Richard G
Veteran
This one has one has some nostalgic, affective component, a tinge of abstraction from the film and the lens. I use this picture at work. This is the front of the hospital. I show it to some patients and they tell me quickly it’s a tree in front of a stucco wall. One man told me it’s obviously a snow scene, cable car, and people looking down at the skiers below. Others have seen sand. Reckon it wouldn’t be so useful in digital. I’ll set up that experiment maybe.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
There is something that, sometimes, is jarringly too literal about digital capture. If you click a picture to view at 100%+ in Lightroom it can be quite unnerving. I made the point elsewhere that one of the things I like about the GF110 on the GFX100 is the very natural look of the files - usually!
This correlates in print - if I look back through my boxes of prints of our history, I’m more drawn in to the film originated prints than digital. And that’s from a position where I don’t recall what was shot with which medium or what camera and lens were used by and large.
I think there is something about the way that film (and the nature and lack of fidelity) evokes memory and remembrance better than the accuracy of digital. Things half remembered?
This correlates in print - if I look back through my boxes of prints of our history, I’m more drawn in to the film originated prints than digital. And that’s from a position where I don’t recall what was shot with which medium or what camera and lens were used by and large.
I think there is something about the way that film (and the nature and lack of fidelity) evokes memory and remembrance better than the accuracy of digital. Things half remembered?
Richard G
Veteran
Tarkovsky would have liked your post.
Michael Kenna says it is not reality he is capturing. One of his Versailles topiary black and whites has the moon reflected in a small pond between the farthest two conical trees, a scene almost not from this world.
OK, Parc de Sceaux. And it’s the first two.
Last edited:
Gordon Moat
Established
The biggest draw to film, for me, is not needing to spend time in front of a computer screen. The second is using cameras very unlike digital cameras.
Most of my work has been digital for the last decade. It involves lots of computer time. So lately film photography has been a personal break from my work.
Most of my work has been digital for the last decade. It involves lots of computer time. So lately film photography has been a personal break from my work.
ellisson
Well-known
This seems to be the difference for me. If I'm shooting film and digitally scanning and digitally printing (or posting), the so-called hybrid process, it is not the same as the complete analog process as described above. For a time I could do that. Now I prefer digital, particularly for travel photography. The problem is, a lot of my best work is film work.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I'm going to keep it simple and maybe a little abstract.
Every camera sees the world a little differently from every other camera and from my mind, film or digital capture both. My mission in making photographs is to explore the world with these tools, and come to understand how to get what I see with them into the photographs that come out of them. Film photography, to me, is all about the defects in film and how I have to muck around with process and exposure to get what I want. Digital photography, likewise, is all about the limitations and defects there are in whatever camera/sensor I'm using, and how I have to muck around to get what I want from it. Each of the recording mediums has its benefits and disadvantages; each of my cameras also has its benefits and disadvantages.
So, in the end, I choose to shoot with film and I choose to shoot with digital capture depending on what kind of mucking around I think will work for whatever it is I might be shooting at a given time, or maybe because of what kind of mucking about it might lead me to do... the "I wonder what happens if ..." situation. I enjoy the challenge of seeing with all these different tools, and I enjoy getting results with both recording mediums that are satisfying to my eyes. If the results satisfy my "audience" too, well, so much the better ... But I'm shooting entirely for my own pleasure these days, and on my own dime.
It remains nice to please those who look at my photo works, but I am assuming (now that I'm long retired) that they understand they're looking at what I'm doing for me, not for them, and that I enjoy their company on the journey. I haven't taken any paid jobs for a very long time.
Other considerations are mostly beside the point. Things like cost, how cumbersome one thing is vs another, etc, might limit what I do but rarely effect what I want to do.
And, oh yeah, it's often fun to talk to the various different bits of equipment and yell at them for being pillocks.
G
Every camera sees the world a little differently from every other camera and from my mind, film or digital capture both. My mission in making photographs is to explore the world with these tools, and come to understand how to get what I see with them into the photographs that come out of them. Film photography, to me, is all about the defects in film and how I have to muck around with process and exposure to get what I want. Digital photography, likewise, is all about the limitations and defects there are in whatever camera/sensor I'm using, and how I have to muck around to get what I want from it. Each of the recording mediums has its benefits and disadvantages; each of my cameras also has its benefits and disadvantages.
So, in the end, I choose to shoot with film and I choose to shoot with digital capture depending on what kind of mucking around I think will work for whatever it is I might be shooting at a given time, or maybe because of what kind of mucking about it might lead me to do... the "I wonder what happens if ..." situation. I enjoy the challenge of seeing with all these different tools, and I enjoy getting results with both recording mediums that are satisfying to my eyes. If the results satisfy my "audience" too, well, so much the better ... But I'm shooting entirely for my own pleasure these days, and on my own dime.
It remains nice to please those who look at my photo works, but I am assuming (now that I'm long retired) that they understand they're looking at what I'm doing for me, not for them, and that I enjoy their company on the journey. I haven't taken any paid jobs for a very long time.
Other considerations are mostly beside the point. Things like cost, how cumbersome one thing is vs another, etc, might limit what I do but rarely effect what I want to do.
And, oh yeah, it's often fun to talk to the various different bits of equipment and yell at them for being pillocks.
G
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
For anyone seeking some new ideas or directions in B&W film photography, I recommend the book 'Mastering Black & White Photography' by John Walmsley, published by the Ammonite Press (UK). I bought my copy from Ebay (heavily discounted, IRRC I paid AUD $10 for it ) and it has been a valuable source of new ideas for me. The best tenner I've ever spent on anything photographic, overlooking cheap film.
Without penning one of my usual pseudo Reader's Digest essays, I reckon it suffices to say after reading this book I now look at shadows and highlights in new ways, as against my obsession of many decades with documentary subjects, pin head sharpness and chocolaty mid-tones.
Analog, digital, whatever - dedicated gearheads may be somewhat disappointed in this book, as the author talks about equipment mostly in terms of how to apply it to different perspectives in image-making. There is a very small sub-section of cameras but it's not obtrusive like too many how-to books tend to go into.
Walmsley is mostly a landscape photographer but he delves into almost all aspects of image-making. I personally find his images a little less than what I aim at in mine, but to me he comes across as an exponent of the old saying, "the perfect is the enemy of the good enough", and this endeared me to his wise words right away.
In my time I've bought many photo books (and discarded a great number of them as too gear-centric and not really relevant to my way of looking at the world and trying to record it) but this one will surely stay in my reference library.
Without penning one of my usual pseudo Reader's Digest essays, I reckon it suffices to say after reading this book I now look at shadows and highlights in new ways, as against my obsession of many decades with documentary subjects, pin head sharpness and chocolaty mid-tones.
Analog, digital, whatever - dedicated gearheads may be somewhat disappointed in this book, as the author talks about equipment mostly in terms of how to apply it to different perspectives in image-making. There is a very small sub-section of cameras but it's not obtrusive like too many how-to books tend to go into.
Walmsley is mostly a landscape photographer but he delves into almost all aspects of image-making. I personally find his images a little less than what I aim at in mine, but to me he comes across as an exponent of the old saying, "the perfect is the enemy of the good enough", and this endeared me to his wise words right away.
In my time I've bought many photo books (and discarded a great number of them as too gear-centric and not really relevant to my way of looking at the world and trying to record it) but this one will surely stay in my reference library.
Last edited:
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Agree with most of this, with one comment.
Time spent in front of a computer or time spent in the darkroom. What's the difference?
On the one hand you get RSI in your mouse grip hand and your eyesight goes after x years. On the other hand you inhale fixer fumes or (as I do anyway) drink too much red wine. And use up forests of paper to make lousy prints (again, speaking for myself).
As for the cost of film, obviously you don't live in Australia. I do, and for me (also almost all my friends who still do photography) it's now all but unaffordable. As for the chemistry, huh...!
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
Araki said -
And that pretty much nails it for me. Film is photography. Digital makes dry facsimiles.
And that pretty much nails it for me. Film is photography. Digital makes dry facsimiles.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Location is irrelevant. Cost is high in Canada and Europe.
Cost is low if you not really into film photography, but statements.
Darkroom time was much more longer to me. Hybrid is for losers, sorry.
I spend a lot of time by enlarger. D&B, masks it takes hours to get few prints..
I have abandoned it due to increased commute and active dog.
Quit darkroom, passed on to young people who cannot afford it at their own.
I miss film shooting epirience, and film look, but it is time to move on.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Perfect - melancholy
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I understand this Ko Fe and have thought the same myself at times, but it’s hard to continue with one thing whilst missing another
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
To me it is pathetic statemt of difference in values.
Photography to me is in the content. Not in the form of delivery.
Yes, everything taken on film looks great by default.
But paintings, to me, are better in terms of feel.
Film, well glass plates, were nothing but quick and dirty substitute to paintings, drawings.
Real art. Right?
But look and feel are not the content.
Dmitry Markov switched from photo rigs to iPhone. And it allowed him to bring the content he was capable to deliver.
He didn't spend money on stuffing freezer with film. But on lessons with magnumers.
And to travel, stay where content was to capture.
He did just as HCB, who quit very competitive art by paintings, and used photography to capture real moments of human life. Often somewhere nobody else but him willing to go where and capture it.
Markov did exactly the same. Film, digital, rig, phone is relevant to what you are capable.
Not? Film is safe heaven.
yossi
Well-known
I shoot mostly B&W films and just love the 'look' of film B&W images over digital ones. (No philosophical justification needed.)
For the cost of B&W films, my answer is to use bulk rolls. I have stocked up a few rolls of 400-feet Kodak Double-X and that would last me for quite a while. Average cost is less than US$5/roll, which I consider not bad.
As for chemicals, I have two bottles of HC-110 and one bottle of Ilfotec HC. Once they run out, I will mix some D-23 or D-76 with just a few types of chemicals (Metol, Sodium Sulfite, etc.), which are readily available.
All in all, I should be able to continue/enjoy shooting B&W images with films for a long time.
I believe films supply situation in Australia is better than in Singapore.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
I can't seperate process from result. Nothing can exist in a vacuum, and I think a lot of photographers want to feel like they are soley responsible for the result when it's an accumulative and additive process to get it.
(That's not directed at you Ko.Fe, more a of a general statement)
(That's not directed at you Ko.Fe, more a of a general statement)
olakiril
Well-known
I understand your point, but if we go that route then it can be applied to many more things like the camera, lens, AF/MF, autoexposure, camera strap... etc.
So I would separate the process (which is a personal thing) from the result. The restrictions of film photography could very well be applied with a digital camera if someone is meticulous with their craft.
To answer the OP question: " Is there a look with film that can't be reproduced with digital processing?"
No.
S.H.
Picture taker
I've found that I have a neater result in less time with film. Obviously, ymmv.
Cost of chemicals : I have very good results with caffenol at box speed with hp5 and fomapan. I will try bulk loading 35mm film and when combined, the overall cost will not be very high. Of course, 4x5 sheet film is another story.
S.H.
Picture taker
I would not be so sure about that. Some movie directors still shoot film for a reason, for example. And pro photographers I have spoken with use digital for cost/ease of use/customer demand (if the end result is to be seen on screen why bother with film indeed) but not always for looks. Some use film for their personal works.
Completely different medium, different output.
gavinlg
Veteran
As a bit of an amatuer student of Jung I'd argue that humans have very little control over their own psyche and the spillover from unconscious elements of the psyche during the process of making something are far more powerful than photographers give them credit for.
olakiril
Well-known
What artists are using is up to them. They can also say what they want but it doesn't make it true.
As long as you can capture more information (with digital), you can recreate any film look. The only exceptions are specialised film-stocks such as Aerochrome that can capture information outside of the most digital sensors sensitivity.