robgo2 wrote:
You may get huge files from scans of film, but a large proportion of those MPs are just grain/noise, not detail.
Rob
You must not have read my own post close enough. I was only talking about detail--you couldn't produce noise/grain on Harman DPP even if you wanted to.
jj_glos wrote:
Are we reading the same thread? I haven't seen this contempt that you keep going on about. Who are you? Your account was made it would seem just to post to this thread, which makes me wonder if it's a regular poster just trolling...
My account was made to use the buy and sell forum after the holidays and I stumbled into this thread. Sorry to disappoint you and others.
What's interesting is that nothing I have posted at all is even remotely trolling. Are those on the digital side that insecure that attacking someone who partakes in a well established thread gets called a troll?
jay w wrote:
I shot a couple rolls threw the Hasselblad this summer. I was surprised how slow (tripod work) the shooting was. I loved shooting that camera and the 4x5, but I have a hard time finding time for keeping my chops in the darkroom. Processing film is one thing, but making prints is really time consuming and takes practice. It's something I enjoy (well, enjoyed), but I don't do it because of the time.
I'm still hanging onto the darkroom hoping that retirement opens some doors.
Jay
Exactly. Printing is hard. That's the point for me, to do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
George Orwell wrote:
My account was made to use the buy and sell forum after the holidays and I stumbled into this thread. Sorry to disappoint you and others.
What's interesting is that nothing I have posted at all is even remotely trolling. Are those on the digital side that insecure that attacking someone who partakes in a well established thread gets called a troll?
I actually posted in favour of film...
You again fail to address the question of where this contempt is coming from. Plenty of people don't want to go back to it for very valid reasons and only see it as something they just had to use in the past and digital had made what they personally do much easier. That's not contempt. I may have missed a post where someone was more abrupt, but I must've also missed you quoting them on that?
This was just your standard digital/film thread, plenty of discussion from both viewpoints. You changed the tone of that, and I could not see why you chose to. Which led me to the troll comment.
Dec 25, 2016 at 05:37 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
gdanmitchell wrote:
Clearly 8 x 10 LF will have very small grain.
Getting back to the "could you go back to film?" question, it seems that it could almost be more of a "could you go back to LF" question in that regard. 8 x 10 LF has its place, but it is a pretty darned small one these days. I'm glad someone still does it (again including a couple folks I know personally) but it is a pretty unusual thing and, in a whole lot of ways, probably not easy to compare directly to digital in any format. For example, one person I know may make only a small handful of exposures — sometimes not even one per day — when working with 8 x 10. Bless his heart for doing this, but such a thing isn't going to work for most folks, even most folks who are really, really good photographers.
But, yes, if you are looking for very low visibility grain in film work, 8 x 10 will get you there.
Film grain is an interesting thing. It has been suggested that one reason we "got away with" enlarging some 35mm film images way beyond what we would consider sharp enough today is because the sharpness of the "grain" somehow subjectively "read" as a sharp enlargement of an image that wasn't objectively sharp. For example, there are older photographs made with media such as tri-x that have have (what today we regard to be) huge grain when printed at sizes we don't worry about at all with digital.
By the way, that wasn't meant to counter the point about the low visibility of noise in 8 x 10 film... just another point about how different media do not necessarily work the same way. (As I wrote that I thought about the Galen Rowell prints I've seen at fairly large sizes. Initially I wasn't fond of them due to the significant visibility of the grain and their overall softness by comparison to what we expect today from digital images from similar-sized camera formats.)
Dan it isn't always a question of going back to Large format film, it can be going to large format film for the first time. For example, I have recently met a guy who is developing an active studio with 12 young photographers. He shoots a lot ovf video mostly for music video. He isn't even 30 yet, but has developed a quite successful business, and he does 80 percent of his stills shooting with Large format film. His prints are stunning and he didn't return to Large format film, it was as he describes it a natural extension of the highly controlled way he likes to shoot. In his studio, he has a large darkroom where he processes all his own film, and he does that despite being a photoshop whiz. He worked in his early twenties in digital design as a profession for a few years while he was developing his photography skills. You talk about Large format film as if it is old foagies who have held onto or returned to this way of shooting and they are a very small niche. This photographer is a very different example of a young guy with tons of experience in digital media and with skills in many areas, who has developed a successful eclectic business, but also incorporated Larger format film into this enterprise as something that sets his work apart and in seeing his prints I think it suits his style beautifully and I can see why it is successful for him. To me this is an example of how film can fit in a vibrant modern approach to photography.
In my own shooting, I may turn (not return because I have never used it before) Large format film because I like a slow methodical controlled style of shooting and I think it would be fun to see how Large format film would work for my photography. I doubt I would shoot more than 50 frames a year (probably not even 20), but I would want all of them to be keepers and I would have some hope that three or four of them might be among my best 10 or so for that year. I don't know if that will actually happen, but right now that is how I am thinking about incorporating Large format film into my work and it isn't a hold on to an old approach or returning to an old approach. For me it is about a new approach that I think is worth exploring.
Sure, nothing stops you with digital from being slow and methodical with your approach...but I've seen too many posts of people coming back with 1,000 images from a days outing to suggest something otherwise than slow and methodical.
Take a 4x5 or 8x10 camera out and you have NO choice but to be slow and methodical. Humans by nature are lazy and will take the easy route if given a choice. How many photogs ( % wise ) do you think would come away with maybe 10 images from a landscape outing using digital. I'd venture to say it would be close to a big fat zero. Too easy...no cost to just fire away multiple images and see which ones are best back at the computer.
I've spent plenty of time in the Rockies and seen many photogs shooting away bracketing up to 7 shots just to ensure one of them is properly exposed. Why not...it costs zero dollars to do so.
Easy to say you don't need to use an totally manual analog camera to slow down and focus on your vision...hard in practice when using digital.
Over the years I have really enjoyed visiting galleries and viewing black and white prints shot by great photographers. There is something so "this is part of the music" when being face to face with a Adams, Smith, Maplethorp, Weston, ETC, print...
jj_glos wrote:
I actually posted in favour of film...
You again fail to address the question of where this contempt is coming from. Plenty of people don't want to go back to it for very valid reasons and only see it as something they just had to use in the past and digital had made what they personally do much easier. That's not contempt. I may have missed a post where someone was more abrupt, but I must've also missed you quoting them on that?
This was just your standard digital/film thread, plenty of discussion from both viewpoints. You changed the tone of that, and I could not see why you chose to. Which led me to the troll comment....Show more →
I chanaged the tone? I am not the first person who made this observation. I posted my comment after another wrote this: "I can't understand the smaller set's contempt for those who do use film."
And I guess you missed these gems:
"35mm film looks ludicrous"
"I shoot film all the time in my horse & buggy. "
"I think it's an absolute waste of time...."
"It [shooting film] seems little more than an exercise in pretentious rusticism to fight our way backwards against clear improvements brought by technological evolution.
"Film? Ho ho ho ho ho ha ha ha hahahaha. Not a chance."
"I see more than a few people cashing in on pretentiousness by marketing weddings shot on film"
If you can't see contempt in lines like the above then perhaps you can strip away some of your bias and try again.
I dont see why one can't enjoy their own tools without tossing in politically loaded comments like the above.
The thing about large format (I shoot 4x5 and now also 5x7) isn't just the film size. It's the ability to use lenses from any age. I have a cluster of lenses from 1845-1860 which Civil war re-enactors like portraits from. I have another cluster of lenses from 1905-1928 that the steam threshing people like portraits and machinery shots from. Finally, I have three modern Copal mounted lenses that I can use for flash shots. Large format gives me the ability to replicate the look from many different ages. There is now also available special holders that allow making wet colloidian in a standard 4x5 or 5x7 back. Add in all the lens movements and large format has some serious advantages.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The latter reason makes some sense to me — it is interesting to understand how different approaches and media work, and experimenting with them is a fine way to learn about them.
The first idea has never made that much sense to me, since I already can and do work slowly and methodically when it suits my purpose for a particular shot. Among the things that digital does, it allows me to work more quickly or to make more exposures when that is important to me, but there is nothing about it that requires me to do so.
Make sense?
Dan
I can see how that would make sense to you, but it wasn't what I was really saying. I know that I can work slowly and methodically with digital and I often do, But working slowly and methodically with large format film I think could be a different experience for me. I expect that if I shoot large format film on most occasion I would make one or maybe two exposures. I could do that with digital of course, but I don't think I ever would.This can be seen as a limit of film and in some ways it is, but it can also be a strength in that it may allow me to plan more thoroughly and think more carefully about the shot. Let's take a simple example in which I want to take a golden hour shot of a waterfall. If I am going to shoot digital for that scenario, I will probably use a number of shutter speeds and shoot in several different types of light and then pick which one I like best afterward. Again that could be seen as a strength of digital that you can take this approach. If I were shooting film, however, I would think more about exactly what shutter speed I wanted (and what ND filter I would use to get it), I would think more about exactly what time (to the minute) I would want to take the shot . That sort of preparation could be done on digital, but in this situation to me it wouldn't make sense. I would shoot the much larger number of images. For film, however, I would do the extra work and the extra thought and in that way even be s slower and more methodical shooter.
George Orwell wrote:
I chanaged the tone? I am not the first person who made this observation. I posted my comment after another wrote this: "I can't understand the smaller set's contempt for those who do use film."
And I guess you missed these gems:
"35mm film looks ludicrous"
"I shoot film all the time in my horse & buggy. "
"I think it's an absolute waste of time...."
"It [shooting film] seems little more than an exercise in pretentious rusticism to fight our way backwards against clear improvements brought by technological evolution.
"Film? Ho ho ho ho ho ha ha ha hahahaha. Not a chance."
"I see more than a few people cashing in on pretentiousness by marketing weddings shot on film"
If you can't see contempt in lines like the above then perhaps you can strip away some of your bias and try again.
I dont see why one can't enjoy their own tools without tossing in politically loaded comments like the above.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
One more pebble to toss on this pile:
Over the years I have really enjoyed visiting galleries and viewing black and white prints shot by great photographers. There is something so "this is part of the music" when being face to face with a Adams, Smith, Maplethorp, Weston, ETC, print...
On a similar note, I love old photographs in museums. It's not really the same seeing them digitised on a screen. The snap below is of a photo in our local regimental museum and packs a lot of detail (not really seen here) and is of the time (world war one, 1916 if I recall correctly):
I miss the romantic grain of fast film, but I find that my 760D set to ISO 1600 produces images with film-like speckling which I find very satisfying, reminiscent of the moody images of my youth. Here's a film simulation from last week:
George Orwell wrote:
I chanaged the tone? I am not the first person who made this observation. I posted my comment after another wrote this: "I can't understand the smaller set's contempt for those who do use film."
And I guess you missed these gems:
"35mm film looks ludicrous"
"I shoot film all the time in my horse & buggy. "
"I think it's an absolute waste of time...."
"It [shooting film] seems little more than an exercise in pretentious rusticism to fight our way backwards against clear improvements brought by technological evolution.
"Film? Ho ho ho ho ho ha ha ha hahahaha. Not a chance."
"I see more than a few people cashing in on pretentiousness by marketing weddings shot on film"
If you can't see contempt in lines like the above then perhaps you can strip away some of your bias and try again.
I dont see why one can't enjoy their own tools without tossing in politically loaded comments like the above.
Ah the good old cherry picking from a member who registered here merely days ago... And instantly *liked* by one of the worst troublemakers on this site. Yes, I think it's an absolute waste of time. But you forgot to mention the other part of my post so let me remind you - *unless you're shooting medium or large format*. If you want to shoot 35mm, no one's stopping you. But why would you want to shoot the format that was overtaken by digital about 10 years ago for resolution, cleanness, DR (unless you're shooting some B/W films and speed? Your time. Not mine.
Milan Hutera wrote:
Ah the good old cherry picking from a member who registered here merely days ago... And instantly *liked* by one of the worst troublemakers on this site. Yes, I think it's an absolute waste of time. But you forgot to mention the other part of my post so let me remind you - *unless you're shooting medium or large format*. If you want to shoot 35mm, no one's stopping you. But why would you want to shoot the format that was overtaken by digital about 10 years ago for resolution, cleanness, DR (unless you're shooting some B/W films and speed? Your time. Not mine. ...Show more →
Why would I enjoy 35mm film? Because I like the output it produces as well as the process. How is this not understandable? Do you harangue painters for using an inferior medium too? Can you try to understand that some people dont get much satisfaction from hitting control print, then clicking the print button, and watching a printer produce their print.
Digital, to me, cannot replicate the experience and images I get from 35mm film. That is why I shoot it and will until the last frame of film is made or I take my last breath. Most likely the latter.
Overtaken by digital? Sure, if common metrics is all that defines your photography.
