Why shoot analogue colour photos?

[gbroadbridge]

Maybe we can agree that many people like to use colour film because of the somewhat unpredictable results - or the mere idea that results could be unpredictable?

That's pretty true in my case.

When working for a client where colour accuracy and consistency is critical obviously I will be using a colour managed workflow with colorchecker cards and a calibrated camera.

Film of course did it's best at the time in relation to those requirements, but there are so many variables even in raw film stocks that consistency has to be achieved later. In the motion picture game even with the same batch numbers of film there would always be a requirement for grading later even with the same shots taken with different mag loads. To claim otherwise, that film is always consistent, is nonsense. Too many variables.

It's the 'wobble' in film stocks that makes them interesting - without it you may as well be shooting digitally.

 

[Pieter12]

That's pretty true in my case.

When working for a client where colour accuracy and consistency is critical obviously I will be using a colour managed workflow with colorchecker cards and a calibrated camera.

Film of course did it's best at the time in relation to those requirements, but there are so many variables even in raw film stocks that consistency has to be achieved later. In the motion picture game even with the same batch numbers of film there would always be a requirement for grading later even with the same shots taken with different mag loads. To claim otherwise, that film is always consistent, is nonsense. Too many variables.

It's the 'wobble' in film stocks that makes them interesting - without it you may as well be shooting digitally.

So do you make your own prints, and if so are they analog or digital? Do you adjust for the variations or accept them as is? Some film shooters seem to seek out film with built-in flaws, considering it part of the process.

 

[dcy]

Maybe we can agree that many people like to use colour film because of the somewhat unpredictable results - or the mere idea that results could be unpredictable?

Well... You said "many people" and not "everyone", so I guess we'd have to quibble as to how many is "many"... From my limited experience:

(1) I know of at least one YouTuber who feels the way you describe.

(2) That is the only example I can think of. Everyone else I see and talk, including myself, is not really looking for unpredictability. But perhaps they are looking for some of the "imperfections" of film?

 

[Mr Bill]

To claim otherwise, that film is always consistent, is nonsense. Too many variables.

Hi, this has not been my experience with the lower-speed pro portrait/wedding films from Kodak. The last of which was Portra 160. I have had first-hand knowledge (some years past), based on sensitometric tests, showing that they behave nearly identically, even across emulsions. When I say nearly identical, I mean that if I were to present you with one or two dozen tri-color density plots and said, try to find one that is different, you wouldn't be able to do it. Except that very occasionally there might be some sort of running change in the product, or perhaps one emulsion with a very slightly different sensitometric signature.

The outfit where I worked was a large chain studio operation, with a large processing lab. We ran several miles of these films every day, printing drastically more than that. Because of some long-forgotten problem we began screening every new emulsion number via sensitometric wedges. (The complete emulsion runs were reserved for our use.) Our warehouse would pull a couple of semi-random 100 ft rolls for us (QC Dept) to check. It would NOT be shipped out to studios until we gave the ok. (This was probably 1980ish.) I don't recall exact dates, but I would say by the early 1990s almost everything would be identical.

We initially thought that the entire web of a master roll could not possibly be consistent. So to see how bad it actually was we pulled a number of samples (100-ft rolls) from certain locations in the film web. So a set of cross-web samples near the beginning, middle, and end of the master roll. Maybe a dozen or more cans of film. We exposed a handful of sensi wedges on each sample, then processed the film. To my great surprise the plots (full curve, tri-color) were again near identical. (There is always a slight amount of "noise" in a plot, but most points would be within 0.01 density units of a reference, or sometimes maybe 0.02. As I recall; I'm going by a somewhat fuzzy memory now.)

So, my faith in all the so-called experts whose writing I had previously trusted was completely lost. All I could conclude was that they had never done the tests, just presuming what they said was true.

I found, multiple times over the years, that other certain parts of the common wisdom were also wrong.

Now, it's possible that the motion picture part of the business (in your wheel house) has greater variations in their film production. But if you are seeing significant variation, and it is a professional Kodak product, my guess would be that either the processing was not consistent enough, or perhaps the lighting varied. I will say, that in our lab, we had extraordinarily good "process control." I was the QC manager for a number of years, staff of about 5 or 6 people, including a full-time chemist. We oversaw most aspects of the chemical mix operation and process control, and I was intimately familiar with most aspects of that.

I can't say anything for certain about other films than the ones I specifically described, but in those cases I'm certain - the film was extremely consistent.

 

[brbo]

A lot of the appeal of film photography is about boasting rights, trendiness and stubbornness.

I occasionally use Portra and expect reliable, predictable and repeatable results.

Portra is used for reliable boasting rights? Any other film I can use for that?

 

[RezaLoghme]

I am just deducting this from what I am reading in forums like this one. Many people believe film does something "organic" or "warm" or or or, whereas "digital" is often framed as something less desirable, "cold", "sterile" etc. Then the "alchemy" of the darkroom, handling liquids and chemicals instead of software.

But I could be wrong.

Is is all IMHO:

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

Maybe we can agree that many people like to use colour film because of the somewhat unpredictable results - or the mere idea that results could be unpredictable?

No, not universally. There is no unpredictability about using film when you are armed with knowledge and experience, and that's what is missing with so very many users of film (many, meaning ... well, there must be a lot with this much-vaunted 'analogue renaissance'!)— these users blithely 'machine-gun' away frame after frame with their camera on all auto or "P for Professional", and wonder why things didn't turn out the way they imagined. Everybody knows what happens when film is exposed; not so many know the 'how and why' of things going pear-shaped. And from there it is the start of a slippery slope of progressively less interest, assuming film is "too hard" or "the camera isn't working well"... when the real problem is a lack of methodical approach by the user to learning from error, recording things as they move along and actively (doggedly) learning from the mistakes. They just do not do this in the old ways that we knew and practiced so well as professionals.

As for cameras, I would very rarely let any of them make decisions for me, irrespective of how straightforward of difficult the scene is.

 

[gary mulder]

You press the button we do the rest.

 

[Agulliver]

in my experience, I know what Kodak Color Plus, Gold, Ultramax, Ektar, 500T (in various disguises) and the Portra films will do. They seem pretty darned reliable in that each batch down the years performs the same. Or in the case of Color Plus, within a very narrow set of parameters.

Now, Phoenix is interesting because it is an unpredictable beast - at least until I've shot enough to determine how it works for me.

Anyway...it's all fun. And I do get different "looks" compared to digital. But then I recently had to have my favourite Tamron 28-300 lens which I use on my DSLR repaired and used the Nikon kit 35-70 for a couple of weeks...and there's no doubt that the Nikon lens with exactly the same settings on the camera produces images that tend to the red/brown.

 

[George Mann]

I am just deducting this from what I am reading in forums like this one. Many people believe film does something "organic" or "warm" or or or, whereas "digital" is often framed as something less desirable, "cold", "sterile" etc. Then the "alchemy" of the darkroom, handling liquids and chemicals instead of software.

But I could be wrong.

Is is all IMHO:

You are correct. Many believe that slide film tends to look more digital. I personally don't like the rendering of most digital cameras, but have been shooting slide film most of my life quite happily.

My main choice in digital cameras renders much like Ektachrome does with a slightly warmer filter than the "neutral" KR1.5.

That camera is the Nikon D2x.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Seeing is believing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You are correct. Many believe that slide film tends to look more digital. I personally don't like the rendering of most digital cameras, but have been shooting slide film most of my life quite happily.

My main choice in digital cameras renders much like Ektachrome does with a slightly warmer filter than the "neutral" KR1.5.

That camera is the Nikon D2x.

Slide film tends to be more smoothe and less sharp, maybe due to the way I scan. (Epson V600).

Scuba Journey - 35mm Film

Ft Lauderdale and Key Largo Scuba Trip. Nikonos IVa 35mm Ektachromes Some with single strobe. Scanned with Epson V600 flat bed scanner. Processed with Photoshop Elements 8. A video slide show with music of Scuba Journey can be seen on YouTube...

www.flickr.com

 

[ChrisGalway]

Slide film tends to be more smoothe and less sharp, maybe due to the way I scan. (Epson V600).

Scuba Journey - 35mm Film

Ft Lauderdale and Key Largo Scuba Trip. Nikonos IVa 35mm Ektachromes Some with single strobe. Scanned with Epson V600 flat bed scanner. Processed with Photoshop Elements 8. A video slide show with music of Scuba Journey can be seen on YouTube...

www.flickr.com

For me, the real attraction of colour transparency film is viewing it (in my case MF 120 6x6 cm stereo pairs) in an optical viewer ... even the most mundane scene looks stunning. Of course, one can only share this in person with someone!

 

[lawnerd]

I shoot both analog and digital. I use mostly Kodak Vision 3 film. To my eye scanned film has a different look compared to digital - a creaminess to the images that I believe is caused by film’s grain or dye formation. Digital only images come across as sterile and too technically perfect, at least with a Nikon d850.
I also enjoy the work flow of developing and scanning my film. I enjoy the challenge of trying to maximize the process to get a result that pleases me. In general my digital photos are less appealing to m.

 

[dbbowen2]

I shoot both analog and digital. I use mostly Kodak Vision 3 film. To my eye scanned film has a different look compared to digital - a creaminess to the images that I believe is caused by film’s grain or dye formation. Digital only images come across as sterile and too technically perfect, at least with a Nikon d850.
I also enjoy the work flow of developing and scanning my film. I enjoy the challenge of trying to maximize the process to get a result that pleases me. In general my digital photos are less appealing to m.

totally agree

 

[ChrisGalway]

totally agree

Me too!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I shoot both analog and digital. I use mostly Kodak Vision 3 film. To my eye scanned film has a different look compared to digital - a creaminess to the images that I believe is caused by film’s grain or dye formation. Digital only images come across as sterile and too technically perfect, at least with a Nikon d850.
I also enjoy the work flow of developing and scanning my film. I enjoy the challenge of trying to maximize the process to get a result that pleases me. In general my digital photos are less appealing to m.

Welcome to Photrio!

I also agree.

 

[analogwisdom]

non-answer answer: 'cuz I want to. photography is my hobby, not my job, and I am not at all interested in using a digital camera.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I am currently having second thoughts about film - simply. because after the actual film, the rest of my process chain is digital.

 

[Pieter12]

non-answer answer: 'cuz I want to. photography is my hobby, not my job, and I am not at all interested in using a digital camera.

And how is using a digital camera so different than using a film one?

 

[gary mulder]

I am currently having second thoughts about film - simply. because after the actual film, the rest of my process chain is digital.

It is the combination of the downsides of both processes. Making the recording digital and analogue printing seems to be a more meaningful. The feel of an analogue print is irreplaceable.
illustration bromoil prints.

 

[albireo]

The feel of an analogue print is irreplaceable.

Depends on taste and interest. Some would say it is very replaceable. What makes a picture is the picture, not the post-processing. A great analogue print of a poor/meaningless photograph remains a meaningless photograph.

illustration bromoil prints.

Beautiful images, but if this fac-simile of pencil drawing/charcoal drawing is what you like here, why bother with the photography at all? Why waste time going out there chasing ... stuff, people, situations, light, textures, animals, compositions etc when you could just randomly snap images of pears on the table and then really 'make' these images in the darkroom? You could even buy negatives of pears off ebay or achieve this effect using any suitable negative taken by someone else. Job done.

In fact, taking this even further, if this visual (pictorial?) effect up here is what you seek, why not drop the photography, the expensive equipment, the hauling of stuff around altogether and aim to achieve this effect on a drawing board with pencils, charcoal, walnut ink and a stack of good quality drawing paper?

Is film photography, for some people, little more than a simulacrum of (or shortcut to) painting or drawing, achieved through the act of darkroom printing?

 

[koraks]

this fac-simile of pencil drawing/charcoal drawing

If that's how you see/experience it, I understand your skepticism. Maybe there's more to the artistic process than "it looks like XYZ to me".

Why waste time going out there chasing ... stuff, people, situations, light, textures, animals, compositions etc when you could just randomly snap images of pears on the table and then really 'make' these images in the darkroom?

There's an implied normative judgement about subject matter that I don't quite understand the utility of.

Before rejecting it, try to understand it first. You're missing out. Just saying.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ha! The whole point of getting a nice big camera along with a heavy backpack is for another opportunity to get out in fresh clean air miles and miles away from anyone else. Who wants to be running on a treadmill like a hamster, in a stinky indoor gym? There's endless texture on granite mountains and fresh snow, and plenty of animals too. And if you really want to capture texture, there's nothing quite like 8X10 film, or even 4x5.

I'm not implying our house pets aren't cute and photogenic. Our kitten was intently watching a leopard documentary on Public Television a couple nights ago. That worried me. I don't want her to join that crowd. She'd have to shave the hair on her back and get spotted gang tattoos.

 

[albireo]

If that's how you see/experience it, I understand your skepticism. Maybe there's more to the artistic process than "it looks like XYZ to me".


There's an implied normative judgement about subject matter that I don't quite understand the utility of.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Getting a reaction - good. That was my intent.

Because what I wrote about is not actually how I see it/experience it, Koraks. I can see the value of a good quality print of something. And I'm really not that narrow-minded.

What I was trying to do is to mirror the same sort of narrow-mindedness those of us into hybrid photography have to endure whenever someone - and it happens often, over and over again - comes out of the woodwork on social media to let us know that 'if the purpose is a digital end product, WHY use film'. It usually comes with a comment on how much more 'meaningful' printing is compared to digitising a negative.

So it's great that the above narrow-minded comment of mine stirs something. The two below are the same arguments, effectively:

• "Printing in the darkroom doesn't make sense" (or does it?) "You can achieve the same pictorial effect by sketching on paper" (can you/should you?)
• "Scanning your film or using film if you don't print doesn't make sense (or does it?)". "You can achieve the same effect by photoshopping grain in a DSLR image" (can you/should you?)

I find both of the above extremely stupid, and equivalent in effect.

The bottom line is at least for me, exactly nothing makes sense unless it serves a purpose or a vision. Exactly Everything makes sense if it serves a purpose or a vision.