Mitch Alland Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I've been thinking for the last nine months been about returning to film and have started a thread called, Go back to film? Sell the M9-P/MM? Wanna talk me down? It's only three pages and has numerous examples of Tri-X and M-Monochrom shots.
On page 3, I come to a conclusion (posts #92, 96 and 100) that, right now, as long as there is this excellent, small hand-development lab in Chiang Mai that I use, it’s worthwhile for me to continue shooting film — and, if I go back to digital, it is likely to be in “binges” of six months or a year and then return for a binge of film.
Conceptually I've thought the following: if you think of two circles (digital and film) intersecting for the bulk of their areas, leaving on either side a crescent that does not intersect — take the crescent of the film circle: that's the area of film properties, or "look", that one cannot get from digital without "major fakery." That's what makes me interested in film. In the referenced thread someone on has been kind enough to draw these circles to make the concept vivid graphically.
An example of what drives my film shooting can be illustrated through the two sets of photographs below — one film, one digital; one set of unposed street portraits and the other a set of landscapes in the same locality. Now, remember I’m only thinking of 35mm and Tri-X for film, not taking into account medium format or slower films, which could change the size of the crescents.
M-Monochrom | DR Summicron-50 | ISO 320
Bangkok
M6 | DR-Summicron | Tri-X @ ISO 1600 | Stand development for 1 hour in Rodinal 1:100, gentle inversion after 30 minutes
Chiang Mai
M-Monochrom | Summicron-35v4 | ISO 640]
Wiang Pa Pao
Leica M6 | DR Summicron-50mm | Tri-X @400 | Stand development in Rodinal
Wiang Pa Pao
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
|