Which is more important - film or lens?

[jamiewakeham]

OK, so I've stolen the title from another thread 😉

Whilst reading that other thread, someone commented that the film used is almost certainly more important to the appearance of the final image than the lens choice. I suspect that this is probably true; agreement?

And if so - has anyone seen a comparison of the various brands of film out there? I've seen things comparing the popular colour slide films, but I've yet to come across a comprehensive article describing the differences between, say, HP5, Delta and Tri-X. Or colour neg, for that matter. Anyone want to write it?

Jamie

 

[GeneW]

Anyone want to write it?

The only thing I could write about this is that, yup, ya gotta have a lens and, yup, ya gotta have film. Everything else is preference ...

Gene

 

[ywenz]

This comparison is much less critical than the body vs. lens one. You can switch to a new film if the current does doesn't satisfy you. It's harderto switch bodies and/or lenses.

 

[Skinny McGee]

I would say lens

 

[Bertram2]

OK, so I've stolen the title from another thread 😉

Whilst reading that other thread, someone commented that the film used is almost certainly more important to the appearance of the final image than the lens choice. I suspect that this is probably true; agreement?
Jamie

No. Both contribute to the result in a chain of elements . One of them can spoil the result of the other but not compensate it's deficits.
Until you don't specify "important" this question sounds like what is more important , the front or the rear wheels of a car ? 😀
Bertram

 

[Honu-Hugger]

No. Both contribute to the result in a chain of elements . One of them can spoil the result of the other but not compensate it's deficits.
Until you don't specify "important" this question sounds like what is more important , the front or the rear wheels of a car ? 😀
Bertram

Very well said, Bertram 😀 (it's nice to start the morning with a good laugh)

As for the B&W film comparison: there are so many variables that a meaningful analysis of film types would have to have some limitations. Since we are not restricted by the limitations it would seem to be a fools errand...but if someone wants to take it on go for it! I might read the results... 🙂

 

[jamiewakeham]

Sorry - been a little imprecise in my question. Let's try a rephrasing:

1) Though one obviously needs a functioning lens, body and some film (not to mention the enlarger lens, paper, so on and so forth) to produce an image, I wondered what had the greater effect upon the style and appearance of that final image; choice of lens or choice of film. Or to put it another way, starting from a baseline of a Summicron and Tri-X, would one notice a greater difference using a Summicron and Delta, or an Elmar and Tri-X?

2) We spend ages debating what effect upon our images the lens has. Threads asking about different lenses and their qualities abound; I recall several people posting that they even carry more than one lens of a certain focal length aas they all have different characteristics. Without looking it up, and even though I don't own *any* of these lenses, I can recall (for instance) that the I-61 L/D has particularly high contrast and that non-coated collapsible Elmars have a pre-war, soft contrast feel. But easy as it is to search for the characteristics of a given lens, it doesn't seem to be possible to do so for films. I don't really know* the difference in image style between, say, Delta and Tri-X (I'd guess that the former is rather more modern and contrasty than the latter, but that is pure guess informed only by the tendency to develop lenses that do the same). So what are the differences?

Jamie

* Yes, I know the answer is to take rolls of each, print them and see for myself! Unfortunately the enlarger hasn't been out for over a year, and probably won't be out for that long again, due to renovating of my whole house 🙁

 

[jamiewakeham]

...or to put the whole thing yet another way, I know if I'm off shooting colour landscape to get out the Velvia. I also know that this would be a bad choice for portraiture. But I can't make the same choices for B&W.

Should I conclude that the differences between B&W films are much less significant than between different colour slide films?

jamie

 

[kiev4a]

A good lens can't make up for a crappy emulsion. On the other hand, a great emulsion can't make up for a really crappy piece of glass. I guess they are equally important although I would go for a great lens, then use "non-crappy" film🙂

 

[Honu-Hugger]

It is all subjective...

 

[GeneW]

Many of us love shooting iso400 B&W films. All of these films, to some degree, will mask off some of the resolution a good lens is capable of, but other aspects of the lens such as 'glow', 'bokeh', contrast, etc, will still show through. With very low-speed B&W films, you can capture the high resolution of a good lens, but the combination is usually too slow and contrasty to be practical for day-to-day shooting. D2 said it best: "It is all subjective ..."

Gene

 

[Honu-Hugger]

Many of us love shooting iso400 B&W films. All of these films, to some degree, will mask off some of the resolution a good lens is capable of, but other aspects of the lens such as 'glow', 'bokeh', contrast, etc, will still show through. With very low-speed B&W films, you can capture the high resolution of a good lens, but the combination is usually too slow and contrasty to be practical for day-to-day shooting. D2 said it best: "It is all subjective ..."

Gene

And I wasn't being flippant (it seemed that way after I read the post); there are just so many variables that come into play.

 

[Hektor]

Well you might be talking about a remark I made in another thread.

However to stick to this question/topic

Quote:<< Or to put it another way, starting from a baseline of a Summicron and Tri-X, would one notice a greater difference using a Summicron and Delta, or an Elmar and Tri-X?>>

There isn't much doubt in my own photos it is much easier to tell the difference between Tri-X and Delta 100, than it is between a Summicron and an Elmar.

It might not be quite so striking between Tri-X and Delta 400 but still pretty easy.

And anyway if your going to get all "techie" about it do you mean a '50's summicron or a '90's one and an uncoated pre-war Elmar or an Elmar-M.

I strongly suggest you try it out for yourself and go and take some pics, then come back and tell us what YOU think. Honestly we'd all like to a know.

This is all part of the fun and reward of RF photography, - don't miss out on it. ;-)

Regards John C.

 

[eric]

YOu guys are ALL WRONG. Its neither the film or the lens, it the developer 🙂

<duuuuckkkkk!!!!>

I guess its all 3. Lens/film/developer combination. A sharp lens and fast film combined with accutance developer will give you extra sharp images. Just decent lens, slow film, non-accutance developer will give you "apparently" less sharp.

Oh, were you guys talking color? I have no idea. Ask the guy at Walmart if his developer temperature is constant 🙂

 

[VinceC]

I'm going to vote for the lens.

Film's obviously important, and each film (in combination with different developers, for that matter) has its own characteristics. But except for projected slides, the film is never the final presentation of the photograph. You can do an incredible amount of interpretation or adjustment in the darkroom, be it wet or digital.

The lens is going to give you a perpective, contrast range, range of focus and image quality that is responsible for the primary impact of the image. Nearly every image we see has been run through a darkroom or digital post-processing, then either mass printed using lossy reproduction techniques or posted online with a massive loss of resolution. Yet these images retain their power because of the photographer's ability to use the lens to capture the image.

Does anyone really know or care what brand of film was used to capture Capa's landing on Omaha? The flag at Iwo Jima? The National Geographic girl from Afghanistan? The napalmed girl from Vietnam? Gene Smith's mercury-poisoned child in Japan? Martin Luther King's widow at his funeral service? Any single image shot by Cartier-Bresson? I don't think many of these iconic images would be substantially different if they used a different brand of film.

I've always likened my negatives to the rough draft notes of the final photograph.

 

[Hektor]

Naahh,.......Tri-X, rigid summicron (or J8), D76 @ 1-1,.....there you go !!

 

[Poptart]

Much of the quality of modern film and lens combinations is lost to carelessness, haste, and poor technique.

 

[kiev4a]

The bottom line involves why folks shoot photos with fil and why there are forums like this one. There are a great many variables one must master--camera, lens, film, developer, time and temperature. The satisfaction comes when you hit the correct dettings on all of the variables. Even then, different people see things differently. The perfectly exposed shot through a razor sharp lens may not look as good to some viewers as a high contrast version of the same scene with various elements thrown out of focus. As Honu Hugger says, "It's all subjective."

 

[Bertram2]

. Or to put it another way, starting from a baseline of a Summicron and Tri-X, would one notice a greater difference using a Summicron and Delta, or an Elmar and Tri-X?
🙁

We come closer ! In general one can say there are significant differences in the "footprints" of films AND lenses.

An interesting question can be what is my goal and which lens/film combo do I use to come there ? That works for colour and B&W in the same way. A cron has a very different color handling compared to a CV Nokton and and chosing the "right film" depends on what I wish to be my result ? Re-inforcing the footprint or compensating it as far as possible ?
Same B&W. Given light and lens will influence your decision for a certain film.
Dull light , Tri-x and an old leica cron or Elmar working together can give a too muddy and sad impression, A BW400CN or Fuji could help. Or if it must be Tri-X a 2,5/50 Skopar or a industar will offer better chances.

On the other hand most the CVs are all a bit on the contrasty side, the Zeiss look.
You won't take too contrasty film for these lenses if you got bright and clear sun outside. I personally prefer Tri-X for such circumstances.

And last notleast, as somebody said already, the dev is anothe setscrew for the finetuning.

So far we have 5 variables . Given light, lens character, film, dev and paper.
Hmm, like sex, isn't it ? Complex , expensive, difficult to learn , and o become a master it needs lifelong practise because of the many setscrews.............. 😕

Bertram

 

[canonetc]

Groovy thread sure to inspire. Knowing lenses is like knowing the right tool for the results you want to achieve. Do you need soft romanticism, or contrasty war coverage? Or, contrasty romanticism and soft war?

Lens is more important than film, I think, but personal taste and visual effect is the desired result. A good lens is useless, though, if the film (and development) doesn't hit your artistic bullseye.

Chris
canonetc