Why I Love the Imperfection of Old Cameras

[clayne]

I think I read on Rangefinder.com that film is also digital. The silver crystals in the emulsion are either exposed, or they are not. In other words, 1,0. Digital.

With best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)

Bull****.

Analog mediums saturate - of which both film and tape do. There's no remote connection between grain and 0|1 binary off|on like digital represents.

Grain doesn't even exist - it's a visual illusion triggered by the brain.

 

[btgc]

I've issue with "analog cameras" so I prefer term "film cameras" - but only because I'm anemic cheapskate who doesn't use real cameras which depend on sheets or glass plates. I must admit "film cameras" are only part of "non-digital cameras".

Probably all the balooney has started at times when tiny sensor compacts without proper controls were all that were available. Now one can find many great digital cameras which can be unreliable as film gear 🙂 and same applies to IQ department. In fact, shooting digital can be more fussy than negative.

Let's sort out unique and unpredictable pattern of film grain. It's easy to write software which on random base abandons some pixels and approximates them from neighbours. I think, xtrans sensor is doing similar thing to move away from regular patterns. This haven't happened 10 years ago simply because people were kept busy by staring at clean shiny digital pictures and pixel peeping but that's only matter of time. Manufacturers want your money and they will give what you ask for - and this is already happening - larger sensors for masses, optical finders, film like grain etc.

Certainly, I symphatize to thought that sentimental gear fondlers will shoot film until they day without touching digital (well - except a few real photogs) and those who like photography, will use anything they can put their hands on and matching their needs, be it colloides or iphone or what.

 

[fidget]

I think I read on Rangefinder.com that film is also digital. The silver crystals in the emulsion are either exposed, or they are not. In other words, 1,0. Digital.

With best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)

Ah yes, I read once.......
There are only 10 types of person. Those who understand binary and those who do not.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Grain doesn't even exist - it's a visual illusion triggered by the brain.

I'm a little surprised by this statement. Obviously all my text books are wrong.

I was under the impression that grain is all too real. Basically, a film is a coating of crystals in a carrier, classically gelatine, onto a substrate. When enough photons hit enough molecules within the crystals, the crystals become developable, a suitable reagent turning the molecules of the crystal from the halide into pure silver.

Two preconditions cause the appearance of grain. The first is that the individual crystals are typically irregular and the second is that the coating is generally irregular, so that developed crystals appear as clumps with gaps between them. As grain is not always what the photographer want, manufacturers have various strategies for reducing this clumping, including spreading fewer crystals through the coating; using more regular shaped crystals, as in Kodak's T-Max emulsions, or using a process where all the crystals are replaced by dyes, as in all colour emulsions but also in films like Ilford's XP-2.

As I say, though. It's entirely possible that I have had it wrong all these years and grain is nothing more than a figment of my fevered imagination

😀

 

[Photo_Smith]

I'm a little surprised by this statement. Obviously all my text books are wrong.

I was under the impression that grain is all too real. Basically, a film is a coating of crystals in a carrier, classically gelatine, onto a substrate. When enough photons hit enough molecules within the crystals, the crystals become developable, a suitable reagent turning the molecules of the crystal from the halide into pure silver.

Two preconditions cause the appearance of grain. The first is that the individual crystals are typically irregular and the second is that the coating is generally irregular, so that developed crystals appear as clumps with gaps between them. As grain is not always what the photographer want, manufacturers have various strategies for reducing this clumping, including spreading fewer crystals through the coating; using more regular shaped crystals, as in Kodak's T-Max emulsions, or using a process where all the crystals are replaced by dyes, as in all colour emulsions but also in films like Ilford's XP-2.

Mostly right, people confuse grain (physical) with graininess (perception) and granularity (measured over a given area).
Clumping isn't physical, grains do not move during development the appearance of clumping happens in the brain and is a product of grain morphology (grain shapes sometimes change during exposure and subsequent development) and stochastic distribution.

Here is an image showing grains do not change position during development.

They change shape, and certainly aren't 'binary' and don't move to clump together to form an image as many people believe.

 

[lrochfort]

I think I read on Rangefinder.com that film is also digital. The silver crystals in the emulsion are either exposed, or they are not. In other words, 1,0. Digital.

With best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)

If anything, digital cameras are actually analogue for the capture part of the process. CCDs and CMOS produce an analogue value that is then converted and stored digitally.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Clumping isn't physical, grains do not move during development the appearance of clumping happens in the brain and is a product of grain morphology (grain shapes sometimes change during exposure and subsequent development) and stochastic distribution.

You're quite right. I was simplifying for the purpose of clarity, always a dangerous ploy.

😀

 

[burancap]

Did anybody notice the article is from April 1st?

A Contax G2? ...and WB, AF, and metering are the author's issues?

 

[David Hughes]

HI,

The trouble is that these days "Analogue" means "Not Digital" and so on. So do I drink my analogue coffee from an analogue mug, wear analogue clothes or what?

So my answer is to call them cameras or film cameras; and I suggest we strike back by talking about "non film cameras"; unless someone can come up with something even more negative.

Regards, David

 

[user237428934]

"Film" is quite ambiguous. Whenever I talk about a film camera then the other persons think of film=movie. So when I say "Analogue camera" the response is always "ah, that kind of film".

 

[oftheherd]

Did anybody notice the article is from April 1st?

Actually, I did not. I'm not sure that is an excuse for anything in the article though.

 

[Ming Rider]

HI,

The trouble is that these days "Analogue" means "Not Digital" and so on. So do I drink my analogue coffee from an analogue mug, wear analogue clothes or what?

So my answer is to call them cameras or film cameras; and I suggest we strike back by talking about "non film cameras"; unless someone can come up with something even more negative.

Regards, David

How about 'non-cameras' 🙂

 

[jsrockit]

They are all just cameras to me.

 

[Range-rover]

Nice read, That's why I still shoot film and use a Nikon S3, it slows the process down
and it's more enjoyable. I do use Digital but something about the rangefinder.

Range

 

[shadowfox]

They are all just cameras to me.

You may say that, but you also have a preference between the two, don't you?
That means it's really not all just cameras.

Make sense? 🙂

 

[jsrockit]

You may say that, but you also have a preference between the two, don't you?
That means it's really not all just cameras.

Make sense? 🙂

As far as what I like to use... I like the digital process more for my needs. However, when it comes to the essence of what both types of cameras do, which is make photographs, they are simply just cameras. No need for the adjective unless you are a snob or you really need to be descriptive for a reason. Many just simply have to say analog or film camera because it makes them feel superior. Yeah, I know it's not that simple... but if you ask any of the guys I know personally on this site, I am not a snob at all when it comes to any camera type that people want to use.

I went to school for photography when it was all film. I've done everything from large format, to cibachrome / c-prints, to cyanotypes/ van dyke brown, pinholes, etc. Did the Holga/Diana thing in the early 90s before Lomography, etc. Now I do digital. It's all just photography to me.
I may not use all types of camera these days, but I am fan of work made with all types of cameras. What matters is the work made from the cameras in general.

 

[zvos1]

Few months ago I heard someone refer to film camera as "wind up" camera.

 

[S.H.]

quote:
"I’m excited about new stuff and better sensors, but there is nothing like the magic of that slow analog approach; an approach that results in deficiencies, such as overexposure, slightly blown out detail, a blurred silhouette or awkward framing."

150% pure BS

 

[MartinP]

The trouble is that these days "Analogue" means "Not Digital" and so on. So do I drink my analogue coffee from an analogue mug, wear analogue clothes or what?

Analogue clothes . . . well, they are usually either on or off . . . sounds digital to me?
😉

 

[noisycheese]

Quote from the article : "there is nothing like the magic of that slow analog approach; an approach that results in deficiencies, such as overexposure, slightly blown out detail, a blurred silhouette or awkward framing."

(end quote)

😕

Why would using a film camera result in deficient pictures ? If that is the author's experience, then he should only blame it on his own inexperience.

I really don't know what the point is the author is trying to make.

It seems to me what the author is describing are the results of photographic ineptness, not the results of shooting with a film camera.