain to my friend why I bothered with a dedicated camera instead of just using my phone.

I was chatting with my DW about the relative cost of film the other day. I shoot cheap films, but even if I shot Portra 160 exclusively, and managed to shoot 1 roll / week, that'd be a fraction of the cost of going out to dinner once a week. It'd cost less than going to the movies. In terms of how many hours of "entertainment" I get out of 1 roll of film, it's actually pretty cheap.

 

[koraks]

But as you know, cynicism and inexperience often go together in photography discussions.

It seems that the former isn't very dependent on the latter.

 

[st1]

not cynical at all to assert that, if you assessed industrial filmmaking as diligently as you evidently assess photography, you would as readily discern the nuances in cinematic intent and effect as you do in those areas where you do devote your time.

but as you say, you watched a 70mm film on an old hdtv. how would you interpret a succinct, instinctive criticism of a photo, if the critic were viewing a faxed photocopy of the slide?

 

[RezaLoghme]

Movie production and photography are two very different genres.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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

Pictures look different when captured on film rather than digitally. That difference is carried over to digital when scanned and transferred.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Define "expensive". My partner's knives are fairly expensive and on our trip to Japan earlier this year she picked up another over there for £115. Sounds like a lot when you can pick up a knife for a few dollarpounds but as you say, if it's something you use a lot and want to last your lifetime....it's a worthwhile investment. And £115 was at the cheap end of the knives in the shop we visited - a specialist knife shop in Kyoto.

A bit like cameras. A lot of people would never understand why people spend money on SLRs or medium format cameras. But the people who use them understand. The majority of people wouldn't understand why we spend money on film and developing and cameras when a phone can do it all. A Japanese-trained chef understands the true value of a good Japanese knife. Why spend hundreds or even thousands on a camera when a phone does most of it? And to a non-enthusiast that's a serious question.

My problem is I need to spend a goodly amount on a new set of teeth.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Pictures look different when captured on film rather than digitally. That difference is carried over to digital when scanned and transferred.

I wonder if there are experts who know whether humans perceive moving pictures differently than static ones. Grain, contrast etc. - can a human brain process all that while following moving pictures (and likely a soundtrack)?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sometimes I long for the immersive nature of a movie theater... Then I remember how annoying other moviegoers are and the feeling passes.

Theaters today are not like that. Most you can reserve your seat where you like to sit. Second, the seats recline and have a cupholder for your soda or popcorn. If the movie is bad, you can take a nap.

 

[Jbennett68]

Honestly I'm a crap photographer and I know it. But I love cameras. Color or B&W either way it's about the experience for me and I love the experience of loading film in old cameras. I'm waiting on a Voigtlander Superb to arrive today.

 

[Chan Tran]

Pictures look different when captured on film rather than digitally. That difference is carried over to digital when scanned and transferred.

If that is the answer then it is the answer to the OP question.

 

[Pieter12]

Pictures look different when captured on film rather than digitally. That difference is carried over to digital when scanned and transferred.

It depends on the film and sensor, the software and equipment used, plus skill of the operators involved.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It depends on the film and sensor, the software and equipment used, plus skill of the operators involved.

I was answering a question about what Spielberg does. You can be sure when he spends $100+ million on a film, they use the best in Hollywood to convert movies shot on Eastman Kodak film to Laser digital formats presented in theaters so it displays all the advantages of being shot originally on film.

 

[Pieter12]

I was answering a question about what Spielberg does. You can be sure when he spends $100+ million on a film, they use the best in Hollywood to convert movies shot on Eastman Kodak film to Laser digital formats presented in theaters so it displays all the advantages of being shot originally on film.

Laser?

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, the motion pictures intended for theatrical release that are shot on film are usually scanned and edited digitally - even when some of the presentation prints are subsequently "written" back to projection stock for optical projection.
One of the fascinating bits surrounding ""Oppenheimer" is that some editing was actually done the old way - by physically cutting and then re-attaching parts of the editing stock - at least for the IMAX prints. Most likely though that involved one of the intermediate film stock emulsions that are used to support the editing and distribution process.

 

[Pieter12]

FWIW, the motion pictures intended for theatrical release that are shot on film are usually scanned and edited digitally - even when some of the presentation prints are subsequently "written" back to projection stock for optical projection.
One of the fascinating bits surrounding ""Oppenheimer" is that some editing was actually done the old way - by physically cutting and then re-attaching parts of the editing stock - at least for the IMAX prints. Most likely though that involved one of the intermediate film stock emulsions that are used to support the editing and distribution process.

I imagine there were a number of special effects in Oppenheimer and those were most probably created digitally. So those scenes would have had to be recorded to film in order to cut them in traditionally. But as you say “some editing” those could have just stayed digital.

 

[MattKing]

I imagine there were a number of special effects in Oppenheimer and those were most probably created digitally. So those scenes would have had to be recorded to film in order to cut them in traditionally. But as you say “some editing” those could have just stayed digital.

The Oppenheimer Blu-Ray that I borrowed from our local public library has some very good "additional features" that describe some of the process of bringing Oppenheimer to the screen.
The interior shots of the huge air-conditioned transport trailers with the miles/kilometres of 70mm camera film stock stored in them were worth the price of admission
And besides the scenes of a surprisingly young French women who they brought over because of her expertise to do the IMAX cut and paste manual film editing, one of the other fascinating sections included details about those of the special effects that they did create and shoot direct to film - no digital creation involved!
Those included some of the images of explosions!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Laser?

https://www.amctheatres.com/laser