Advantages of Analog B&W 35mm Photography...

Coming from a hobbyist I just don't like the feel or controls of digital cameras. The Leica M9 has the appeal of a real shutter speed dial and aperture ring + precise manual focus but at a stratospheric price. So......I stick with the cameras I know and love, my OM-1 and Leica M4-2 plus assorted half frame and folders using 120 film.
 
Tom A said:
Just think about this! The discovery of the Vivian Maier collection of negatives or the unearthing of the Mexican Suitcase (stored since 1939 until 1995 in an attic in Mexico City). If either of these collections had been on hard drives, disc's whatever - how much would have survived today?
When I am talking about the "lost pictures" - these are the things to come to my mind.
Click to expand...


Conversely Tom the DSLR camera they recovered from the rubble of 911 had images on it's SD card that recorded the disaster right up the unfortunate photographer's death ... would film have survived that?
 
I keep asking myself the same question since the X-Pro1 was announced .....

The thing I love most about film is waiting for and then seeing the results when I hang my negatives up to dry.

As simple as that.
 
Tom A said:
I have been having an ongoing discussion with Epson in regards to making an inkjet printer, dedicated to black/white. Five or six shades black/grey + a spot varnish etc. The problem is that most of the people working on the design and production of inkjet printers have little or no experience of seeing master prints done on fiber based paper by printers who know their craft.
They should have mandatory exposure (excuse the pun) to Ansel Adam, Wynn Bullock, Jean Loup Sieff etc - simply to establish what they should aim for! Just send them to Arizona and look at Eugene Smith's original prints from the Pittsburgh Story - difficult negatives and stunning prints.
The usual caveat from them is "Oh, but would anyone be interested in a monochrome printer?"
Trying to explain that for many of us - our files holds 100 000's negatives that we could print in the darkroom, but it would be nice to be able to get a high quality inkjet too - and the advantage of being able to mix a digital workflow with the advantage of spotting,contrast control etc prior to running it through the inkjet is certainly attractive.
Click to expand...

Tom, If you are interested in true monochrome inkjet printing please take a look at the Piezography Website. The K7 system uses up to 7 shades of black and the results are truly impressive. As of now I believe their monochrome inks are only available for Epson printers.
http://www.piezography.com/PiezoPress/piezography-products/piezography-k7/
 
Interesting article. Thanks for link. At the moment as a sole trader who has to cover most expenses digital, for now anyway seems to be cheaper. That includes the cost of cameras, imac, lenses, hard drives, etc. The problem is obsolescence. I converted to digital for most of my work in 2003. Started of with D100's which really wern't up to the job, the D200 not much better. Been using D700's since 2009 and they have served me will since. But for how long? having to constantly upgrade has been an expensive nightmare, but still cheaper than using film, processing costs, time it takes to scan which is what I was doing prior to going digital and still do from time to time. I really wish that the main camera manufacturers would make the sensors in their cameras upgradable so photographers wouldn't have to fork out for new bodies every few years. But the (il)logic of capitalism dictates otherwise. Look at the M9, I wouldn't buy one even if I could afford it, compared to the D700, low light performance is abysmal, for example if you click on my flickr link you will see some photos I took of the riots last year, they were at night, flash was not an option as we would have been targets for rioters and cops alike. Had to use ISO 6400, wide open with low shutter speeds on my 1986 vintage 1st generation 70-210mm f4 AF zoom (my chronic work related back and neck problems does not allow me to carry around the heavy 2.8 zooms) for the wide shots I used used manual AI lenses, they actually work really well on the dig, also pretty much wide open. Using an M8 or M9 would have been very difficult indeed. May just have managed using film bodies and fast lenses (ideal for the Noctilux, only wish I could afford one).
 
Nick, thanks for the link, i found this a bit puzzling from the page:

"Today, all of Sebastiao Salgado’s digital images are processed using DxO FilmPack before being transferred to film using a Kodak imager and baryta paper."

I think it was meant to read "...transferred to PRINT using ...." ?

raytoei
 
Tom A said:
...
One other factor - and it is a major one in my book, is simply storage and retrieval of images. Digital is pixels on a drive/disc - and as such is at risk for crashes, out dated storage system that cant be "read" in the future and more. I have negative files going back to the 60's and I can usually retrieve a negative in minutes....
Click to expand...

I shoot both digital and film. This statement is very true. I recently had my notebook stolen from my car and lost most of the images the I took with my M8 over the past couple of years. I had a backup of the machine but I trashed the disk a couple of days before in an experiment. Naturally, I didn't think I'd lose the files immediately. Luckily because I shoot film I still have many many images from the same time period. If not for that, all would be lost.
 
Tom A said:
Digital is pixels on a drive/disc - and as such ...
Click to expand...
Sorry Tom, there are no pixels on the drive/disk, only strings of zeros ond ones. Only software can make from it virtual image or might make something else. Depend on the software.;)
 
f6andBthere said:
If you're going to shoot black and white film and scan it you may just as well shoot digital and use Silver Efex Pro or similar to get the look you want before printing via an inkjet.
Click to expand...
This is certainly not my experience!!
Scanned B&W looks much better, even printed with an inkjet.
Above that i prefer the analog workflow.
 
Tom A said:
We have probably already lost one or two generations of "anthroprological l" data to digital capture already. Future generations will have to base their information on our time on either massaged news (stored properly) or museums with facilities and staff working on it. The point of view of the "average Joe or Jane" will be gone!
Tom
Click to expand...

This is a real problem.
An other problem is, that most people take ten thousands of digital images nobody ever wants to view. So maybe it is good, that they will be lost.....

Klaus
 
I used both and can create results that are difficult to tell apart at first sight. But after all what really suits me is analog as the whole process is already hardwired in my brain. Developing and enlarging I feel in complete control of what is happening and I can easily relax and concentrate on the aesthetics of the photograph.

I think that is the first question to answer: What suits you best and helps you to be creative. Rationalizing will only help up to a certain point.
 
I scan my b/w negs and print them out with an Epson R2400 on fiber paper. I am generally happy with the prints until I compare them with my old wet darkroom prints made on Ilford Multigrade fiber and especially Portriga Rapid. It is like Godzilla vs Mega Godzilla to us geeks! I don't blame digital but rather my novice skills in front of the computer but what is immediately apparent when comparing the prints is the obvious level of tonality of the darkroom prints. When my LS5000ED dies I am going to get me an enlarger!
 
The advantages of film for me, other than the aesthetic of the photos themselves are:

1) No chimping, with digital every photo that is taken seems to get looked at by everyone around the dinner table, every unflattering shot must be deleted, and tried again. I find it tiresome and repetitive.

2) No batteries (often), charging batteries is no big deal, but I've got enough things to charge, like laptop/tablet, phone, it's one less thing to worry about.

3) There are hundreds of great, inexpensive, beautiful film cameras, there are maybe a few digital cameras which could be considered "beautiful" in my eyes.

It's all personal decisions though, a digital shooter I'm quite sure could come up with very valid points on why digital is better.
 
A bit off topic, but it seems to me that the point of view of the person in the street is far more viewable since the advent of digital than it ever was in the film age.

Advantages of film B&W for me are to use cameras that I could not afford to buy before the great film camera giveaway, I enjoy the look of highlight tones on film and because I get pleasure from swimming against the tide.

I like digital B&W, too, but for different reasons.
 
For me, the long term storage issue, as articulated by Tom, is the most important reason my personal work stays on film.

Film photography also seems more of a craft to me. No spray and pray shooting, which in itself has changed the modern photo aesthetic, but rather more deliberation and consideration of the subject. And I like the process itself, which has an emotional appeal absent from digital workflow. i like waiting on the results, developing the film, viewing the contact sheets. It allows a slower pace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom