Steve Spencer wrote:
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....Show more →
On a similar note, I have seen many times, countless times, some (not all) digital photographers claim that they never chimp. Often when I state that I enjoy 35mm film because of no LCD screen. Yet in the field, I can count exactly on one hand how many times I've seen clear evidence of a photograph not chimping, and still have five fingers left over.
Ben Horne wrote:
The moment you look at a large format transparency on a light box with a loupe, there is no going back to digital. That was my experience anyway.
My experience is the opposite, having shot thousands of 4x5 transparencies.
Gunzorro wrote:
My experience is the opposite, having shot thousands of 4x5 transparencies.
But, more power to you (and your wallet!).
Great work Jim! Jim's work and other high quality architectural work would be difficult if not impossible to achieve with film. From capture to post processing, digital is just so much more versatile.
Gunzorro wrote:
Congratulations! You are well on your way to joining a select cadre of (disruptive) forum members.
Wow. I don't even know how it is possible to draw such conclusions. I guess wanting Film Ferrania to fail would suit most here. Better that film die off so that you can be confidently secure in your superiority.
Notice that most, if not all former and current professional photographers are pretty emphatic about not wanting to return to film.
Yes, I get the Zen of film photography, from the capture to the chemical darkroom work. I love the deliberate, contemplative approach required for LF photography. Taking out my Sinar and shooting a few well thought out images is an enjoyable experience. I love the look of portraits taken with MF (6x7) or LF (4x5), but doing so is a real PITA.
What's not so enjoyable is when you have to use LF on a deadline to shoot for a paying client.
Shooting film is becoming harder and harder. I hesitate to develop my own film at home because we have a septic tank. There is no one nearby where I can get C-41 processing done well at a reasonable price. I still love to shoot film on occasion, but it is becoming too expensive and bothersome, especially when I am more than happy with my digital work.
George Orwell wrote:
Wow. I don't even know how it is possible to draw such conclusions. I guess wanting Film Ferrania to fail would suit most here. Better that film die off so that you can be confidently secure in your superiority.
Sorry to disappoint, but until you started waving your Flaming Sword of Virtue, I'd never heard of Film Ferrania before today.
I see you are truly a troll, and a shill. Double winner!
I don't understand this bickering either. If you don't enjoy shooting film for whatever reason...that's great, don't shoot it...and if you get pleasure out of shooting film...again that's great go shoot it. There is no right answer here.
I don't enjoy listening to hippop...guess what I don't listen to it...but I also don't ridicule people that enjoy that style of music.
I'm one who did go back to film, for the most part.
I've been fighting on and off for ~5 years with motivation. Coincidentally, that same 5 years has been the years I spent shooting primarily digital.
I've come to one simple conclusion. I don't like modern AF cameras much. I'll use them, but I do not enjoy working with them at all. This isn't a film/digital thing so much as a complexity thing, I prefer the minimalist cameras.
On the other hand I very much enjoy shooting classic manual & mechanical cameras.
I also do enjoy developing film (scanning or printing, not so much, but I also despise doing digital post-processing work). So I've switched back to shooting older manual cameras and primarily B&W film and am enjoying things far more.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Have you tried this with large format film? With large format film I have seen files with greater resolution and less noise than from even miniMF cameras, but maybe these were a fluke. What I do know is that large prints from large format film can look spectacular and in my view have a look that is not easy to match from digital images. That said digital has many huge advantages, I just think it is unbalanced to say that it is better than even larger format film in every way. I remain totally unconvinced of that.
I do not dispute that you can get excellent large prints from large format film. There are many examples of such from great photographers. I was merely pointing out that the huge files that result from scanning film are not entirely a function of the detail contained therein.
mawz wrote:
As a side note, Ferrania is/was a major European film manufacturer, although their product was rarely seen outside Europe. They're located in Italy.
MAubrey wrote:
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.
I thought that this discussion was about going back to shooting film. I'm not sure how Harman DPP relates to that subject. The fact remains that scans of "normal" film contain a ton of grain/noise.
I am digital ATW! Because of my inexperience with the basics, then experience with the basics, while shooting film, I could have bought the top of the top in DSLR's for the price paid for film processing.
Dec 26, 2016 at 01:54 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
robgo2 wrote:
I thought that this discussion was about going back to shooting film. I'm not sure how Harman DPP relates to that subject. The fact remains that scans of "normal" film contain a ton of grain/noise.
Rob
The point, Rob, that you still haven't acknowledged is that good scans or even digital images made by using a good digital camera and multiple shots merged of large format does not have to have hardly any noise. Such digital files can have more resolution with low noise even compared to the best FF 35mm digital images. Now maybe you don't call large format film "normal," but that is a pretty subjective judgment.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The point, Rob, that you still haven't acknowledged is that good scans or even digital images made by using a good digital camera and multiple shots merged of large format does not have to have hardly any noise. Such digital files can have more resolution with low noise even compared to the best FF 35mm digital images. Now maybe you don't call large format film "normal," but that is a pretty subjective judgment.
Steve, I'm really not sure what the point of your argument is. Of course you can get large, low noise digital files by stitching techniques. As far as scanning is concerned, I spent years performing high resolution scans of the lowest grain 35mm slide and print film, and grain was always present. Perhaps it's different with Harman DPP, but how many film shooters are using that, and is it relevant to the broad topic of going back to film?
Rob
Dec 26, 2016 at 04:05 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
robgo2 wrote:
Steve, I'm really not sure what the point of your argument is. Of course you can get large, low noise digital files by stitching techniques. As far as scanning is concerned, I spent years performing high resolution scans of the lowest grain 35mm slide and print film, and grain was always present. Perhaps it's different with Harman DPP, but how many film shooters are using that, and is it relevant to the broad topic of going back to film?
Rob
Rob the whole point is that you are only considering 35mm film and you are not considering large format film or at least acknowledging it benefits. You are talking as if all film has lots of grain when you scan it and that isn't true for large format film and you don't seem to ever acknowledge that. My point is simple with large format film you can get more resolution without a lot of noise or grain and get a much better signal to noise ration that FF 35mm digital or even miniMF digital. So when you talk about the SNR being an advantage for digital you should acknowledge that only applies to 35mm film and that large format film has a SNR advantage over digital. And yes it is relevant to people going back to film because for some who might like to go back to film--like me--might choose to go back because large format film still has some imaging advantages over digital including a higher SNR, which you seem to think is only an advantage of digital.
robgo2 wrote:
I thought that this discussion was about going back to shooting film. I'm not sure how Harman DPP relates to that subject. The fact remains that scans of "normal" film contain a ton of grain/noise.
Rob
It relates because it's film. And it's what I'm shooting, so it's pertinent.
Haman Direct Positive Film has an ISO of 3. The signal to noise ratio is through the roof and you basically can't see the grain. Isn't that the whole topic:
Could you go back to film?
"Yes, and this is the film that I've gone back to."
I don't understand what the problem is.
I mean, I can add that if we talk about negative film: then an good ISO100 B&W film for 4x5 scanned at 6400dpi will provide 0.8 gigapixels. Will there be grain/noise at 100% viewing? Sure. But the moment you downsample that to, say, 50 or 100MP, then that noise/grain is basically gone. Add a one stop improvement for 5x7, another stop for 8x10, a stop for 11x14, etc.
