Why shoot film

[tomfrh]

So is a Daguerreotype, and with twice the experience as we had with Kodachrome we ought to have solved most of the technical problems in making them.

I wasn't familiar with these but just watched a short video on them. They're amazing. I would love to have the time to devote to that.

 

[blockend]

I am no expert on the matter, but my understanding is that one can let the RAW file conversion to JPEG or other format take place in the camera, or save the RAW file to a computer, and with the proper software, perform the conversion there, which allows one, by taking advantage of the larger dynamic range of the RAW file, to make corrections to improve the converted quality, before sending to the lab. In some cases the RAW file may be sent to a lab to let them do the correction and conversion before printing. Workflow slows so it is best if the photographer just endeavors to shoot it right to begin with. Does this make sense to you?

Kind of. A digital camera creates a file when you press the shutter, made up of binary code. It's pure information which is then decoded in camera, or retrospectively by file conversion software, into a photograph. Editing software allows you to do the stuff traditionally associated with a darkroom, alter contrast, change colours, soften or sharpen and burn in over-exposed areas, plus a few new tricks. Files are certainly large and getting bigger all the time, but memory and storage become cheaper, so professional cameras and the equipment to make pictures from them costs roughly what it always did.

The reasons for choosing one format over another is practical and sentimental. If your aim is the biggest, sharpest, most clearly defined photograph available, you'll use a large format film camera, the best film and lenses and absorb the ergonomic and financial penalties that technique incurs. From there begins a trend towards more democratic, versatile equipment that ends in a smartphone camera. Between those two poles exist an array of choices informed by budget, skill, familiarity and aspiration. However other social factors come into play, like who are the photographs intended for and how are they to be seen (if at all)? The trend is away from the film photography era, in which people generally took a relatively small number of photographs of which a large percentage were turned into solid images, into a digital era where users take vast amounts of shots from which a tiny amount end up in print.

There are possibilities and dangers that come with this change. The opportunity to reach a hitherto unimaginable number of viewers has never been greater, and the equipment to do so more affordable, but along with that exposure comes a general devaluation of the still image as a social artefact. Basically, every photograph used to have totemic status, an heirloom to be passed on and admired. Now even great shots, the stuff of reputations, may not be viewed for more than a few seconds and have never made hard copy. For people who grew up in the film era that change is quite shocking, and many of us yearn for simpler days and more familiar cameras. That affection is not exclusive to oldies like myself, but attracts younger people who quickly come to realise their two year old Sony camera ("new" in film terms) may be three or four iterations old and have an uncertain support infrastructure.

We can have the best of both worlds. Photographers like Junku Nishimura shoot on film cameras and develop and print in a traditional darkroom, scanning the final image to a wider public than those who have access to work in the flesh. The only person it matters to is ourselves, and fortunately we still have a choice.

 

[fstop]

As I said in an earlier post, I work at a lab and do color correction (color balance, density, contrast, and saturation adjustments) to digital images before printing. We have hundreds of clients from around the country that do mostly youth sports and can be considered professionals. Skin tones are used to judge and correct color.

They send in digital images that generally require lots of correction. A few clients do request no correction. I have never seen any they send in that didn't need any--some are way off. Despite this, they accept their results! I have never seen any that would be what I consider to be the quality level that a slide would give. Getting proper exposure is important with both slides and digital (due to limited dynamic range), but with digital one must also be diligent with white balancing the camera, and be sure that contrast and saturation are set correctly. All this is critical to record an image that does not require any correction, or is not overexposed. With slide film, image parameters are built into the film in manufacture, by people who know what they are doing. With digital, it is the user who must know what he is doing, which, at least with our clients, is a rare occurance.

Some have said that film has a greater color gamut than digital. I think that may be true and one of the reasons film was easier to color correct than digital, and why some think slides, and film in general, looks more "real".

That is why a lot of people shoot slide film, labs meddling with images often disappointed us when special effects were ruined.The single most compelling reason to switch to digital was when the great yellow father stopped Kodachrome.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Excuse me Marcelo Paniagua

Digital cameras have only one ISO (the "native" ISO, and not always corresponds to the "lowest" in the camera, and not always is available to the user) because there is a limit in the number of the photons for each cell, the rest is signal amplification. The size of each cell is what makes that limit (that ISO) for each sensor. The biggest the sensor, the biggest are (or can be) its cells, and the bigger the cells the more amount of photons he gets. Because is not the energy of the photons (that doesn't change) what marks the ISO, it's the number of them. When you increase (push) that signal (S) native number (and the ISO with it), you're creating/inventing a gain (taking new data) ... affecting the final result with electronic noise (S/N), lower colour quality, reducing the contrast range, bla, bla, bla those are the "extreme" digital ISO numbers. With that being said, you should know what are you doing when you select 102.400 ISO on your 6D.

Now, to answer your second question, my top film ISO so far was 25.000 (pushed from K. p3200) where 3200 was EI / and 1000 was the "native speed as starting point". That's why my "False" answer.

Nothing to be excused about LAG. Thanks for your info and I get your point. Never tried to argue and I'm really grateful for the info.

I will try to post some test photos at that ISO next time I'm at my hometown (got only my film cameras with me now) By the way the test pic looks pretty good. Nothing at all like my few test of Delta 3200.

Regards.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sure a lot of action on this thread since I last looked at it prior to the holiday break. And frankly, pixels and participles are the same to me. Got
better things to do.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

They're the same? I wonder what would happen if I put some pixels in a gelatin emulsion?

 

[Agulliver]

But pixels and particles of photosensitive chemicals are not the same. The latter are arranged in random patterns while the former is a regular matrix.

That doesn't necessarily make one better than the other but it does mean they are always imbued with different aesthetic qualities.

And then two pixels are not always equal, otherwise every brand of digital camera would produce the same photos....ditto different films.

It's all good if you enjoy it. I enjoy the results of both but I find something unique about film and prefer the more tactile experience of film. That said, for convenience and cost sake I shoot more digital.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You fail to account for the fact that both pixels and participles are employed in polymer chains of pure BS.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[Alan Gales]

You fail to account for the fact that both pixels and participles are employed in polymer chains of pure BS.

And I was going to surprise you this Christmas with a 100 megapixel back for your Phillips 8x10. I guess I'll just get you the same thing that I got you last year, Drew!

 

[LAG]

i'm sorry to ask this but why are slides more real than a digital file that is not manipulated or cropped in any way whatsoever?

Short answer: Light is closer to light in the side of the slide.

As I said in an earlier post, I work at a lab and do color correction (color balance, density, contrast, and saturation adjustments) to digital images before printing. We have hundreds of clients from around the country that do mostly youth sports and can be considered professionals. Skin tones are used to judge and correct color.

They send in digital images that generally require lots of correction. A few clients do request no correction. I have never seen any they send in that didn't need any--some are way off. Despite this, they accept their results! I have never seen any that would be what I consider to be the quality level that a slide would give.

Not everybody has a calibrated monitor (or even know how to), not everybody has the same colour profile (or even know about it), not everybody knows which is the correct file format (or even how to convert), not everybody knows how to treat the colour space or the colour mode to send to a Lab., not everybody knows how to interpret a chromaticity diagram ... even some Labs. neglect some of those aspects as well.

...but with digital one must also be diligent with white balancing the camera, and be sure that contrast and saturation are set correctly. All this is critical to record an image that does not require any correction, or is not overexposed. With slide film, image parameters are built into the film in manufacture, by people who know what they are doing. With digital, it is the user who must know what he is doing, which, at least with our clients, is a rare occurance.

No. With slide film you can do colour corrections at the time of the exposure and after ... Anyway, in my opinion, the correction step has nothing to do with "the real" reason asked.

Some have said that film has a greater color gamut than digital. I think that may be true and one of the reasons film was easier to color correct than digital, and why some think slides, and film in general, looks more "real".

Greater colour gamut may remain in a nonsense race between them both, it makes little here, the human eye has its own "gamut" limit.

White balance is something a photographer does (or sadly, often doesn't do) with a digital camera before shooting to adjust the camera to the color temperature of the light used to shoot with...

... Or after! if working with RAW format.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi, Alan. We don't make a big deal out of Christmas. Even when it involved big family gatherings, I'd sneak out early with a view camera, and return
hours later when everyone else was exhausted from the inevitable political and sociological arguments. My family has some pretty highly placed govt
experts, phD's, lawyers, etc in such topics, which means they all expertly raise their voices. Rocks and trees don't talk back. My Phillips is still rock
solid, though I shoot color film in it less often due to its sheer expense. I got rid of all the megapixels, and even the little remaining pixels scurrying
around, with roach bait and D-Con. Works every time. And all the gamut was used up on toast, just like the marmalade.

 

[Alan Gales]

Hi, Alan. We don't make a big deal out of Christmas. Even when it involved big family gatherings, I'd sneak out early with a view camera, and return
hours later when everyone else was exhausted from the inevitable political and sociological arguments. My family has some pretty highly placed govt
experts, phD's, lawyers, etc in such topics, which means they all expertly raise their voices. Rocks and trees don't talk back. My Phillips is still rock
solid, though I shoot color film in it less often due to its sheer expense. I got rid of all the megapixels, and even the little remaining pixels scurrying
around, with roach bait and D-Con. Works every time. And all the gamut was used up on toast, just like the marmalade.

Politics at family get togethers. Yeah, been there and done that. I don't blame you for sneaking out!

I don't shoot color with my 8x10 Wehman either. I've got a 4x5 reduction back for that or I shoot my new to me Mamiya C220f. I do own a little digital Fujifilm X100s for snapshots and Ebay photos. I used to shoot a lot of sports with dslr's when my daughter pitched fast pitch softball. Nothing puts a smile on my face like my 8x10 though. Film has soul and digital seems empty to me.

My daughter is at Rolla, Mo. learning electrical and computer engineering. She shoots an Olympus OM-1. She loves film and especially b&w.

 

[fstop]

I think I'm going to shoot some film this weekend. Hollow points or FMJ?

 

[Agulliver]

I'm gonna break out the old Polaroid 104 and shoot some FP100c this Christmas so there.

 

[RPC]

Not everybody has a calibrated monitor (or even know how to), not everybody has the same colour profile (or even know about it), not everybody knows which is the correct file format (or even how to convert), not everybody knows how to treat the colour space or the colour mode to send to a Lab., not everybody knows how to interpret a chromaticity diagram ... even some Labs. neglect some of those aspects as well.

Our clients generally send us uncorrected images, copied from files straight out of their camera, in JPEG. Our system is geared to deal with clients' profiles and color spaces and it is rarely a problem. We do the color correction with calibrated equipment. As for those that ask for no corrections, problems could be introduced that could very well be a reason they are off if they correct or convert their own, but few do this.

No. With slide film you can do colour corrections at the time of the exposure and after

A slide can also give accurate color, or very close to accurate, and usually does, without any color adjustment, by design.

... Anyway, in my opinion, the correction step has nothing to do with "the real" reason asked.

Yes, I saw where it was explained, after my post, what was meant by "real". A slide's color is generally very close without additional correction by design. Digital requires more careful camera setting and almost always correction. My point was digital must be manipulated more than slide film, therefore a slide can be thought of as more "real".

Greater colour gamut may remain in a nonsense race between them both, it makes little here, the human eye has its own "gamut" limit.

I'm sure the eye does, but you don't say what the limit is or how that relates to seeing or not seeing the gamut of film or digital.

... Or after! if working with RAW format.

That takes time. Our clients generally want a fast turnaround so they just set WB in the camera if they think about it at all. Our lab seldom if ever works with RAW images from clients.

 

[LAG]

Excuse RPC

Our clients generally send us uncorrected images, copied from files straight out of their camera, in JPEG. Our system is geared to deal with clients' profiles and color spaces and it is rarely a problem. We do the color correction with calibrated equipment. As for those that ask for no corrections, problems could be introduced that could very well be a reason they are off if they correct or convert their own, but few do this.

Well, if those clients act that way, that's their problem, but perhaps then there is no need for your previous exclamation surprise then:

they accept their results!

​

A slide can also give accurate color, or very close to accurate, and usually does, without any color adjustment, by design.

Again, the thing is the human factor and the quality control when using the material, not the material itself … Even, like you have said before (see bold below):

With slide film, image parameters are built into the film in manufacture, by people who know what they are doing. With digital, it is the user who must know what he is doing, which, at least with our clients, is a rare occurance

​

... it is difficult to compare the quality of images until a correction step has taken place. A slide's color is generally very close without additional correction. Digital requires more careful camera setting and almost always correction. Once corrected, then you can better assess perceived "realness". Some here have explained what "real" is to them, but others may see it differently.

Try to put aside the correction (justs for a moment), and now: Why is it difficult to compare without it? For me, it's just the other way around. Of course we can have different points of view, but many more we'll have if we go different ways.

I'm sure the eye does, but you don't say what the limit is or how that relates to seeing or not seeing the gamut of film or digital.

Long story short: We all have different eyes, different brains but the physical colour reference is a constant value. One thing is the gamut, but the other – the limit, the important - is what we are able to see (depth of colour).

That takes time. Our clients generally want a fast turnaround so they just set WB in the camera if they think about it at all. Our lab seldom if ever works with RAW images from clients.

My point was that the digital WB (with RAW) could be done before and after, that’s the only note I was trying to say to you. But on the other hand, since you mentioned it: “Takes time? Fast turnaround? If They think about it at all?” Once again we have careless clients! They receive what they deserve then. In this case, too much Lab for too small customers.

Fortunately we are not all like those. I hope

Best

 

[removed account4]

Short answer: Light is closer to light in the side of the slide.

sorry, not really wanting to argue with you but i'm not drinking the koolaid.
i'll go along with an artifact from a chemical experiment, but that's it

 

[blockend]

sorry, not really wanting to argue with you but i'm not drinking the koolaid.
i'll go along with an artifact from a chemical experiment, but that's it

I agree. Chemical dyes in a suspension of dead pig vs. a grid of tiny lenses. Who's going to call that one as a suitable index of reality?

 

[Tom Cross]

I live in gt Yarmouth our last proper family run photography shop closed few years back and the other does not do film anymore , I have historically found said supermarkets quality poor , I use snapfish for digital .i would love to. Use a darkroom facility if one existed close to me . It would be silly to go bk to college just for the darkroom and do the same course again even if they still teach film techniques??

If you mean the one in Regent Road that could be my fault, I bought his two last rolls of Agfa Vista in May! They were quite dusty but were still in date! He seemed pleased someone had bought them but I don't think he was going to rush to get more stock

 

[LAG]

sorry, not really wanting to argue with you but i'm not drinking the koolaid.
i'll go along with an artifact from a chemical experiment, but that's it

Fine

 

[lecarp]

Because its the right thing to do.
Merriam Webster

Definition of right

1. 1 : righteous, upright
   
   
2. 2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>
   
   
3. 3 : conforming to facts or truth : correct <the right answer>
   
   
4. 4 : suitable, appropriate <the right man for the job>
   
   
5. 5 : straight <a right line>
   
   
6. 6 : genuine, real
   

 

[NJH]

Another elephant in the room. Ask anyone who shoots digital whom asks this question about analog photography why they bother to shoot stills? These days with 4k becoming more common and the ability to pull stills from bursts of 4k footage there is increasingly no point in shooting digital stills, might as well shoot bursts of video or just shoot video.

 

[blockend]

Another elephant in the room. Ask anyone who shoots digital whom asks this question about analog photography why they bother to shoot stills? These days with 4k becoming more common and the ability to pull stills from bursts of 4k footage there is increasingly no point in shooting digital stills, might as well shoot bursts of video or just shoot video.

4k (8k, 16k et al) may kill the decisive moment as the defining character of candid photography, but only for those with the time to re-examine reality at 30 fps.

 

[David Brown]

Another elephant in the room. Ask anyone who shoots digital whom asks this question about analog photography why they bother to shoot stills? These days with 4k becoming more common and the ability to pull stills from bursts of 4k footage there is increasingly no point in shooting digital stills, might as well shoot bursts of video or just shoot video.

Well, there is the storage problem ...