Dogman
Veteran
I've been digitizing some of my old negatives and slides recently. Interesting to dig through almost 50 years of pictures and realize I never labelled most of them as to date, place, person, etc. I've been printing some of them this morning along with some more recent photos.
Anyway, I came upon a photo I had taken probably in early 1973. It was of my girlfriend at the time inside someone's apartment. She was still in college at the time. I recall taking the picture but I don't recall the details. I know it was done with a Nikon FTn and a cheap, off brand 25mm lens on Kodachrome X film. I like the picture but it's soft, poorly exposed, lacking in shadow and highlight detail and it would be a candidate for the poop chute except for the subject and my memories. I made a print of it despite its limitations. I also found some Kodachromes of my wife that I had done somewhat later. I recall using a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor for those photos. A pretty decent lens of the time. I love the photos but the aberrations present in that old lens made individual hairs on her head have bright blue outlines and fine details were lost.
Another picture I printed was of my step son playing with our dog on the floor in the den. The light was poor and very dim so the ISO was banging on the high side. I shot it with a fairly recent wide to short tele zoom wide open at f/4 with a DSLR using Raw. This zoom doesn't get much respect on Internet forums or lens review sites. But the image is sharp, detailed, with excellent shadow and highlight detail and the built-in image stabilization meant I could handhold it at a slow shutter speed, necessary despite the high ISO.
It occurred to me that we are blessed with photography equipment today that exceeds the capabilities of anything from the past yet I don't think we really appreciate how lucky we are. In the 1970's, I struggled to get a printable negative from high school football games when the meter said Tri-X at 1600 was at least two stops under. Today, no problem. You can shoot it in color at ISO 25,000 and get usable images.
Admittedly, Kodachrome was beautiful film. But today we can use software to create a color palette and quality close to most films and use ISOs much higher than the original film's speed. Lenses are better, cameras are better. The world's not perfect but some things are better than they used to be.
Anyway, I came upon a photo I had taken probably in early 1973. It was of my girlfriend at the time inside someone's apartment. She was still in college at the time. I recall taking the picture but I don't recall the details. I know it was done with a Nikon FTn and a cheap, off brand 25mm lens on Kodachrome X film. I like the picture but it's soft, poorly exposed, lacking in shadow and highlight detail and it would be a candidate for the poop chute except for the subject and my memories. I made a print of it despite its limitations. I also found some Kodachromes of my wife that I had done somewhat later. I recall using a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor for those photos. A pretty decent lens of the time. I love the photos but the aberrations present in that old lens made individual hairs on her head have bright blue outlines and fine details were lost.
Another picture I printed was of my step son playing with our dog on the floor in the den. The light was poor and very dim so the ISO was banging on the high side. I shot it with a fairly recent wide to short tele zoom wide open at f/4 with a DSLR using Raw. This zoom doesn't get much respect on Internet forums or lens review sites. But the image is sharp, detailed, with excellent shadow and highlight detail and the built-in image stabilization meant I could handhold it at a slow shutter speed, necessary despite the high ISO.
It occurred to me that we are blessed with photography equipment today that exceeds the capabilities of anything from the past yet I don't think we really appreciate how lucky we are. In the 1970's, I struggled to get a printable negative from high school football games when the meter said Tri-X at 1600 was at least two stops under. Today, no problem. You can shoot it in color at ISO 25,000 and get usable images.
Admittedly, Kodachrome was beautiful film. But today we can use software to create a color palette and quality close to most films and use ISOs much higher than the original film's speed. Lenses are better, cameras are better. The world's not perfect but some things are better than they used to be.
AlexBG
Well-known
The world is a million times better, especially technology. When I look through photo albums of say 50/80 photos there are only around 20 that I know what camera I used. I take photos for memory and most of my favourites are with a mju 1 or other point and shoot I have at the time because I've just thrown it in a bag/car and done something fun for the day. Think camera manufacturers are going to struggle now because a top end fuji/sony/canon from the past 5 years is more than good enough for 99% of people. So many photos on here from M9's and they are old in tech terms.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
Every once in a while I'll dig out the M3 that I inherited from my grandmother and compare it to my latest digital A7iii.
We've come a long ways.
And yes, I appreciate that, a lot.
We've come a long ways.
And yes, I appreciate that, a lot.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
If finding Kodak Chrome slide film to be worse than ORWO slide film I used.
But it is still natural. All of those experiments with color pallete on digital doesn't looks natural to me. I just learned to appreciate natural colors rendering of Canon DSLRs.
Oh and high digital ISO doesn't look natural to me either, I still prefer flash and lower ISO.
Something like 1600.
But it is still natural. All of those experiments with color pallete on digital doesn't looks natural to me. I just learned to appreciate natural colors rendering of Canon DSLRs.
Oh and high digital ISO doesn't look natural to me either, I still prefer flash and lower ISO.
Something like 1600
.
Prest_400
Multiformat
I have an EM5 (which 2012 is old in today's terms) and a 35-100 f2.8 that's equivalent to the classic telephoto zoom. Shot a fair bunch of concerts, as an amateur, and the results are glorious. Although I don't go past ISO 3200 it's beyond what I could get on film.
Was checking some of the first portraits I shot with it and your observation about hair comes to my mind. It's sharp, considering it's a small format.
On the other hand, an iPhone is your computer, still snapshot camera and Super8 camera in one and sometimes better. Also telephone if you call, which no one in my generation (90s) does anymore. Just last decade I recall the odyssey it was to communicate with relatives in another continent, now you can have a live videocall... For free.
But I still appreciate film for its characteristics and fun provided. And wish I could have a roll of kodachrome now and then. 10 years since it went almost...
Was checking some of the first portraits I shot with it and your observation about hair comes to my mind. It's sharp, considering it's a small format.
On the other hand, an iPhone is your computer, still snapshot camera and Super8 camera in one and sometimes better. Also telephone if you call, which no one in my generation (90s) does anymore. Just last decade I recall the odyssey it was to communicate with relatives in another continent, now you can have a live videocall... For free.
But I still appreciate film for its characteristics and fun provided. And wish I could have a roll of kodachrome now and then. 10 years since it went almost...
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Dogman, I hate to be a naysayer, but i never drank the digital kool-aid. In 40+ years will someone be able to recover your digital files? Leica M9 and Sony's will be paperweights. Kodachrome was a lovely film. Ilford & Kodak have 3200 film if you need it. Tri-X, TMY2 & FP4+ are still pretty deluxe. People are putting pre-war glass on their digitals.... & you can still shoot with a screw mount leica. Over-processed HD and super sharp images?.... meh... i'll take classic silver gelatin prints all day long.
Archlich
Well-known
People would even pay big money to go "back".
No, we could never learn to appreciate the present...
No, we could never learn to appreciate the present...
jarski
Veteran
Am thankful for modern tech of having all the memories saved. But at the same am bit sad for inflation that a photography has experienced, being now free, easy and ever present.
Dogman
Veteran
Deardorff38, I gotta point out a coupla things. Those photos I printed this morning were done on an inkjet printer with pigment inks and the paper was of a type that's been made for several centuries, coated with some magic so it will take inks properly. According the most recent reports I've read, those prints should last about 200 years (unless I do something stupid like burn the house down). The digital files are a means to an end for me--I like prints. And the digital prints I'm making today are several times better than I ever did in my darkroom.
And one other point....Those Kodachrome slides I copied into digital files. They had stains and discolorations on them that I cannot explain. They were stored well, kept in archival pages in the dark for several decades. Apparently the Kodak labs that processed some of them were not as careful as they should have been with their chemicals. But the stains and discolorations are gone now along with the dust spots. The prints are beautiful, just like my girlfriend and then my wife were in the 1970s. And they will remain beautiful in those prints long after their youth and beauty have faded. Again, as long as I don't burn down the house.
We are indeed lucky today as photographers although some fail to see the blessings.
And one other point....Those Kodachrome slides I copied into digital files. They had stains and discolorations on them that I cannot explain. They were stored well, kept in archival pages in the dark for several decades. Apparently the Kodak labs that processed some of them were not as careful as they should have been with their chemicals. But the stains and discolorations are gone now along with the dust spots. The prints are beautiful, just like my girlfriend and then my wife were in the 1970s. And they will remain beautiful in those prints long after their youth and beauty have faded. Again, as long as I don't burn down the house.
We are indeed lucky today as photographers although some fail to see the blessings.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I'm in two minds about this; when I'm holding the camera and taking the picture etc I like film cameras but after it's taken I prefer digital. Luckily there's good lenses for both.
It's the feel of the camera in my hands that causes it and the convenience of digital for the second like. A pity there's no diital cameras that feel like my old film ones...
Regards, David
It's the feel of the camera in my hands that causes it and the convenience of digital for the second like. A pity there's no diital cameras that feel like my old film ones...
Regards, David
benlees
Well-known
Don't worry, in 50 years people will chuckle to themselves thinking of how we must have suffered using such cumbersome and primitive contraptions. In a technocratic society such as ours the future is always better... until it isn't! People didn't really have fits of despair being limited to what they had in the past. That being said, I agree that you should drink it in right now.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
In 50 years today's digital files will likely be unreadable
and those old Kodachromes will look exactly the same.
Chris
and those old Kodachromes will look exactly the same.
Chris
Dogman
Veteran
Chris, reread my last post. Those old Kodachromes were already deteriorating after just over 40 years. I've noticed that in some of my other Kodachromes as well. Something I can't explain since I always believed Kodachromes would last longer. But nothing like the old Agfa and Fuji slides. They have faded badly.
But nothing is forever. We should enjoy what we have while we have it.
But nothing is forever. We should enjoy what we have while we have it.
Dogman
Veteran
And this thread was never meant to be a film vs digital diatribe. I was pointing out how much better today's lenses and cameras are than those of the past, even the so-called mediocre lenses are excellent nowadays. The segue into digital was just a byproduct of that.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Realize we are just at a point along the spectrum that extends back in the known past as well as goes forward into the unknown future. While we look back and marvel how far we have come from the 1970's, someone will look back in the 2070's and think what those poor photographers back in 2019 had to deal with for equipment.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Today's lenses and cameras are digital and the ones of the past were/are film. So it can't be avoided.
As for better, I never print larger than 12" x 8" and have had lenses more than capable of that for decades. OTOH, digital printing is a lot easier.
It's like cars, they go a lot faster these days but the speed limit is the same or lower. So only faster on paper but not on the roads that I drive on (legally)...
Regards, David
peterm1
Veteran
"It occurred to me that we are blessed with photography equipment today that exceeds the capabilities of anything from the past yet I don't think we really appreciate how lucky we are. In the 1970's, I struggled to get a printable negative from high school football games when the meter said Tri-X at 1600 was at least two stops under. Today, no problem. You can shoot it in color at ISO 25,000 and get usable images."
Yep. This is why I shoot digital pretty well exclusively these days. OK some people shoot film, good luck to them - it a sensible thing to do, especially if you do it by your own choice. Sometimes setting limitations for yourself and then transcending them by your own efforts helps develop your skills.
But as for me, I spent my early photographic years shooting film so I have "been there, done that, got the T shirt" and do not need to do it again by choice (mostly). So yes, I do appreciate how lucky we are right now. One way I consider myself to be lucky is that I can for every day shooting allow the camera to set aperture/shutter speed/ISO sensitivity in program mode. Adding ISO into the equation is very liberating. This is very convenient because it helps avoid missing shots, though mostly I prefer to set these parameters myself in most situations. Another way I consider myself to be lucky is that I can shoot, as you say, images in situations where I simply could not do so when using film and then - get this - use software to manipulate the image in post to emulate an analogue film (sometimes poorly admittedly ). I guess it's human nature to want to have your cake and eat it too.
There is one other way it occurs to me we are lucky today. We can take pretty much any lens from any era and for almost any system and (sometimes with a little ingenuity) put it back to work again making images. I simply could not do that before except to a very limited extent. (This is also a disadvantage because it motivates me to buy more lenses I really do not need....there are no free lunches I guess).
Here is one of my (I think) more successful attempts to emulate Kodachrome using Nik plugins.
Street Shots - Cinematic by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
And in this one I did not quite get it right (it's very image dependent) though I think it still looks somewhat "film like".
Hawaiian Shirts by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Yep. This is why I shoot digital pretty well exclusively these days. OK some people shoot film, good luck to them - it a sensible thing to do, especially if you do it by your own choice. Sometimes setting limitations for yourself and then transcending them by your own efforts helps develop your skills.
But as for me, I spent my early photographic years shooting film so I have "been there, done that, got the T shirt" and do not need to do it again by choice (mostly). So yes, I do appreciate how lucky we are right now. One way I consider myself to be lucky is that I can for every day shooting allow the camera to set aperture/shutter speed/ISO sensitivity in program mode. Adding ISO into the equation is very liberating. This is very convenient because it helps avoid missing shots, though mostly I prefer to set these parameters myself in most situations. Another way I consider myself to be lucky is that I can shoot, as you say, images in situations where I simply could not do so when using film and then - get this - use software to manipulate the image in post to emulate an analogue film (sometimes poorly admittedly
). I guess it's human nature to want to have your cake and eat it too.There is one other way it occurs to me we are lucky today. We can take pretty much any lens from any era and for almost any system and (sometimes with a little ingenuity) put it back to work again making images. I simply could not do that before except to a very limited extent. (This is also a disadvantage because it motivates me to buy more lenses I really do not need....there are no free lunches I guess).
Here is one of my (I think) more successful attempts to emulate Kodachrome using Nik plugins.
Street Shots - Cinematic by Life in Shadows, on FlickrAnd in this one I did not quite get it right (it's very image dependent) though I think it still looks somewhat "film like".
Hawaiian Shirts by Life in Shadows, on Flickrsjones
Established
Digital brought me into photography, and even after I switched to film, I used a digital scanner to process the negatives. I’m still using the scanner for internet purposes, but I’m now doing darkroom prints.
Photography is an artistic medium (or at least it can be used as one). And in this sense, technology’s benefits are subjective, given that people still use their hands, vocal chords, paint brushes, chisels, charcoal pencils, pianos, electric guitars and other antiquated technology to produce art just as compelling and creative as anything produced by today’s latest technological advancements.
As for ‘user experience’ of cameras and simple tactility, nothing new gives me more pleasure than my M2, and the black and white prints I’m creating satisfy my objectives and expectations perfectly. And I’m not arguing digital/film as much as present and past.
My lens from 1958 is more than capable, and even my lens from 1934 is sharp enough when stopped down, meaning that even when certain aspect of image quality are objectively measurable (irrespective of digital or film), its actual significance will vary greatly among people, particularly in terms of sufficiency.
But yes, we are living in a great time, not because technology has elevated the level of aesthetics, but because it gives us all broader choice. If technology were to completely lay waste to preceding artistic mediums, then no, it wouldn’t be a blessing.
Photography is an artistic medium (or at least it can be used as one). And in this sense, technology’s benefits are subjective, given that people still use their hands, vocal chords, paint brushes, chisels, charcoal pencils, pianos, electric guitars and other antiquated technology to produce art just as compelling and creative as anything produced by today’s latest technological advancements.
As for ‘user experience’ of cameras and simple tactility, nothing new gives me more pleasure than my M2, and the black and white prints I’m creating satisfy my objectives and expectations perfectly. And I’m not arguing digital/film as much as present and past.
My lens from 1958 is more than capable, and even my lens from 1934 is sharp enough when stopped down, meaning that even when certain aspect of image quality are objectively measurable (irrespective of digital or film), its actual significance will vary greatly among people, particularly in terms of sufficiency.
But yes, we are living in a great time, not because technology has elevated the level of aesthetics, but because it gives us all broader choice. If technology were to completely lay waste to preceding artistic mediums, then no, it wouldn’t be a blessing.
Takkun
Ian M.
I won’t comment on the digital/film debate other thanks to data recovery, I’ve yet to lose a single photo.
It is an amazing time to live in photographically. For me, that means affordable and light tripods, digital cameras that leave little to be desired image wise, a bounty of high-end film cameras for cheap, and film itself on the rebound. High quality, archival inkjet prints, and plenty of labs that do them. Ilford is doing BW C-prints from digital, so best of both worlds.
On the digital side, even though I’m not in the market for anything new, I’m amazed at what’s out there and how many makes are now (or back to being) major players. I worked at a dealer over a decade ago, and a Canon/Nikon were really the only mainstream options for small format — Minolta was on its last legs, Olympus was pretty heavily in point-and-shoots and still figuring out Four Thirds, and Pentax didn’t really seem to have a road map to the future. There’s a lot more out there, be it DSLR or mirrorless.
Going back even further, I’ve been flipping through old issues of PopPhoto and the like from the early 90s and getting an idea of just how cumbersome digital photography (or digital anything—remember WebTV and PalmOS?) were.
As someone trying to make it as a working photographer, the internet and social media, even though there’s a lot of crap to cut through, make it so much easier. It takes about 30 seconds to apply for an exhibition online or deliver work to clients over Dropbox. My mother, a painter, was telling me about how convoluted getting work reproduced on transparency, sending it out, and hoping they might just remember to send it back, was. Meanwhile, I’ve had shows at galleries across the country that do printing onsite for me.
Great time to be a photographer, whether that’s film or digital.
It is an amazing time to live in photographically. For me, that means affordable and light tripods, digital cameras that leave little to be desired image wise, a bounty of high-end film cameras for cheap, and film itself on the rebound. High quality, archival inkjet prints, and plenty of labs that do them. Ilford is doing BW C-prints from digital, so best of both worlds.
On the digital side, even though I’m not in the market for anything new, I’m amazed at what’s out there and how many makes are now (or back to being) major players. I worked at a dealer over a decade ago, and a Canon/Nikon were really the only mainstream options for small format — Minolta was on its last legs, Olympus was pretty heavily in point-and-shoots and still figuring out Four Thirds, and Pentax didn’t really seem to have a road map to the future. There’s a lot more out there, be it DSLR or mirrorless.
Going back even further, I’ve been flipping through old issues of PopPhoto and the like from the early 90s and getting an idea of just how cumbersome digital photography (or digital anything—remember WebTV and PalmOS?) were.
As someone trying to make it as a working photographer, the internet and social media, even though there’s a lot of crap to cut through, make it so much easier. It takes about 30 seconds to apply for an exhibition online or deliver work to clients over Dropbox. My mother, a painter, was telling me about how convoluted getting work reproduced on transparency, sending it out, and hoping they might just remember to send it back, was. Meanwhile, I’ve had shows at galleries across the country that do printing onsite for me.
Great time to be a photographer, whether that’s film or digital.
shimokita
白黒
When I look at my old film I am surprised at how good the low ASA results were just using that paper exposure guide that was included in the film box... even more so when shooting Kodachrome without a meter...
The [Honeywell] Pentax model 3°/21° spot meter came out in circa 1961 and that paper guide started to disappear... flash guide number and we were playing in a different ballpark.
Sometimes it depended on intuition and a bit of good fortune
The [Honeywell] Pentax model 3°/21° spot meter came out in circa 1961 and that paper guide started to disappear... flash guide number and we were playing in a different ballpark.
Sometimes it depended on intuition and a bit of good fortune