Why I'm still with film

[VertovSvilova]

Well for me there's no alternative. I'm just allergic to digital. Don't like the way it looks at all. It's plain and boring and somehow all images look the same. There's a plasticky quality to them which I dislike.

I've been struggling with this. I do both 35mm and 4x5 film, and digital. I'm using the Sigma Merrill, Fuji X100s, and also a D800E. So I'm there in respect to resolution and detail. But while some of the images can look perfectly okay to me, there is this overall flatness to them. If you look at the last 5-6 pages of the thread called "Leica M Post your portraits" some people are posting their digital M images (even though it's under the Leica film M sub-forum.) You can easily tell what's digital and what's film. The digital is flat and smooth whereas the film as a 'dimension' to it.

A friend of mine who is a well-known designer called it 'a roundness.' She's not a photographer but she does hire photographers. When she looks at my film images versus my digital images, she can spot the differences and says the film images have 'shape' to them; they have a 'roundness' or a dimension to them. I think she's noticed the difference that most laypersons don't quite see. And maybe that's because everyone has now become accustomed to the digital still image (and to video.)

I remember when the first flat screen TVs came out and what a disappointed they were to me in comparison with the CRT (and it's deep blacks.) Now we've pretty much accepted the look of digital television (and appreciate that we can get large screens which was a limitation with the CRT.) I still have a large Sony Trinitron CRT 16x9 TV that I use occasionally to watch well made HD DVDs. It still looks better to my eye.

 

[cz23]

I'm still experimenting with film and the Nikkormat I found recently in my mother-in-law's closet. Shots like this remind me what I miss about film; the delicate lighter tones, such as in her hat. Digital cameras - at least the ones I've owned - just don't offer this.

John

 

[noisycheese]

Well for me there's no alternative. I'm just allergic to digital. Don't like the way it looks at all. It's plain and boring and somehow all images look the same. There's a plasticky quality to them which I dislike. Even where the photographer knows what s/he's doing the images will look really uninteresting to me.

I did give digital an honest chance with a 5D2 and several thousand images. It was the ability to vary the ISO per shot that was a big draw, if I recall, but in the end I discovered that all the gadgetry of a modern DSLR just meant that I was further removed from the image-making process. So I sold it to fund a Coolscan 9000. If I want to shoot EOS I can still use my trusty old 1N.

Someone mentioned the "quarantine" period between exposing a roll and seeing the images. I find that this is really a very good thing - even if I develop the b/w roll that same evening or next day - as it means that the passage of time will temper my expectations of how good I believe a particular image will be based on my feelings when I shot the frame. Very often I see the scan and go "meh, that sucks". Great for ego and learning curve.

Well said. I too dislike the plasticky look that results from shooting with a digital camera.

I think almost all non-photographers cannot differentiate this plastic look from the fingerprint of film based images. It also seems that most photographers have seen the plastic-ism of digital so much over the years that they have come to believe that this plastic drawing of the sensor is the way photographs are "supposed" to look.

The plastic look of digital is but one issue. Then we have the issue of the heavy-handed misapplication/overuse/misuse of photoshop. This photographic equivalent of the Bedazzler
( https://www.getbedazzler.com/?mid=1520315 ) has produced some of the most godawful prints I have ever had the misfortune to lay eyes on.

Just because a person can do something to an image with photoshop doesn't mean they should do it. This point is obviously lost on a significant percentage of digital shooters/printers.

Besides the above, there's this:

I stay with film because the cameras that I love to use require film in order to make pictures.

Film cameras have a presence about them that digital cameras lack - call it soul for lack of a better term. Shooting with a digital camera is like flying in a modern business jet; shooting with a vintage all metal film camera is like flying in a P-51 Mustang.

YMMV.

 

[__--]

...YMMV.

It does vary!



Leica M-Monochrom | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 320 | f/2.8 | 1/500 sec

Paris




Leica M-Monochrom | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 320 | f/2.8 | 1/2000 sec

Paris




Leica M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 2,500 | f/8.0 | 1/350 sec

Bangkok




Leica M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 8,000 | f/2.0 | 1/180 sec

Dambulla Cave, Sri Lanka



MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems

 

[Chris101]

Hi Mitch,

I don't understand what these digital pictures have to do with the topic. Are you showing how close a black and white only camera can come to producing an image that looks like it is from a real negative? You have come close to be sure, however there is a world of difference, that goes beyond the internet view of a small image. My film negatives exist as real, physical objects. On the other hand, my digital images are ethereal, and exist in an imaginary - virtual - space that exists only through the technology that can see them, ie, computers. Even if film production and processing were to end today, negatives would continue toexist, as they are real things that we can touch without the need for an intervening technology.

Very nice pics though. (I also shoot and appreciate digital imagery.)

It does vary!



Leica M-Monochrom | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 320 | f/2.8 | 1/500 sec
Paris




Leica M-Monochrom | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 320 | f/2.8 | 1/2000 sec
Paris




Leica M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 2,500 | f/8.0 | 1/350 sec
Bangkok




Leica M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 8,000 | f/2.0 | 1/180 sec
Dambulla Cave, Sri Lanka



MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems

 

[VertovSvilova]

Those Monochrom images are a good example of what I call "digital flatness." It's not a flatness in contrast or anything like that, but a type of dimensional flatness. Film seems to have dimension (despite it being a 2-D surface.) It's what a designer (who has hired some of the world's most famous photographers in her illustrious career) called a 'roundness' to film images.

It's hard to explain but there is a 'dimension' to a film based image that seems to not appear with digital capture. It's subtle to a certain degree but noticeable.

 

[__--]

...I don't understand what these digital pictures have to do with the topic. Are you showing how close a black and white only camera can come to producing an image that looks like it is from a real negative? You have come close to be sure, however there is a world of difference, that goes beyond the internet view of a small image. My film negatives exist as real, physical objects. On the other hand, my digital images are ethereal, and exist in an imaginary - virtual - space that exists only through the technology that can see them, ie, computers. Even if film production and processing were to end today, negatives would continue toexist, as they are real things that we can touch without the need for an intervening technology...

Chris, the topic is the user experience: the original poster stated, "This user experience that is being discussed here, is the main issue I have with digital cameras in my first hand experience. I haven't used a digital camera yet that can hold a candle to the user experience of my classic film cameras with their traditional controls."

Well, shooting with the M-Monochrom gives me the same user experience as shooting with the Leica M6. You're, on the other hand, talking about the superior virtues of a film negative as a physical object, something that, in my experience in a peripatetic life, has been a great disadvantage — having lost too many negatives too many times; the largest loss resulting from a shipment of household goods that stayed, unshelteretd, in the port of Mombasa in a large wooden crate, for inexplicable reasons, through the six months of a rainy season instead of a promised six days, with most of the negatives ruined by insects.

Those Monochrom images are a good example of what I call "digital flatness." It's not a flatness in contrast or anything like that, but a type of dimensional flatness. Film seems to have dimension (despite it being a 2-D surface.) It's what a designer (who has hired some of the world's most famous photographers in her illustrious career) called a 'roundness' to film images...It's hard to explain but there is a 'dimension' to a film based image that seems to not appear with digital capture. It's subtle to a certain degree but noticeable.

Really? You seem to be waxing here into mysticism, to which my reaction is, if it's subtle but, nevertheless, noticeable, show me — like the lyrics from Eliza Doolittle's song in My Fair Lady: 😀

Sing me no song, read me no rhyme
Don't waste my time, show me!
Don't talk of June, don't talk of fall
Don't talk at all!
Show me!


MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems

 

[Aristophanes]

Those Monochrom images are a good example of what I call "digital flatness." It's not a flatness in contrast or anything like that, but a type of dimensional flatness. Film seems to have dimension (despite it being a 2-D surface.) It's what a designer (who has hired some of the world's most famous photographers in her illustrious career) called a 'roundness' to film images.

It's hard to explain but there is a 'dimension' to a film based image that seems to not appear with digital capture. It's subtle to a certain degree but noticeable.

If it is noticeable it quantifiable and measurable.

Show us the metrics.

 

[shortstop]

If it is noticeable it quantifiable and measurable. Show us the metrics.

Round images are particularly evident with two lenses among the many I have: summicron 50 and planar 3,5 on rolleiflex. Not everything our brain sees can be measured at the moment. There are attempts to explain sentiments for example in terms of hormones levels, bla, bla. But we are in the stone age. The same for the roundness of an image. It forms presumably in the area 17 of our brain as a result of information taken by the retina through a a good lens and cornea and a transparent corpus vitreous, transmitted via optical nerve. But at the moment it is unmeasurable; this don't mean it don't exist. I see it and many of us see it. Never seen in a digiphoto. Sorry.

 

[ktmrider]

I really enjoy film and shoot both an M2 and 500CM. I recently acquired an M9. I often wonder if everyone who claims to see differences between film and digital prints really do, especially on a computer screen.

I often wonder if these are the same with people who claim they can immediately distinguish between Leica, Zeiss or other lenses. I have been doing this stuff since 1966 and only have the ability to tell if a photo is sharp and I enjoy it.

Lots of room for both film and digital. Shoot what you enjoy.

 

[Aristophanes]

Round images are particularly evident with two lenses among the many I have: summicron 50 and planar 3,5 on rolleiflex. Not everything our brain sees can be measured at the moment. There are attempts to explain sentiments for example in terms of hormones levels, bla, bla. But we are in the stone age. The same for the roundness of an image. It forms presumably in the area 17 of our brain as a result of information taken by the retina through a a good lens and cornea and a transparent corpus vitreous, transmitted via optical nerve. But at the moment it is unmeasurable; this don't mean it don't exist. I see it and many of us see it. Never seen in a digiphoto. Sorry.

Would you be willing to take a test to that effect, that you could tell a digital photo from a film photo?

(Hint: it's been done)

 

[shortstop]

Would you be willing to take a test to that effect, that you could tell a digital photo from a film photo? (Hint: it's been done)

This test has to be done not on the screen, only on print.
What I've said is based on my little experience. May be someday I'll see what you say. May be my experience is limited at the moment.

 

[VertovSvilova]

I'm assuming it's likely the film grain that gives it this sort of 'visual dimension.' I find that very fine grain reversal film can also sometimes have the same 'flatness' as digital; I've noticed that when reversal film is scanned and turned into a gray scale file, that it also can take on that 'flat' appearance which is evident in digital capture files (e.g., from the Monochrom.)

B+W film that has a random grain pattern shows a kind of dimension that seems missing in digital. The same goes with C-41 film although not as pronounced. Artificial grain that is added to a digital capture isn't the same; it's not a random pattern (not organic?...although I hate to use that word.) Instead it's a pattern of dots laid down on top of the image.

Maybe "roundness" isn't the proper word. Perhaps it's the 'clean' look of digital files that give it a 'flatness." They seem devoid of visual artifacts (to the human eye) and that 'cleanliness' can give them a 'flat' appearance. There's a 'smoothness' to the images. Maybe 'smoothness' is the right word (?)

And there may be no 'metrics' to explain what I'm attempting to try to say here. Although not everything that humans respond to is necessarily measurable. Anyway, I can't explain it with 'metrics' as I'm not a scientist. The woman in question in my last post (who has used the term "roundness") has worked with Richard Avedon, Philippe Halsmann, Irving Penn, Duane Michals, Annie Leibovitz, etc.. No, she's not a scientist. But maybe what she has seen over the decades is something not so measurable either (?) I don't know, but it's an interesting phenomenon. And sure, maybe it's all in one's mind. Nonetheless, there is something different between digital and film. After all, these are two very unique and very different methods of recording light. I would certainly hope that digital capture is going to be measurably different than film capture. Some people may not be able to taste the difference between diet Coke and regular Coke, but they are indeed not the same product.

I personally use both film and digital depending on the project.

btw, here are two image crops. One is film capture and the other is digital capture.

 

[Godfrey]

... My film negatives exist as real, physical objects. On the other hand, my digital images are ethereal, and exist in an imaginary - virtual - space that exists only through the technology that can see them, ie, computers. Even if film production and processing were to end today, negatives would continue toexist, as they are real things that we can touch without the need for an intervening technology. ...

I don't care a wit about negatives. They're not finished photographs.

All my finished photographs are prints, and they have substance and reality regardless of whether the capture medium was a piece of film, a piece of glass with a light sensitive coating, or a digital sensor.

But electrical potentials stored in a silicon wafer are just as real as a sliver of gelatin and plastic anyway. If they weren't, 90% of what you use every day wouldn't exist ... Like film, since its manufacture is almost entirely controlled by those electrical potentials guiding all the machines needed to produce it.

Reality is not as limited as 'objects you can touch'...

G

 

[goamules]

Those Monochrom images are a good example of what I call "digital flatness." It's not a flatness in contrast or anything like that, but a type of dimensional flatness. Film seems to have dimension (despite it being a 2-D surface.) It's what a designer (who has hired some of the world's most famous photographers in her illustrious career) called a 'roundness' to film images.

It's hard to explain but there is a 'dimension' to a film based image that seems to not appear with digital capture. It's subtle to a certain degree but noticeable.

I like film, I shoot a lot of it, from 35mm to 4x5, 5x7, Wholeplate, and 8x10. I also shoot wetplate. I don't see a lot of large prints from digital, or from film for that matter. Most people don't.

Some grainy B&W like Tri-X, or unusual color like Velvia you may be able to spot. But I bet you a dollar to a doughnut most of those that are talking about how "film looks different" would not be able to tell if you shot identical shots with the same lens on the same size sensor (or crop factor) and some modern, small grained film. Sorry, but it's easy to talk about "digital flatness" and "film 3d-ness" but it's hard to show it. Again, if there were 10 identical shots half with say Kodak Ektar, half digital, printed about 5x7 or online, you wouldn't be able to tell.

Some people, maybe 1 out of a hundred, could guess pretty well, or be able to tell. Some people can point out where to drill a well with a divining rod made from a bent coat hanger. 99 out of 100 cannot.

 

[Godfrey]

.. But I bet you a dollar to a doughnut most of those that are talking about how "film looks different" would not be able to tell if you shot identical shots with the same lens on the same size sensor (or crop factor) and some modern, small grained film. Sorry, but it's easy to talk about "digital flatness" and "film 3d-ness" but it's hard to show it. ...

I've made a book and hung exhibitions of prints made with film and digital capture together. No one can tell which were made with a digital camera and which were made on film if I don't want them too. The rendering is all in the skill of the person doing the image processing and printing.

The only places I articulate what camera made what photo is on photo forums (flickr, RFF, etc) where photographers are interested. People looking at photographs in a book or in a gallery don't care except on rare exception (for instance, people looking at a Richard Avedon exhibit might be curious to see what portraits made with an 8x10 view camera look like since that detail is made large of in the write up for the exhibit). The only thing that matters is first a) the content of the photograph and then b) whether it is technically executed well.

All the silly film vs digital business is just wasted energy. There are certainly differences between the capture mediums which affect what a photographer can do with either, but by and large these differences don't translate to "one is better than the other." They translate to "the photographer knows how to get the photos wanted out of the camera, whatever camera it might be."

I think I'll load a pack of Impossible Cyanographic film into my SX-70 today... 🙂

G

 

[goamules]

I agree Godfrey. I think I'll look at the wetplates I shot with a camera I made out of a pumpkin today!

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?108020-Pumpkin-Wetplate-Camera

 

[VertovSvilova]

All the silly film vs digital business is just wasted energy. There are certainly differences between the capture mediums which affect what a photographer can do with either, but by and large these differences don't translate to "one is better than the other."

I totally agree and was going to also say that even having a sub-forum like 'film versus digital' is counterproductive and not very useful. I'm not sure what purpose it serves especially since most realize that these are two different media. And I don't see it as a 'better or worse' issue. I use both media for their own intrinsic characteristics (which I claim do exist 🙂)

Although the point of this thread (at least I'm assuming based on its title) was why one is 'still using film' i.e, "Why I'm Still With Film." And if the final product is absolutely indistinguishable from digital capture, then what is the point of using film? Is it simply using an 'old fun' film camera that is the main reason? And if it's about the final product (i.e., "The only thing that matters is first a) the content of the photograph and then b) whether it is technically executed well"), then using a particular camera doesn't quite matter. Instead it becomes more the domain of the photo-hobbyist.

If one can claim that film and digital are completely indistinguishable from each other, then that does beg the question: why is one "still with film." I argue that while film and digital can often be made to look indistinguishable, the fact remains that they are two different products and two different processes. And that they do indeed have different properties that are distinguishable. If I were to mix digital capture and film capture images together, I would most likely attempt to make them indistinguishable in order to not distract the viewer; on the other hand if the purpose was to emphasize the use of different media then my approach would also be different.

In the meantime, I'm glad to have a choice between film and emulsion based processes and electronic processes. I know many artists in other media that appreciate the availability of all sorts of materials. This is a positive thing and certainly not a "versus" sort of dialogue.

I also agree that most laypeople will normally not notice much difference which is indeed a good thing; hopefully it's the content and context of the image itself which they are invested in (although materials can indeed inform the work, too.) But I do see differences in film and digital captured imagery. As I mentioned, it's not always readily apparent, but it's there. The B+W images from the Monochrom that I see here have that 'smoothness' to them and especially in skin tones. And it's not a 'good versus bad' response from me, it's just a difference. Sometimes I prefer that look and sometimes I don't. And it's why I'm appreciative that film and digital are both viable materials that I have at my disposal. Many cinematographers prefer to use film as their material; if film and digital are indistinguishable from each other it makes one wonder why they still insist on film capture. After all, it's expensive and more time consuming (and with a series of short takes, etc..) I'm not being facetious here, it's a sincere question.

btw, I've also been using the Merrill cameras. They have a different look (to me) than other digital cameras. And while the files may be processed to look the same as other sensors, it is still a different product.

 

[Godfrey]

Check out the Side by Side documentary for some more insights into the film vs digital capture video domain:
http://sidebysidethemovie.com

G

 

[VertovSvilova]

Check out the Side by Side documentary for some more insights into the film vs digital capture video domain:
http://sidebysidethemovie.com

Thanks, I'm very familiar with this documentary. I'm from Southern California and my partner is in the industry. I also have some personal connections to the UCLA Film and TV Archive. It's a dialogue I'm familiar with and I find this paradigm shift an interesting topic. My question was more rhetorical. If digital is indistinguishable from film then why do people (e.g., cinematographers) use film. But it is still a sincere question (and one which I had assumed was at the root of this thread.) And of course Chris Kenneally's documentary does explore that.

btw, if you haven't seen this article from 2012, Horak (UCLA) is quoted several times here: http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/
Much of it is a general overview that I'm sure you're familiar with, but there are still some worthwhile insights.