A partial farewell

[marco1974]

It has become apparent to me that most people on this forum aren't really interested in film photography, and mostly/only drop in to my posts to point out how, in their opinion at least, digital and designed-for-digital lenses are always so much better.

To me, that's beside the point, as designed-for-44x33 lenses just don't work at all with 645 film (my medium of choice).

I have no interest of my own in claiming that film photography is "better", nor am I trying to proselytise in the least.

But this kind of interaction (only) gets a bit boring... so, given that I no longer shoot medium format digital, I think that in the future I will just refrain from posting my 645 film pictures in this forum.

I will continue to frequent this forum as an observer (and occasional commenter), because I highly value the excellent and extremely informative posts made by the likes of Jim Kasson and Rob de Loe.

Hence the "partial" nature of my farewell.

All the best,

Marco

 

[DavidMillier]

It's a shame you are not feeling a loving vibe here, Marco.

What I like most about this forum is that it is more eclectic than most on DPR and attracts a more mature audience than some do. We are thankfully free of obsessive brand allegiance and not even that much format allegiance. It allows for a more interesting and wide ranging spread of topics and for more of a focus on getting the results we want.

Film has a long and proud history in photography and while it may be a niche interest these days, it's not going away. I welcome your contributions and urge you to reconsider. You'll just have to reconcile yourself to the fact that majority are going to be digital, but we are not deaf to what film can offer, even if it is no longer the medium of most. But if you decide you are not comfortable posting, that's ok, too, no one should feel forced to stick around where they don't feel welcome.

Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope for more in future.

David.

 

[marco1974]

Thank you, David.

 

[dbateman]

I wouldn't let the arm chair photographers hold you back. Myself included, I have been so busy with my day to day job that I haven't shot a great macro in a year. Even with everything finally working.

Also everyone online seem to criticize the Fujifilm half frame camera and its still MapCamera's best selling camera. So what do online people know.

Just have fun, post what you like and try to look at the good side.

 

[barkleytom]

Attention seeking is what makes us tick, I agree. But did you try making your posts more interesting to see if it could create fans? I love film photography, though never shot one!

 

[Erik Kaffehr]

It has become apparent to me that most people on this forum aren't really interested in film photography, and mostly/only drop in to my posts to point out how, in their opinion at least, digital and designed-for-digital lenses are always so much better.

To me, that's beside the point, as designed-for-44x33 lenses just don't work at all with 645 film (my medium of choice).

I have no interest of my own in claiming that film photography is "better", nor am I trying to proselytise in the least.

But this kind of interaction (only) gets a bit boring... so, given that I no longer shoot medium format digital, I think that in the future I will just refrain from posting my 645 film pictures in this forum.

I will continue to frequent this forum as an observer (and occasional commenter), because I highly value the excellent and extremely informative posts made by the likes of Jim Kasson and Rob de Loe.

Hence the "partial" nature of my farewell.

All the best,

Marco

To put it simply, I don't think that technical quality motivates film based workflow. From where I stand, I see a couple of reasons:

The first one is that using analogue film mostly means two passes trough an optical system. One projects the subject to film and the other projects the film on the final output media.

There are two exceptions from that rule,one is a looking at large format transparencies on a lightboard, the other is a contact print. Both ways show an original image.

A decent film era camera lens may transfer like 60% modulation at say 40 lp/mm. That means that about 40% of the information is lost. A scanner also has an optical system and that will also have a transfer function, it may be around 60%, too.

So, with film, the total transfer may be 0.6 * 0.6, that is 0.36 or 36 procent, so 64% of the information may be lost.

The other part is that both photographic film and photographic paper have their tone curves. Those curves, in combination, determine the 'look' of that film, developers/paper combo.

Scanning film adds an another layer of interpretation, as the scanning software will also have a tone curve.

Finally, we need the captured image to the display media. Let's look at an extreme case:

• Fujichrome Vevia may have been handle a luminance range of -2.5 to + 2.0 EV.
• But that luminance range would be cast into a density range around 1:10000 (D=4.0)
• When printing the reflectance range would be closer to 1:100

So, doing a print from a scanned Velvia would need quite a bit of tone scale manipulation, but that manipulation also gives a lot of artistic freedom.

With color, we have not one pair of tone curves, but three pairs. That ads quite a bit of complecity, with another word a lot more of artistic freedom.

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic tends to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

It is the interleaving of film MF with digital MF which makes this forum unique. It wouldn't be as interesting to me to lose the film aspect.

Add to that Large Format as well. And there isn't a LF digital yet. Maybe later.

Stan

 

[Noddemix]

It has become apparent to me that most people on this forum aren't really interested in film photography, and mostly/only drop in to my posts to point out how, in their opinion at least, digital and designed-for-digital lenses are always so much better.

To me, that's beside the point, as designed-for-44x33 lenses just don't work at all with 645 film (my medium of choice).

I have no interest of my own in claiming that film photography is "better", nor am I trying to proselytise in the least.

But this kind of interaction (only) gets a bit boring... so, given that I no longer shoot medium format digital, I think that in the future I will just refrain from posting my 645 film pictures in this forum.

I will continue to frequent this forum as an observer (and occasional commenter), because I highly value the excellent and extremely informative posts made by the likes of Jim Kasson and Rob de Loe.

Hence the "partial" nature of my farewell.

All the best,

Marco

To put it simply, I don't think that technical quality motivates film based workflow. From where I stand, I see a couple of reasons:

The first one is that using analogue film mostly means two passes trough an optical system. One projects the subject to film and the other projects the film on the final output media.

There are two exceptions from that rule,one is a looking at large format transparencies on a lightboard, the other is a contact print. Both ways show an original image.

A decent film era camera lens may transfer like 60% modulation at say 40 lp/mm. That means that about 40% of the information is lost. A scanner also has an optical system and that will also have a transfer function, it may be around 60%, too.

So, with film, the total transfer may be 0.6 * 0.6, that is 0.36 or 36 procent, so 64% of the information may be lost.

This is why it makes no sense to insist on the performance of a lens designed for and consequently suited to 645. Not always - but very often - there are characteristics you simply can't see on film that become apparent when making files with a 50/100MP sensor. And I say this as someone making more work on film than with my GFX cameras, scanning frames on a Flextight or a GFX camera with the Pentax 645 120mm f4, and whose favourite prime lens on the GFX system is the Pentax 75mm f2.8.

Why can't the posts just be about the photography rather than the medium or someone's perception of the superiority of the hardware?

I don't believe I've ever turned up in one of these threads and commented on the quality of a lens or scan if the purpose of the thread wasn't some kind of comparative assessment or didn't come with an assertion about the optical performance of the hardware that made the picture.

The other part is that both photographic film and photographic paper have their tone curves. Those curves, in combination, determine the 'look' of that film, developers/paper combo.

Scanning film adds an another layer of interpretation, as the scanning software will also have a tone curve.

Finally, we need the captured image to the display media. Let's look at an extreme case:

• Fujichrome Vevia may have been handle a luminance range of -2.5 to + 2.0 EV.
• But that luminance range would be cast into a density range around 1:10000 (D=4.0)
• When printing the reflectance range would be closer to 1:100

So, doing a print from a scanned Velvia would need quite a bit of tone scale manipulation, but that manipulation also gives a lot of artistic freedom.

With color, we have not one pair of tone curves, but three pairs. That ads quite a bit of complecity, with another word a lot more of artistic freedom.

Best regards

Erik

 

[marco1974]

It has become apparent to me that most people on this forum aren't really interested in film photography, and mostly/only drop in to my posts to point out how, in their opinion at least, digital and designed-for-digital lenses are always so much better.

To me, that's beside the point, as designed-for-44x33 lenses just don't work at all with 645 film (my medium of choice).

I have no interest of my own in claiming that film photography is "better", nor am I trying to proselytise in the least.

But this kind of interaction (only) gets a bit boring... so, given that I no longer shoot medium format digital, I think that in the future I will just refrain from posting my 645 film pictures in this forum.

I will continue to frequent this forum as an observer (and occasional commenter), because I highly value the excellent and extremely informative posts made by the likes of Jim Kasson and Rob de Loe.

Hence the "partial" nature of my farewell.

All the best,

Marco

To put it simply, I don't think that technical quality motivates film based workflow.

That depends on how you define technical quality.

For instance, there is a technical 'quality' to a transparency viewed on a light table or projected well, that is different from a digital file viewed on a screen.

From where I stand, I see a couple of reasons:

The first one is that using analogue film mostly means two passes trough an optical system. One projects the subject to film and the other projects the film on the final output media.

There are two exceptions from that rule,one is a looking at large format transparencies on a lightboard, the other is a contact print. Both ways show an original image.

A decent film era camera lens may transfer like 60% modulation at say 40 lp/mm. That means that about 40% of the information is lost. A scanner also has an optical system and that will also have a transfer function, it may be around 60%, too.

So, with film, the total transfer may be 0.6 * 0.6, that is 0.36 or 36 procent, so 64% of the information may be lost.

In principle, of course the more optical passages, the more losses. But I think those % figures are a bit fictional.

The other part is that both photographic film and photographic paper have their tone curves. Those curves, in combination, determine the 'look' of that film, developers/paper combo.

Scanning film adds an another layer of interpretation, as the scanning software will also have a tone curve.

A tone curve needs to be applied to a linear digital raw files, too.

Finally, we need the captured image to the display media. Let's look at an extreme case:

• Fujichrome Vevia may have been handle a luminance range of -2.5 to + 2.0 EV.
• But that luminance range would be cast into a density range around 1:10000 (D=4.0)
• When printing the reflectance range would be closer to 1:100

So, doing a print from a scanned Velvia would need quite a bit of tone scale manipulation, but that manipulation also gives a lot of artistic freedom.

Doing a print from a digital raw file requires quite a bit of manipulation too. So?

With color, we have not one pair of tone curves, but three pairs. That ads quite a bit of complecity, with another word a lot more of artistic freedom.

True of film and digital alike.

Best regards

Erik

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

Dear Marco I responded encouragingly to your photos on this Dpr MF forum as well as on Dpr Film forum.

Before you held an exhibition in Shoreditch London, you made a thread about it on this MF forum. Some forum members responded, I also responded encouragingly saying I will gladly attend incognito in support for you and that Shoreditch is fairly near.

You responded with thanks to the other forumees, however you said nothing in response to me. After this I requested a mod to remove my post.

Even after this I still responded encouragingly to your Tokoyo Cinestill800 photo.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68163069

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

In my mind I have never seen a framed image adorned at its border with notice of the camera or process used. The only true quality is the aesthetic value of the image !

Never seen an oil framed on canvas stretchers , showing the brand of canvas used, pigment smeared or tool used to knife the finish..........

Interestingly after decades of publishing transparency originals, only one thing was constant .... and that was that the image was a DIGITAL creation in its final display.

 

[Erik Kaffehr]

The first one is that using analogue film mostly means two passes trough an optical system. One projects the subject to film and the other projects the film on the final output media.

There are two exceptions from that rule,one is a looking at large format transparencies on a lightboard, the other is a contact print. Both ways show an original image.

A decent film era camera lens may transfer like 60% modulation at say 40 lp/mm. That means that about 40% of the information is lost. A scanner also has an optical system and that will also have a transfer function, it may be around 60%, too.

So, with film, the total transfer may be 0.6 * 0.6, that is 0.36 or 36 procent, so 64% of the information may be lost.

In principle, of course the more optical passages, the more losses. But I think those % figures are a bit fictional.

Not really, they come from Hasselblad and Rodenstock:

The Planar 100/3.5 is about the best lens for the Hasselblad V-series I have fond, around 65% modulation at 40 cycles/mm.

Here is the data for the Rodagon 75 APO

The Rodagon APO reaches around 50-55 % MTF at 40 cy/mm at f/5.6

I guess it would be used to scan/enlarge medium format film

Now, look at Kodak EKTAR 100

Ektar 100 seems to reach around 60-65% at 40 cycles/mm

Combining the MTF data for the lens, film, enlarger lens combo above we would have resulting MTF: 0.65 * 0.55 * 0.65 -> 0.23, so we would have around 23% MTF out of that combo.

Now compare that with digital, using a 60 MP 24x36 mm sensor:

The scale is different, but assuming film format is 42x55 mm, the cy/PH would be 40 *42 -> 1680 cy/PH. The 24x36 mm camera would yield around 51% MTF at that resolution.

The question is how relevant these figures are.

For my part, what I may enjoy is shooting with an old style camera and learning to make best use of it.

Best reards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic tends to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

 

[marco1974]

Dear Marco I responded encouragingly to your photos on this Dpr MF forum as well as on Dpr Film forum.

Before you held an exhibition in Shoreditch London, you made a thread about it on this MF forum. Some forum members responded, I also responded encouragingly saying I will gladly attend incognito in support for you and that Shoreditch is fairly near.

Thank you.

You responded with thanks to the other forumees, however you said nothing in response to me.

I must have missed it. No hard feelings!

After this I requested a mod to remove my post.

It's your prerogative to do as you deem appropriate.

Even after this I still responded encouragingly to your Tokoyo Cinestill800 photo.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68163069

Appreciated.

 

[TechTalk2]

For my part, what I may enjoy is shooting with an old style camera and learning to make best use of it.

A photographer may also prefer the way the final image looks as a result of using different processes, whatever they may be, and the inherent qualities they bring to bear.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Marco, I'm sorry to read this. I hope you'll find some reasons to jump in if interesting things come up. I was actually thinking about you and your work today because I'm finishing up a long piece that digs into the idea of the perfect being the enemy of the good. I know that's very much your thing too so maybe you'll enjoy it when I finish it.

In the meantime, all the best in photography and the rest of your life!

 

[marco1974]

Thank you Rob!

I look forward to reading your piece.

Like I said, you're one of the main reasons I'll stick around here.

 

[SigmaChrome]

I'm with Dave on this.

I always enjoy your photos and posts, as I respect the quality of the images themselves as well as your artistic skills.

The 'digital is better' crowd just bore the pants off me, and I don't get involved with them.

So, I for one say, keep posting and ignore the knockers !

 

[SterlingBjorndahl]

That depends on how you define technical quality.

Line pairs per millimeter is the place to start. (In the English language, when talking about "technical quality", the term 'quality' is quantitative, not subjective. It can be measured. Any other use of the word 'quality' is not technical.)

For instance, there is a technical 'quality' to a transparency viewed on a light table or projected well, that is different from a digital file viewed on a screen.

I'm going to disagree with your calling it a "technical" quality unless you can show me a measurement. There may well be an aesthetic difference that you can choose to call "quality", but it's not "technical" quality unless you can back it up with numbers.

Sterling
--
Lens Grit

 

[JimKasson]

That depends on how you define technical quality.

Line pairs per millimeter is the place to start. (In the English language, when talking about "technical quality", the term 'quality' is quantitative, not subjective. It can be measured. Any other use of the word 'quality' is not technical.)

I disagree. For me, cycles per picture height is the better metric. Also, be careful of the threshold. Often, people talking about lp/mm are talking about extinction resolution, which I find only academically useful, like engineering dynamic range.

For instance, there is a technical 'quality' to a transparency viewed on a light table or projected well, that is different from a digital file viewed on a screen.

I'm going to disagree with your calling it a "technical" quality unless you can show me a measurement. There may well be an aesthetic difference that you can choose to call "quality", but it's not "technical" quality unless you can back it up with numbers.

Sterling
--
Lens Grit

 

[marco1974]

Thank you, too.