Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Frank/FP: My Olympus C2000 gives me pretty nice colour and tonality with TIFF files, straight out of the camera. I haven't tried to see how big I can go with them, but it might be fun
On The Aesthetics Of Film Photography
- Thread starter dcsang
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 55
- Views 4K
FPjohn
Well-known
More capable
More capable
Hello:
You have a more highly specified camera than my c390-and more leeway for PS post visualization.
Previsualization with HP5-great.
yours
Frank
More capable
Hello:
You have a more highly specified camera than my c390-and more leeway for PS post visualization.
Previsualization with HP5-great.
yours
Frank
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I like previsualization with K64 and PanF+, too.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
dcsang said:
I think I know that feeling you describe 🙂
Maybe technical perfection and the growth of features and (auto)functions which are thought to help us have made us tired, it all needs more time to learn than one is willing to invest for the promised "better" results and more time as expected to control the auto setting while shooting, they aren't as auto as we thought..
That began with sophisticated film SLRs, got worse tho with digital cameras.
For me personally simplicity nowadys is something wonderful for me, it's something from a paradise we lost a long time ago.
When I'd put my first Bessa outta the box once and suddenly noticed that you don't need any manual to use it I felt happy, as if somebody had given me something back what I had lost a long time ago, as I said.
Film is simple too, it's a physical medium, you burn it with light , you soup it and the pic comes out. Tho simple it's magic anyway. 🙂
What I have not found out yet concerning the use of film is if just a bunch of old farts is happy to get a piece of their youth back or if this is a fascination which can stand for itself, far away from all generation probs, also in a inlimited future.
The fact that even young folks find their way back to this kinda photography could let us assume the latter.
Emulsionly,
bertram
FrankS
Registered User
To add another analogy to the canoe one, there is a saying about motorcycles: 4 wheels transport the body, two wheels move the soul.
There is more pure "essence" to motorcycling than to driving the car. Your whole body movements are transmitted and result in a response from the bike; in the same way your body is used in windsurfing as opposed to sailing, even as sailing is more pure/essential than motorboating.
Love this thread!
And digital supporters, don't feel slighted; digital has been conceded to be superior to film here.
There is more pure "essence" to motorcycling than to driving the car. Your whole body movements are transmitted and result in a response from the bike; in the same way your body is used in windsurfing as opposed to sailing, even as sailing is more pure/essential than motorboating.
Love this thread!
And digital supporters, don't feel slighted; digital has been conceded to be superior to film here.
Last edited:
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Wow..
I've been checking in - in between processing some digital stuff - and I'm surprised and at the same time not surprised; after all, I think I'm "preaching to the converted" 😀
FrankS, Bertram, Earl, ChrisN and everyone else.. thanks 🙂 I think everyone knows where I'm coming from with this. Sure there's the matter of "gear" that we always discuss here but really.. the thing that makes it the "beautiful zen" that it is would be the actions in using that gear towards burning that film with light 🙂
Ahhhh... if Elysian fields could be imagined by me, it would be photographers merely enjoying the activities into which we all engage. 😀
Thanks guys 🙂
Dave
I've been checking in - in between processing some digital stuff - and I'm surprised and at the same time not surprised; after all, I think I'm "preaching to the converted" 😀
FrankS, Bertram, Earl, ChrisN and everyone else.. thanks 🙂 I think everyone knows where I'm coming from with this. Sure there's the matter of "gear" that we always discuss here but really.. the thing that makes it the "beautiful zen" that it is would be the actions in using that gear towards burning that film with light 🙂
Ahhhh... if Elysian fields could be imagined by me, it would be photographers merely enjoying the activities into which we all engage. 😀
Thanks guys 🙂
Dave
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I do not hate digital; I love film, but I treat digital as a friend. Having said that, Julian: this is the first time in weeks I have read anybody's thoughts make absolute sense, no matter how caustic they are. I don't get to read much of that. Things are the way they are, and at least to somebody they clearly are. To some, it may be a sign of a closed mind; to me it's a sign of a clearly defined one.julianphotoart said:
R
RML
Guest
For the past 6(?) months now I'm completely digital and enjoying it. Yes, it is different from shooting film, but for me in a positive way.
But, as was said before, it's not about film -vs- digital and I feel the same. I get completely different feelings when I shoot my R-D1 compared to my Eos 300D. The Eos is a tool that I use when I'll have many different situations to shoot and it works well, especially having zoom lenses is a plus. The R-D1 is much closer to shooting like I did with my Bessas. The cocking (of the shutter), the aiming and focussing, the guestimating focus distance/ film setting/ aperture/ shutter time... it all adds to the experience of actually making and creating the shot. With film I had the (unwanted) delay in seeing the result and the (unwanted) burden of scanning, which resulted in my still having some 200 rolls that need to be scanned.
Come to think of it, most film -vs- digital discussions nowadays are about this aspect -the shooting experience- and (less and less) about the quality of the end product. Perhaps we're finally starting to accept digital as a worthwhile alternative but we keep desperately searching for that satisfaction that the old manual cameras gave/give us.
But, as was said before, it's not about film -vs- digital and I feel the same. I get completely different feelings when I shoot my R-D1 compared to my Eos 300D. The Eos is a tool that I use when I'll have many different situations to shoot and it works well, especially having zoom lenses is a plus. The R-D1 is much closer to shooting like I did with my Bessas. The cocking (of the shutter), the aiming and focussing, the guestimating focus distance/ film setting/ aperture/ shutter time... it all adds to the experience of actually making and creating the shot. With film I had the (unwanted) delay in seeing the result and the (unwanted) burden of scanning, which resulted in my still having some 200 rolls that need to be scanned.
Come to think of it, most film -vs- digital discussions nowadays are about this aspect -the shooting experience- and (less and less) about the quality of the end product. Perhaps we're finally starting to accept digital as a worthwhile alternative but we keep desperately searching for that satisfaction that the old manual cameras gave/give us.
sf
Veteran
yes
yes
no insult to digital users, this is just how I feel:
the aesthetic superiority of film photography. It's supremacy even, forever. But I think that shooting with a Leaf back with one of those huge LCD screens on it would be pretty enjoyable, just for the instant gratification. That those screens glow and give off similar light-life as the moment itself is attractive. But. . . I feel your comment about the wholeness that film photography adds to the experience.
I know that I simply cannot ever love a digital camera. I mean, my D70 has been good to me. It pleases me with lots of great shots, very high clarity in RAW mode, and it costs nothing to mess around with for a few hours on a slow day, but
gosh, you know, that little "smiley" banging his head against the wall. . . . that is getting annoying. Strange that I never noticed it before. But it is actually kind of a funny symbol for our collective GAS and the sort of self satisfaction that we seek here at RFF
Anyway, as I was saying : BUT, when I shoot with the D70, I just feel half A**ed about things. It just feels so cold and lifeless. Like the difference between typing your novel on a mini-laptop an old typewriter with the heavy keys and clacks and zings and zips. I love the tangible aspects of film photography. The negatives and slides, winding film, loading film, inspecting my work with a loupe and a light box, trapping myself in the stifling pungent air of a darkroom for hours carefully printing pictures.
The slow, deliberate, thoughtful nature of totally manual film photography is special. It is more human, more visceral, less voyeuristic because we connect with the subject through careful calculation and by becoming "one" with our camera.
Digital is like a microwave, quick and easy, but just doesn't fill the house with the aromas of the kitchen like mom used to. Film photography is something closer to the old painters' caressing the image onto the canvas, realling feeling it out. My best work was with my manual focus Mamiya 645E. All the autofocus I ever did lacked something. Lacked alot, actually.
A digital pic lacks the barely noticable, very very subtle magic that film photos have. I am thinking of something tri-x, 35mm, a fashion shot by Sante D'orazio. Yeah, we can bring that sort of look into reality with masterful Photoshopping, but we can make fake diamonds too, and soy ice-cream, and veneer woodwork. But none of those marvelous inventions will ever EVER replace the real thing. Ever.
That is why I am NOT buying the new D200 when it comes out, even though it will cost about the same as the Bronica RF645 setup that I am going to buy (tomorrow). I NEED to reconnect with photography. I miss using the wind lever, hand focusing, metering, cutting negatives, smelling like chemicals after a night of joyous production.
And there IS something beautiful and perfect and organic about the sounds of traditional photography.
Digital is. . . . not real. It looks real, almost, but it isn't, and it never will be. Digital cameras are tools of the trade, merely what some of us use to make money, but our film cameras are where our hearts are. And that is as it should be.
yes
no insult to digital users, this is just how I feel:
the aesthetic superiority of film photography. It's supremacy even, forever. But I think that shooting with a Leaf back with one of those huge LCD screens on it would be pretty enjoyable, just for the instant gratification. That those screens glow and give off similar light-life as the moment itself is attractive. But. . . I feel your comment about the wholeness that film photography adds to the experience.
I know that I simply cannot ever love a digital camera. I mean, my D70 has been good to me. It pleases me with lots of great shots, very high clarity in RAW mode, and it costs nothing to mess around with for a few hours on a slow day, but
gosh, you know, that little "smiley" banging his head against the wall. . . . that is getting annoying. Strange that I never noticed it before. But it is actually kind of a funny symbol for our collective GAS and the sort of self satisfaction that we seek here at RFF
Anyway, as I was saying : BUT, when I shoot with the D70, I just feel half A**ed about things. It just feels so cold and lifeless. Like the difference between typing your novel on a mini-laptop an old typewriter with the heavy keys and clacks and zings and zips. I love the tangible aspects of film photography. The negatives and slides, winding film, loading film, inspecting my work with a loupe and a light box, trapping myself in the stifling pungent air of a darkroom for hours carefully printing pictures.
The slow, deliberate, thoughtful nature of totally manual film photography is special. It is more human, more visceral, less voyeuristic because we connect with the subject through careful calculation and by becoming "one" with our camera.
Digital is like a microwave, quick and easy, but just doesn't fill the house with the aromas of the kitchen like mom used to. Film photography is something closer to the old painters' caressing the image onto the canvas, realling feeling it out. My best work was with my manual focus Mamiya 645E. All the autofocus I ever did lacked something. Lacked alot, actually.
A digital pic lacks the barely noticable, very very subtle magic that film photos have. I am thinking of something tri-x, 35mm, a fashion shot by Sante D'orazio. Yeah, we can bring that sort of look into reality with masterful Photoshopping, but we can make fake diamonds too, and soy ice-cream, and veneer woodwork. But none of those marvelous inventions will ever EVER replace the real thing. Ever.
That is why I am NOT buying the new D200 when it comes out, even though it will cost about the same as the Bronica RF645 setup that I am going to buy (tomorrow). I NEED to reconnect with photography. I miss using the wind lever, hand focusing, metering, cutting negatives, smelling like chemicals after a night of joyous production.
And there IS something beautiful and perfect and organic about the sounds of traditional photography.
Digital is. . . . not real. It looks real, almost, but it isn't, and it never will be. Digital cameras are tools of the trade, merely what some of us use to make money, but our film cameras are where our hearts are. And that is as it should be.
Last edited:
R
richiedcruz
Guest
bmattock said:
Bill, this reminds me of when I first got my 1972 Plymouth Fury III. Most of my SUV owning neighbors were freaked out about having such a big gas sucking American car move into their neighborhood. At one time or another, since I have bought it, they have all asked me why I bought it. My standard canned answer is that it was only $800, and that is a lot of metal for that price.
But I will always remember the day that I first fired it up, and sat there listening to the motor rumble and the way that the whole car seemed to shake every time I hit the gas pedal. I knew right then that I had to have it, and have not looked back. Even when the gas prices seemed like they were going to hit $4. Of course, I also have a VW that gets good gas mileage... 😉
Getting back to photography, I remember being amazed by the possibilities of digital photography, when I got my first digital camera. I even gave all my film cameras away 🙄 I did the usual spate of taking what seemed like thousands of pictures every week, but eventually I found myself taking less and less pictures. Until, one day, I realized that I had gone for more than a year without bothering to take a camera with me anywhere.
I think that for me digital is like eating dessert for every meal: You take the picture, you see the results right away and erase it and start over if you do not get it right. This can be fun at first, but at some point the novelty wears off and it is no longer any fun.
By contrast, I have found that the anticipation that comes with having to wait to see what is on a roll of film is more fun for me. It is almost feels like waking up Christmas morning and running downstairs every time I develop a roll of film.
Richie
pvdhaar
Peter
I think part of the charm of film lies in the restrictions you're facing.
With a dSLR, you've got absolute flexibility. Light too low? Crank up the ISO. Contrast too high? Tune it down the next shot. Weird lighting conditions? Make a white balance reading for the one after that. The dSLR doesn't challenge me, I never have to make concessions. It's like having box after box full of every possible Lego brick and never having to figure out how to solve a construction problem, because there's always a pre-molded brick that fits the task.
With a mechanical film camera it's different. To me it's the same as having a limited set of Lego bricks and spending evening after evening just trying to find a way to make one thing work with that you have available. There's a challenge and the feeling of reward when it finally does work.
I guess it's the challenge-reward aspect that draws me back to the film-RF again and again, no matter how good the pictures of the dSLR come out.
With a dSLR, you've got absolute flexibility. Light too low? Crank up the ISO. Contrast too high? Tune it down the next shot. Weird lighting conditions? Make a white balance reading for the one after that. The dSLR doesn't challenge me, I never have to make concessions. It's like having box after box full of every possible Lego brick and never having to figure out how to solve a construction problem, because there's always a pre-molded brick that fits the task.
With a mechanical film camera it's different. To me it's the same as having a limited set of Lego bricks and spending evening after evening just trying to find a way to make one thing work with that you have available. There's a challenge and the feeling of reward when it finally does work.
I guess it's the challenge-reward aspect that draws me back to the film-RF again and again, no matter how good the pictures of the dSLR come out.
Last edited:
sf
Veteran
richiedcruz said:
very well put. That is EXACTLY how it feels. I love driving to the lab, having them search for my negs/slides, and taking the package to my car, thinking "should I open it?" "Should I wait till I get home?" And, of course, I always open it in traffic. I'm the guy that is holding up traffic as he looks over his treasure. It is like those childhood mornings.
Ahhh (relaxed sigh), back to film is like coming home from the dark side of the moon.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I started out on my bike going a few miles to my grandfather's darkroom (years earlier it had been my father's bedroom) one evening a week. Develop and print B&W. In my backpack would be my film, developer etc and Ilford paper. (I was born in Ilford, by the way)
Forty years later, I still remember those evenings. Even today when I pick up C41 negs from the minilab and put them on a computer and on the website.
The one thing that didn't change is that my grandfather (and father) were rangefinder guys. And today I am too.
Forty years later, I still remember those evenings. Even today when I pick up C41 negs from the minilab and put them on a computer and on the website.
The one thing that didn't change is that my grandfather (and father) were rangefinder guys. And today I am too.
hinius
Member
There's only one thing I love about film photography, the visual aesthetic of it.
Everything else just slows me down and annoys me:
It's all very romantic (all my friends say how great it must be to go through all these processes before you see the wondrous magic of your images appearing before you, the anthesis of the modern rush rush world, blah blah blah blah blah) and it's quite clear that most everyone else in this thread doesn't feel the same way as me. But the thing is, this ritual is just a waste of my time; if I could avoid it I would. For me, I'd much rather plug the CF card into the computer, download images and start the editting process.
I started out shooting digital, and to be honest I don't have enough spare time as it is during the day. I spend most of my time outside work on photography. All this stuff listed above just slows me down further; I'd prefer to spend that time taking pictures (or polishing them up). To me, all that matters is the image-taking process and getting a good shot. If I could find a manual-focus traditional rangefinder body that shot digital and generated film-like output, I'd jump with joy and leave the film world behind for ever. But of course, this camera doesn't exist, and because of the truly beautiful visual aesthetic that film provides, I remain, enduring the rituals.
Everything else just slows me down and annoys me:
- The lack of ISO flexibility (forcing me to carry multiple film bodies)
- Having to fiddle around with a changing bag (my flatmate always thinks I'm 'playing' with myself when she sees me doing this).
- Spending all this time messing around in the bathroom mixing and pouring chemicals.
- Figuring out by trial and error or research the best way to avoid stains on dried negatives (should I squegee, use a salad drier, photo flo, dry in the reel, use isopropyl alchohol).
- Cutting, hanging, dusting and sleeving negatives.
- Finding the best way to avoid dust and bloody annoying film curl.
- And then, and only then, scanning the negatives. And bloody hell, doesn't that take some time?
It's all very romantic (all my friends say how great it must be to go through all these processes before you see the wondrous magic of your images appearing before you, the anthesis of the modern rush rush world, blah blah blah blah blah) and it's quite clear that most everyone else in this thread doesn't feel the same way as me. But the thing is, this ritual is just a waste of my time; if I could avoid it I would. For me, I'd much rather plug the CF card into the computer, download images and start the editting process.
I started out shooting digital, and to be honest I don't have enough spare time as it is during the day. I spend most of my time outside work on photography. All this stuff listed above just slows me down further; I'd prefer to spend that time taking pictures (or polishing them up). To me, all that matters is the image-taking process and getting a good shot. If I could find a manual-focus traditional rangefinder body that shot digital and generated film-like output, I'd jump with joy and leave the film world behind for ever. But of course, this camera doesn't exist, and because of the truly beautiful visual aesthetic that film provides, I remain, enduring the rituals.
lubitel
Well-known
I think, we have to separate Photography itself as an artform from the equipment. I love using old cameras, get excited like a kid every time I use one or see one in the store. I also get excited when I get a good shot, but these are two different things. Because when I like the photograph, I dont care if I did it digitally or with film. The end result hanging on the wall is what counts.
When you see a really good painting do you care if it was done with oil or acrylic? For me painting with oil is what for some of you shooting with film. It has "soul", its smooth, it takes a lot longer to dry, and its not so easy (in some cases) to cover up mistakes as it is with acrylic. but I could never really connect with acrylic. On the other hand it doesnt matter, the "soul" of an artpiece lies in its masterful execution, composition, etc, regardless of the techniques. And I know of a very good old painter who uses everything he can to achieve the results he wants: new and old.
When you see a really good painting do you care if it was done with oil or acrylic? For me painting with oil is what for some of you shooting with film. It has "soul", its smooth, it takes a lot longer to dry, and its not so easy (in some cases) to cover up mistakes as it is with acrylic. but I could never really connect with acrylic. On the other hand it doesnt matter, the "soul" of an artpiece lies in its masterful execution, composition, etc, regardless of the techniques. And I know of a very good old painter who uses everything he can to achieve the results he wants: new and old.
leafy
Established
The thing film cameras to me is that I DON'T get to see the results immediately. This is something of a paradox when most people think that they get better pictures by getting instant feedback on the LCD screens, and I think instant review 'destroys' a lot of the magic in picture taking. Many of my digital-going friends check whatever they shoot and delete what they thought wasn't worth keeping right on the spot. But to me, there are often times when the surprise showed up later when it appeared on developed film after the shooting session or when you get back home from a 10-day trip to Spain, etc.
Getting the developed film either from the lab or from the bathroom is rewarding not only because I get a feeling of receiving a present, but also that I am no longer in the context of shooting and feel more relaxed or say, changed, to a 'viewing mode' towards the results. I personally think that is what is giving film shooting such a ritual-like aspect compared to shooting digital.
I shoot with a Lumix LX-1 almost exclusively these days and I just started to "shoot and forget" with the camera. This gives me back some of the film shooting experience minus messing with chemicals and film holders. To be honest, it seems to be the best of both world to me now.
Getting the developed film either from the lab or from the bathroom is rewarding not only because I get a feeling of receiving a present, but also that I am no longer in the context of shooting and feel more relaxed or say, changed, to a 'viewing mode' towards the results. I personally think that is what is giving film shooting such a ritual-like aspect compared to shooting digital.
I shoot with a Lumix LX-1 almost exclusively these days and I just started to "shoot and forget" with the camera. This gives me back some of the film shooting experience minus messing with chemicals and film holders. To be honest, it seems to be the best of both world to me now.
hugivza
Well-known
The essence of film photography for me is the expectation, that hope that the images in the memory of my mind are fulfilled on the film. Digital photography for me, is instant gratification. It denudes the photographic act of that anticipation, that aspiration, which for me is an essential part of the art of taking pictures, or perhaps "creating images" in an upmarket sense. I use a DSLR on occasion
(please don't point the bone on my admission of heresy), and it has a place in my repertoir, but for me it lacks that sense of mystery, or anticipation. Perhaps like the film forgotten and left for a while in a body that is not often used it lacks that sense of what excitemnet as to what mysteries might unfold.
I guess the real reason is that I, like Father William, am old, and so I feel more comfortable with the devices of my childhood and adolescence; that is mechanical devices not these "new fangled" CCD electronic devices; rather those where light impinges on halide crystals to produce a chemical mystery play. I suppose that this is a real worry in itself - more libation is called for methinks, will it be the Shiraz or the Cabernet?
(please don't point the bone on my admission of heresy), and it has a place in my repertoir, but for me it lacks that sense of mystery, or anticipation. Perhaps like the film forgotten and left for a while in a body that is not often used it lacks that sense of what excitemnet as to what mysteries might unfold.
I guess the real reason is that I, like Father William, am old, and so I feel more comfortable with the devices of my childhood and adolescence; that is mechanical devices not these "new fangled" CCD electronic devices; rather those where light impinges on halide crystals to produce a chemical mystery play. I suppose that this is a real worry in itself - more libation is called for methinks, will it be the Shiraz or the Cabernet?
Last edited:
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
brightsky said:
In the shop yet ! 😀 Also because I can give back all prints I don't want to have, I admit but before this service was granted I opened the bags ALWAYS in the car.!
A ritual indeed.
The temporal distance between shot an print for me is a basic part of the ritual:
In general I have doubts if the instant idea would work for me because I am used to that temporal distance and I do like it. After a week or so it is simply easier to see how poor some of my ideas have been ! 😀 And I think mistakes stay better stored this way and for a longer time.
I could judge a photo only very roughly on the little LCDd screen of a digital camera, not precisely enuff to decide immediately if I should keep it or throw it away.
A pro has surely another POV at this point, for him the instant result is an advantage. But amateurs and pros differ essentially in their approach, I personally cannot see any relevance for me in what the pros do.
Regards,
bertram
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
As so many automatizitations lacked "something" and did not fullfill the marketing promises of easy shooting for everybody.shutterflower said:
Maybe the reason was you cannot automate the process completely enuff to make it really comfortable.
And if this is the reason then all automatization is useless, even worse, it can get contraproductive.
Because then you spent more time with thinking if the automat can do it or if the task is too far over "his " head than you would spend with a simple manual setting.
All the automatization of my F80 is not more than a kinda pre-set which must be controlled permanently and so AF is, I never trust in AF, and use it as a pre-set fokus as often as possible, to turn the fokus ring myself would not not slower (rather faster !!) but much cheaper .
Very very seldom it happens that I have to admit I would have lost a shot because of using a "slow" manual camera.
Regards,
bertram
FPjohn
Well-known
one lens
one lens
Hello:
I think choice and instant editing are in part counterproductive. In camera editing means no shoebox with the negative you later "recognize" and print. Choice, as different lenses, focal length in a zoom, or menu options can get in the way.
I shoot with a single lens on one camera at a time. I will never realize the full potential of any one of them.
yours
Frank
one lens
Hello:
I think choice and instant editing are in part counterproductive. In camera editing means no shoebox with the negative you later "recognize" and print. Choice, as different lenses, focal length in a zoom, or menu options can get in the way.
I shoot with a single lens on one camera at a time. I will never realize the full potential of any one of them.
yours
Frank
Similar threads
