"How to shoot film" by KR

S

Skiff

Well-known
Local time
12:24 PM
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
1,114
Ken Rockwell published a new article for beginners in shooting film:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-shoot-film.htm

For me Ken Rockwell is a phenomenon:
Often he is completely spot on with his statements.
But often he is also completely beside the track and I can only shake my head about the nonsense he has written.

Probably no other online photo blogger has this extremes.....;).

Nevertheless:
1. I think it is a good thing that he has published this article to encourage photographers to try film.
I don't want to live in photo world in which a digital monopoly rules and we are forced to shoot digital because there is no alternative (=film) anymore.
I am convinced that the best photo world for all of us is a photo world with both digital and film.

But to keep this alternative alive, and avoiding a digital monopoly, means shooting film. If we shoot film, film will stay.
It is in our hands.

Therefore it is good when popular photo bloggers write articles about shooting film for newbies.

2. O.k., also in this article some of his statements are wrong (e.g. that colour film home development is difficult; it is not!), but all in all, it is one of his better articles.
 
Anything that promotes film use is good by me. Rockwell is doing yeoman's work to promote photography (and himself, while he's at it) and while he's not always accurate, his overall effect is positive.
 
I looked through it quickly , that appears to be an excellent article. People find his attitude and self-promotion grating, but his site is a great resource.

Speaking of self-promotion - if Mr. Rockwell doesn't promote himself, exactly who will do that job for him? ;-)

Randy
 
Ok I don´t like the Chuck Norris of photographie at all but with this acticle he has done a good thing to bring people back into film!

For any one who wants to shoot B+W but couldn´t find a lab to develop the film - try C-41 B+W film!
Kodak BW400CN or Ilford XP2 and there is a Fuji out there which I haven´t found in Austria - it should be named Fuji Neopan 400 CN.

these films can be developed in any standard 20min lab which ussally only do colorfilm - it´s the same process!!!
And no to the most important part for me - they can be scanned with ICE dust remover because they are not silverbased like "normal" B+W film.

There are some guys out there which develop them by their own in ordanary B+W developer like D-76 or Rodinal or even Caffenol with out losing the benefit at scanning the film. So these chromogenetic B+W films the way to go if you want B+W the easiest way with fantastic results.


Vesperados Run Mindelheim / Bad Wörishofen 2012 von LeBleuBeau auf Flickr

Nikon F-90
Nikkor AF-D 1,8 50mm
Kodak BW400CN
Refelcta CrystalScan 7200

direct out of the scanner no post processing!
 
IMHO Mr. Rockwell has probably turned off as many newbie photographers as helped when his incorrect information is taken at face value and believed. I really could care less if he promotes himself or not, but I do care that the information provided is outright wrong as often as it is right, and sometimes in the same paragraph for goodness sake!! This particular article is probably good, and some who read it may become interested, but there is also enough misinformation that, again, he may turn off as many as he interests.

Ahh well, such is the internet.
 
Ken keeps his prose punchy by not grading or qualifying his utterances so much. This makes him easy to read and follow his advice. Of course that way it won't be perfectly accurate. But it is a fun article for a generation that's never struggled with loading a tank in red light.
I am curious to see the result of a remarkably fine-grained chromogenic (note spelling) film and fiddling with the appearance digitally later, but I would prefer something contrasty even at the expense of larger grains because it gave the illusion of more detail.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Try also "Welcome to Film", http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps film welcome.html

and "How do I use a 35mm camera?", http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps how load 35mm.html

There's actually a vast amount of information out there on how to shoot film -- especially if you can read real paper books.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

For someone like me who loves to know too much about everything, Ansel Adams' book series is great. If he lived today and blogged it would take a lifetime to get it all out at one page a day!

KR is a legend in perhaps only one person's mind. At the least he is entertaining. However I do think he manages to diminish the perceived value of some good equipment based on contradictory opinions. This can be a good thing: I hate to think what Hexar RFs would be going for if KR had expressed the view they were the best RF ever made.
 
Scrambler said:
For someone like me who loves to know too much about everything, Ansel Adams' book series is great. If he lived today and blogged it would take a lifetime to get it all out at one page a day!
. . .
Click to expand...
If you really want to know far too much about everything, forget Ansel Adams. Read the books by the people who actually know the physics and chemistry of photography, and don't over-simplify it on the one hand and drown it in jargon on the other: people like Haist, Glafkides, Neblette, Clerc and Coote. AA was a great photographer but I've never been impressed by his take on theory. See THE EVOLUTION OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. ANSEL, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zone system.html and http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps zone.html . The latter is about why the Zone System is not quite as necessary as its adherents sometimes think.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
If you really want to know far too much about everything, forget Ansel Adams. Read the books by the people who actually know the physics and chemistry of photography, and don't over-simplify it on the one hand and drown it in jargon on the other: people like Haist, Glafkides, Neblette, Clerc and Coote. AA was a great photographer but I've never been impressed by his take on theory. See THE EVOLUTION OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. ANSEL, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zone system.html and http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps zone.html . The latter is about why the Zone System is not quite as necessary as its adherents sometimes think.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Many thanks Roger. And per the following post, I have enjoyed and benefited from your site.

I can see that once I have mastered the oversimplifications I will need to move on to reality :)
 
Roger Hicks said:
: people like Haist, Glafkides, Neblette, Clerc and Coote. AA was a great photographer but I've never been impressed by his take on theory. See THE EVOLUTION OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. ANSEL, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zone system.html
Click to expand...

Good article, you might like to correct a misspelling it is H. Lüppo-Cramer (not Lueppo) and also update it to include the most important photo engineer of the last century: C.E.K Mees. A man who really was head and shoulders above the rest, and remains the only photographic engineer to have a crater on the moon named after him.
 
I was surprised by his article, but as said before - it is a help for film-based photography. Sometimes I don't share his opinion on gear (iPhone 5, Fuji X100), but it seems that he had a lot of gear in his hands. He reviewed a lot of lenses and every review shows good pictures of the lens and gives good example shots. I like his website, when I look for information of cameras.
This article is written for people who just started with photography. And his opinion is correct: Film is cheap and I can get excellent cameras used with lens for the price of a digital camera from the toy-class. EOS 3 like new with a new 40mm STM for about 450€.

Sometimes people ask me if I can recommend a camera. Of course this is the most difficult question to be asked. Most times, they want to spend just around 500€ for a camera. Today I would recommend a analog camera, because you can lern much more from it than you can with digital. Most people think it is important to see the picture on a screen after it is taken. Actually - it isn't. But as most people today, they want it easy and they don't want to think about it. The only reason to have a display is for a correct exposure and if I ask them if they did any compensation they answer that they shoot always in AUTO. :bang:
 
Photo_Smith said:
Good article, you might like to correct a misspelling it is H. Lüppo-Cramer (not Lueppo) and also update it to include the most important photo engineer of the last century: C.E.K Mees. A man who really was head and shoulders above the rest, and remains the only photographic engineer to have a crater on the moon named after him.
Click to expand...
You are of course right about Mees, but I'd argue that "ue" is a normal way to represent "u umlaut" if you can't do an umlaut (which I couldn't at that time).

Cheers,

R.
 
Good job by KR ... the world needs more people like him to peddle film shooting to keep it alive.

The one thing I've noticed about Ken is the older he gets the better he was! :D
 
Needless to say, I had no intention of pretending that I know as much about sensitometry as Haist, Glafkides, Neblette, Clerc and Coote or of course Mees. The main reason for referring to the pieces on St. Ansel and the Zone System was to point out: Neither did Ansel Adams.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom