I Miss Imperfection

[Mark C]

It's interesting to me how some like film for capture then, after developing the film, in the process stage proceed to scan and digitize the images!

Does a person then have it both ways?

"Yes". And also "no". I occasionally scan negatives, but mostly wet print. Then I scan the print if I need digital, and for "gimme" prints. Most people would usually think the digital prints look better (maybe even me) because I can tweak the curve in ways that are not practical in the darkroom.

I don't do much post processing, but I've noticed lately that I still often loose some of the character of the print from film. I posted a couple recently where it was easy to "improve" on the darkroom print. A few days of posting I noticed how much I'd inadvertently changed the feel of the image. Here's an example of one of those. This was insanely low light, mostly just the string of christmas lights, but the murk is now largely gone. Around 1/4 second at 1.4 on TX. I realize I could have kept the smoother, softer, 35 Summilux look better and will be more careful with that in the future. Helen and some others here manage that well, but it is hard to resist fixing imperfections when it is so easy. Well, there's still plenty of imperfection, but I like the funky darkroom print better.

Helvetia Dance by Yew Piney, on Flickr

 

[Mark C]

Mark, I have the Gold Rush and also a modified Catrike Trail with 26" rear wheel conversion, both in orange. I usually don't combine photography with cycling, but I think I'd like a simple camera to accompany me on my trips.

Yes, mine's a Gold Rush in the same color, w/carbon fairing.

I'm always on a hunt for a nice film camera for the bike, but nothing has really beaten out the Panasonic LX3 I have. I'd probably buy the little Sony instead today. That would really do about everything, and even be accessible and usable while riding.

In film, I think a Rollei 35 is probably the closest, but a bit fussy. I end up carrying a small slr like a Spotmatic, but I imagine that would be a bit much for travel. Probably worth a thread here if there isn't one already.

 

[Addy101]

Film is soulless, people are always striving for perfection with film without the imperfections of life that the daguerreotype gives us.

Geartalk was always around, internet just made it easier.
People strife for perfection, digital just made it easier.
That's all folk!

 

[chipgreenberg]

X Ray, we have similar backgrounds. I don't think you ever reach "perfection," but that's always the goal. When I shot commercially, my clients didn't expect perfection, they expected me to do the best I could do. They knew that would work for them based either on previous experience or my book. That said, you always did the best you could within limitations of budget, time and other resources. While my goal is perfect, that doesn't mean I didn't think of ways to make things better in hindsight sometimes.

Then again, this was before Photoshop and almost nothing went out for retouching that wasn't planned for in production.

Today, I shoot for me. My compromise on perfection is I travel light. I'm usually using a monopod rather than a giant Majestic tripod. I just can't get my wife to carry the Majestic for me 🙂

Chip