Why shoot film

[LAG]

Sorry but why false to the extreme ISO? whats the top ISO you have obtained using film? Ive been able to push it to 6400 with usable results (12800 but result wherent that pleasing). On digital (Canon 6d) I'v usable and pleasing photos (monochrome mode) with ISO 102,400. Can you said that for film? Let me say this again, we are talking about usable result, not muddled shapes and grains.

Don't misunderand me, 9.5 (I use half frame cameras as well) out of 10 photos I make are made with film. I'm just like to be objective about facts.

Of course, I rather have a 3200 film shot than a 102,400 on digital hanging on my wall, but facts are fact.

Please let me know if Im wrong (most likely I'm, not as arrogant as to believe Im know everything). Would like to heard people results using extreme ISO on film.

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.

 

[LAG]

The biggest difference between film and digital is the amount of images that end up in print. In film days nearly every amateur photograph taken resulted in a printed image or slide, and a good proportion of enthusiast and professional shots ended in some kind of hard copy. Now 99.999% of shutter clicks result in ephemeral data. You can argue the screen has replaced the print as the destination of choice, but that preference is not without consequences. Hard drives aren't choosy about what goes on them, the greatest photograph ever taken and an old gas bill are a similar set of binary data.

I agree, the Print/Visual step it's a huge difference of course, much more if we bear in mind several aspects of them, like .. not only the beauty of print process itself for film, but also that those incredible digital camera resolutions mentioned above depend on the resolution quality of display device (monitor/printer) as well.

...Digital photography makes the still image less important in practice if not in theory.

Indeed, though perhaps not The Digital Photography as a self-enclosed whole make that importance, but the places where the Photography itself has been trendly implemented as a secondary "handy-tool" level, and by extension the paper form.

 

[BMbikerider]

Marcelo. How about reproducing this image on the forum for us to see what this 'extreme' ISO claim looks like in real life.

 

[LAG]

... shoot what satisfies you, or what suits your needs, or both. Enjoy it as much as possible. Both film and digital have proven themselves to be competent tools for image making. Now it's up to the photographer to create.

I feel the same!

 

[LAG]

..., the main difference is between the photographers, not between the equipment and its products..., what a person does with whatever camera should be more important than what kind of camera it is ..., The choice between traditional and digital photography is for each person to make..., The World needs both.

and that's an Excellent way to explain it all! Thank you

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

It's pretty silly to say something like canon 5drs can't come close to medium format quality.

It does not.

 

[sportster44]

Why shoot film? why do people still paint? Why do people still use oils, acrylics, and water paints? And what about about pencil and pastels? Its because we as artists have chosen work with with that medium as our form of of expression. Film and digital are no different. Simply choose your medium; go out and create .

 

[LAG]

...
I. Product

There is simply no comparison between what film is able to capture when compared to d!&!+@l. If you want to see a simple but clear example with your own eyes go to:

www.thermojetstove.com/Tonality

In my view, this example is not valid at all! Although you can call a Digital Camera a scanner itself, is not the same what a scanner does compared to what a Digital Camera does. Not even being a super-duper scanner. About the fundamental differences on the very fine detail there is also a lot to talk about as well.

On the other hand, how the perspective of the film through a microscope got to digital is not mentioned either, and finally when this person says that "One of the little secrets of digital cameras is that their ability to record color is four times less than the published pixel count", that is completely false!, for the final "demosaicing" every pixel is involved, taken into acount and modified in that 2x2 pattern.

Thank you for the link anyway!

II. Process

Last month I was out shooting fall foliage with a MF folder that's about 60 years old. The clouds were racing across the sky so fast it looked like time lapse and I had five shots to expend from this beautiful overlook. I stood there for quite a while, admiring the view, sizing up compositions, watching the pattern of the cloud shadows as they raced over the ground, and noting how the needle of my Ikophot moved as I panned over the scene. Another gentleman was there with an electrical picture making thingy sitting on a tripod automatically clicking off an exposure every second or so. He confided that he was shooting in RAW so he could fix the image in post processing. After shooting a couple hundred exposures he picked up his gear and left. I don't know if there is a name for that guy's hobby, but whatever it was it was certainly not photography.

Why not?

 

[removed account4]

so for me, its tasteless (from Oxford dictionary Tasteless= Lacking flavour).

ahh
thanks

"bland"

i understand.
thanks !

i was going by the other definition of tasteless meaning: vulgar, or crude, my-bad

have a great night!
john

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why shoot film? why do people still paint? Why do people still use oils, acrylics, and water paints? And what about about pencil and pastels? Its because we as artists have chosen work with with that medium as our form of of expression. Film and digital are no different. Simply choose your medium; go out and create .

Why do amateur radio operators still use International Morse Code? Why are new amateur radio operators learning Morse code which is no longer a requirement for licenses?

 

[tomfrh]

Please send what you are smoking to me ASAP. Also send the drug that you are taking. I could always use a good laugh when ignoring the facts.

35mm digital has eclipsed 35mm film and is now in the realm of Mf film.

This is the truth whether you like it or not so in my opinion you are the ones indulging in fantasy.

As for ISO. 3200 speed 35mm film is rough. 3200 35mm sensor is much cleaner and higher quality.

at 10 - 20 MP the average consumer considered a d!&!+@l image to be equivalent to a photochemical print. The number has nothing to do with actual capability or any stringent testing

That's not true. The number is not just a marketing number derived from crude tests.

Many people (including myself) have done proper testing and the answers always land somewhere around 10-20 megapixels. My answer was about 15 for velvia 35mm

 

[blockend]

Please send what you are smoking to me ASAP. Also send the drug that you are taking. I could always use a good laugh when ignoring the facts.

I recently had the opportunity to compare some Martin Parr photographs from his film and digital periods. Each were state of the art prints several feet in size. I think Parr shot colour negative on a medium format Plaubel Makina at the time, and his digital work was on a Canon 5D MkII. Image quality as defined by sharpness and resolution were comparable, the film shots had nicer colours IMO. Generally the look was comparable. 35mm colour negative would not have kept up with saturation or grainless appearance at those sizes.

 

[Bill Burk]

I don't know if I already said this but I'm in favor of allowing each photographer to choose what works for themselves.

I think of the Ansel Adams example, you all know how much we hated his color work. It just wasn't his forte.

So I shoot film because digital (and scanning) is not my forte.

While I might have gotten good at it if I focused on it... I focused on something else in the past few years.

I just can't get consistent results from the other stuff.

 

[Greg Heath]

Chicks dig it...

 

[Agulliver]

Question Agulliver, whats the highest ISO you can get with fil ? Not really arguing, just curious.

Regards

The highest I ever achieved was 12,800 by pushing Ilford Delta 3200 two stops. I believe others have gone as high as 25,000

If 3200 is too grainy, please explain the attached images, shot with Ilford Delta 3200 with less than high end cameras. The band was shot with a Halina 35X of all things just last week, and the shot from Vegas with a Nikon F601M last year.

 

[Europan]

Why shoot film? You’re right, I also abhor that new-fashioned crap and stay with plates.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

he highest I ever achieved was 12,800 by pushing Ilford Delta 3200 two stops. I believe others have gone as high as 25,000

Shot as-is at 3200, Delta is not grainy and is often mistaken for an ISO 100 film.
The higher the ISO, the more pronounced the grain and contrast.
This pic is from a Zero Image 6x9 MF pinhole, (8m/f22) Delta P3200 @ EI 12,800 (P+1):

 

[Agulliver]

To be scrupulously fair, Delta 3200 can look grainy when not used skillfully. If the film is even slightly under exposed or under developed, you can pull images from it on scanning or printing but they will be grainy. If over exposed you quickly lose highlight detial. If exposed correctly and/or processed correctly for the exposure, it looks great. Failure of the photographer to expose and process correctly is not a failure of the film, it is just less forgiving than most medium speed and 400 ISO films.

Compare the two images I posted...one with an un-metered bottom of the barrel 50s camera, the other with a reasonable quality SLR and an old but good Tarmon lens. The latter could easily be 400 ISO film, possibly even 100 ISO except you know it was shot at night and hand held. The former, shot at a gig, does have visible grain but hardly intrusive to my eyes. And bear in mind un-metered camera, low end optics etc.

 

[blockend]

This pic is from a Zero Image 6x9 MF pinhole, (8m/f22) Delta P3200 @ EI 12,800 (P+1):

I thought you were going to tell us it was shot on a digital camera. The foreground shadow area looks like digital noise, not grain to my eyes. I don't know if scanning and compression has resulted in additional artefacts, but that appearance isn't what I'd expect of high ISO film.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

35mm digital has eclipsed 35mm film and is now in the realm of Mf film.

This is the truth whether you like it or not so in my opinion you are the ones indulging in fantasy.

As for ISO. 3200 speed 35mm film is rough. 3200 35mm sensor is much cleaner and higher quality.

This is the only truth for those limited by two parameters. Resolution in pixels and how high ISO number is shown in the menu. If all you need in the image is lots of pixels and how "clean" it is, of course for you digital is what you need.
But if we step aside from this very technical, yet, primitive PoV, the truth is not as easy to find as you and many others are able to determine it.

Around 1993 digital was widely adopted in the television production. I was one of those who build first digital news room around this time. At same time movies started to be processed and digitized by updated telecine equipment.
I was involved it QA process as well, while digital was new in television signal processing and film production. I have one chat with person who came from traditional film production and has a lot of technical experience in computers as well. I have asked him why old, film based movies even if digitized are much more pleasant to look at in terms of colors and rendering. Quick answer was, which is still valid, film gives unlimited graduations, digital quantization is limited. It was limited back then it is limited now.
It is visible in BW and it is visible in color. HDR and DR on digital side doesn't help to make it look as smooth, deep and natural as on film. I wish to be as simple as digital converts as you, but my eyes are not taking it. If I look at digital print it is nothing but "meh" to me comparing to analog print. I can't consider digital images as art at all, too primitive rendering suitable only for detailed visualization.
High ISO in the digital cameras menus comes with price. Again, I'm not sure if folks like you wants to see it or it is something insignificant for your crowd. Every time I look at high ISO images from digital cameras they are weird. No noise, no life either. It is like vampire movies, were it supposed to be dark, but entire scene is busted by studio light and actors skin is covered in the plaster.

At beginning of this year I updated my old 35mm digital camera which was OK up to ISO 1600 to one which was up to ISO 6400. But I didn't like what it was giving to me. At basic ISO it was flat comparing to older camera and on ISO 3200 it was giving me results I described above. I looked at even newer (current) camera few months ago, which is claimed to be ISO 12500 capable. Sure it is, but for official forensic coverage, while I'm into family casual, candid like pictures in the evening. So, I sold this ISO3200-6400 35mm digital and went with digital camera which is capable of clean basic ISO and flash if light is low, but I want clean pictures with normal rendering of the skin. It is giving me naturally looking, traditional pictures, not zombie movies pictures.

From my practice in street photography I discovered what digital high ISO is something not always accurate. I've used two advanced digital cameras and in the low light, shadows situation they have to be on very high ISO. I switched from digital to bw film street photography and discovered what for night street photography I could use ISO400 film as is or pushed to 1600, while with digital it was necessary to use ISO3200-6400 for same quantity of light.

Sorry, to me it is not as easy as for you, this is why 35mm digital is nowhere near to film MF for my eyes as for yours. No illusions, no fantasy, just some practical view and some knowledge.

 

[Agulliver]

Let's look at some high ISO colour....shot way back in 1996 on a Praktica BX20S with a Sigma 35-200 lens. Yes, there is grain but it looks pleasing to me. Fuji Superia 1600 shot at box speed, processed by a high street lab back when they were capable of good service.

 

[flavio81]

Let's look at some high ISO colour....shot way back in 1996 on a Praktica BX20S with a Sigma 35-200 lens. Yes, there is grain but it looks pleasing to me. Fuji Superia 1600 shot at box speed, processed by a high street lab back when they were capable of good service.

View attachment 167996 View attachment 167997 View attachment 167998

I've used Superia 1600 extensively and is an excellent film. Grain is slightly smaller than it appears in your sample; what happens is that many film scanners will make grain appear far worse due to the ill problem of "grain aliasing". Optical 8x10" prints made from Superia 1600 showed grain that was still acceptable, and very similar to the size of grain you would get from a HP5 enlargement.

All in all a perfect film for concerts, which is what I used it for.

 

[Agulliver]

@flavio81 To be fair to Fuji 1600, those scans were made in 1996 from prints produced by a chain store. I rescanned the prints about 5 years ago but don't have those files on my laptop...I suppose today I could scan the negatives if I dug them out

Yes, the grain appears much less on the prints. And I suspect that while the prints are quite good, the negs are even better.

Film can handle high ISO, and I am quite baffled by the assertion that it cannot. I've always been a fan of high speed films and would pick Fuji Press 800 as my favourite C41 film of all time.

 

[Maris]

Why shoot film? why do people still paint? Why do people still use oils, acrylics, and water paints? And what about about pencil and pastels? Its because we as artists have chosen work with with that medium as our form of of expression. Film and digital are no different. Simply choose your medium; go out and create .

I reckon this is the key concept. All the arguments for film predicated on the appearance of pictures, resolution, grain, pixel count, tonal fidelity, etc miss the point and are ultimately doomed to failure.

For years photo-realist painters have been turning out works that look just like giant photographs.
Graphite pencil can be used to convincingly mimic black and white photographs.
Mezzotint was the first of many ingenious printing processes celebrated for their ability to deliver photograph-like pictures.
Digital picture-making can do anything including fashioning pictures that look like photographs.

Photography, uniquely, is the making of pictures out of light-sensitive materials (film, plates, sensitised paper, and such like). It is the only medium to choose if one wants the picture and its subject matter to have a particular and peculiar relationship. In a nutshell:

The authority of a photograph to describe subject matter comes not from resemblance but from direct physical causation.
​

Painting can't do this. Drawing can't do this. Digital can't do this. "Looks like" doesn't mean "same as".

 

[tomfrh]

If all you need in the image is lots of pixels and how "clean" it is, of course for you digital is what you need.

This is largely what I am talking about, and was what people used to judge film's quality until digital began to eclipse it in terms of clarity and raw detail.

Around 1993 digital was widely adopted in the television production. I was one of those who build first digital news room around this time. At same time movies started to be processed and digitized by updated telecine equipment.
I was involved it QA process as well, while digital was new in television s
ignal processing and film production.

this is interesting. I didn't know they went to digital television back then.

Quick answer was, which is still valid, film gives unlimited graduations, digital quantization is limited

Yeah, I really disagree with this assertion. It's a common argument that analog has infinite variation as opposed to supposedly "chunky" digital quantization, but that's only the case in digital signals which are roughly quantized. A higher sample rate can capture ALL the information in an analog source. It's basic Nyquist sampling theorum stuff. You can reproduce variations digitally with far finer detail than human eye (or a sheet of film) can register.

Every time I look at high ISO images from digital cameras they are weird.

I agree. High ISO look yucky. But so too does high ISO film in my opinion. Delta 3200 (1000ISO film) looks very scrappy to me.