Look Alike

[willie_901]

My question is: Why should I go through all this software fiddling when I can get the look I want straight from the film?

The answer is:

Unless you are B&W using transparency film, analog film post-production work is not simple, quick or inexpensive. The "software fiddling" takes significantly less time than experimenting and documenting film development methods, dodging and burning prints and other refinements used to optimize an analog, wet chemistry negative film work flow. Making excellent prints requires "fiddling" for both analog and digital media..

Very large analog prints made with large format film can be an exception.

With digital imaging the pixel count along the widest frame dimension limits maximum print size. For high-quality prints 300 pixels per inch is generally considered the lower limit. Lower PPI affects perceived print quality. Some people extend the limit to 240 ppm.

An uncropped image from a 21 MP, 2:3 aspect-ratio sensor translates to 5616 x 3744 pixels. Then 8 X 10, 11 X 14, 13 X 19, and 24 X 36 prints have 467 PPI, 340 PPI, 295 PPI and 156 PPI respectively. So with a 21 MP sensor, for many subjects the largest practical print size is 13 X 19. People will respond citing really great results with large prints at lower PPI values. I never encountered an art/marketing director who would pay for an image that was less than 300 PPI
However, at longer viewing distances lower PPI values are more acceptable.

Some digital images can be upsized using specialized software. The success of this approach depends greatly on the subject content and the original, rendered-image artifact levels.

With 4 X 5 B&W film a 24 X 30 print could be excellent assuming one had the enlarger. The Omega/LPL LPL 670CXL 6x7 Triple Condenser Enlarger costs about $2,400. Then there's the lens. For half that price you can get a Beseler 67XLC Condenser Enlarger (no lens) and use a 50mm lens to project a 16 X 20 image from a 35 mm negative. But to get up to 20 X 24 you'd have to spend $5,900 (no lens) on the Omega LPL 4550XLG 4x5 Variable Contrast Enlarger. If you can find one, a used vintage Durst Laborator 138 S (with lens) can be had for about $1,000 and it can make a 24 X 36 mm print from a 135 format film. I suspect used medium format film enlargers and lenses would economical as well.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Yes, color photography is bad for your health.

The chemicals I am using are almost all produced in Germany. Germany has the strictest regulations regarding chemical products in the world. I'm not so sure that all those China-made digital devices used for digital photography are good for health. I don't think so, but I'm not sure of course.

Erik.

You could get made in Germany only digital camera and lenses. Called digital Leica M.

My face skin gets irritated by E-6, C-41 kits. Old bw chemicals are more aggressive in smell. But starting from Dektol it is next to vitamin C.

 

[Erik van Straten]

You could get made in Germany only digital camera and lenses. Called digital Leica M.

Do you think the electronics are made in Germany?

Erik.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Do you think the electronics are made in Germany?

Erik.

Electronics are inside. They are not emitting molecular. Nor any emission like mobile phones do.
Lenses have no electronics, same Leica RF lenses.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Electronics are inside. They are not emitting molecular. Nor any emission like mobile phones do.
Lenses have no electronics, same Leica RF lenses.

Yes, but I was referring more to printers and the like. Photography that is not printed, but can only be seen on electronic screens, is obviously inferior.

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

If you can find one, a used vintage Durst Laborator 138 S (with lens) can be had for about $1,000 and it can make a 24 X 36 mm print from a 135 format film. I suspect used medium format film enlargers and lenses would economical as well.

I guess you mean a 24 x 36 cm print. Personally I find that there is no better enlager than the Leitz Focomat IIc, but finding one in good condition is not easy. Makes easily much bigger prints, or smaller. A 18 x 24 cm print on Ilford Multigrade FB Classic will do.

Erik.

gelatin silver print (heliar classic 50mm f1.5) leica mp (epson v600)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Yes, but I was referring more to printers and the like. Photography that is not printed, but can only be seen on electronic screens, is obviously inferior.

Erik.

To me as photographer who is refusing money offers, your statement is applicable only for film. Scans technically are inferior to darkroom prints. This is where analog photography is same as art.
Where it is impossible to emulate paint, crayons and so on.

For digital, printing is totally optional. If no money to photog, charity, business involved, no prints needed, except for exhibitions of old style.

But new style of presentations for exhibitions should use digital frames instead of nature sources wasteful from digital on paper and else prints.

 

[Erik van Straten]

But new style of presentations for exhibitions should use digital frames instead of nature sources wasteful from digital on paper and else prints.

Rembrandt painted on canvas. In the eyes of many poor people this was a waste because they had to sleep on a concrete floor.

Erik.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Rembrandt painted on canvas. In the eyes of many poor people this was a waste because they had to sleep on a concrete floor.

Erik.

Where are painters still in 2021. And some of them are just as Rembrandt, selling their paintings to the upper class for huge money.