Back from Tokyo... and a reflection on Dynamic Range

[marco1974]

So, I'm back from Tokyo (IMHO, the best city in the whole world)... and I'm just starting to go through the photos I made.

12 rolls of 120 film, at 16 shots per roll = 192 scans. This will take a while...

But as a first sample of what's to come, I'm posting here a first scan, of a contre-jour cityscape taken from atop Tokyo's Sky Tree.

Shot straight into the setting sun, this image is also a good showcase of the kind of dynamic range that colour negative film can effortlessly handle.

Yes, there is some grain in the shadows (this was shot on Cinestill 800T), but I didn't have to "push" or otherwise heavily post-process the image in any way. This is essentially a fairly "straight" / plain vanilla scan (only cropped from 645 to square).

Of course, everything is subjective, but I personally like the rendering, which, to me, comes across as more "realistic" and enjoyable than most "HDR"-style pictures that I often see on the internet.

And all in all, I'd say not bad for obsolete technology.

Pentax 645N + FA 150mm f/2.8, Cinestill 800T, hand-held



--
Marco

Galleries by Marco Raugei

pbase.com

 

[Rich42]

So, I'm back from Tokyo (IMHO, the best city in the whole world)... and I'm just starting to go through the photos I made.

12 rolls of 120 film, at 16 shots per roll = 192 scans. This will take a while...

But as a first sample of what's to come, I'm posting here a first scan, of a contre-jour cityscape taken from atop Tokyo's Sky Tree.

Shot straight into the setting sun, this image is also a good showcase of the kind of dynamic range that colour negative film can effortlessly handle.

Yes, there is some grain in the shadows (this was shot on Cinestill 800T), but I didn't have to "push" or otherwise heavily post-process the image in any way. This is essentially a fairly "straight" / plain vanilla scan (only cropped from 645 to square).

Of course, everything is subjective, but I personally like the rendering, which, to me, comes across as more "realistic" and enjoyable than most "HDR"-style pictures that I often see on the internet.

And all in all, I'd say not bad for obsolete technology.

Pentax 645N + FA 150mm f/2.8, Cinestill 800T, hand-held

--
Marco
https://pbase.com/marcoraugei

Very nice. My favorite camera and lenses for many years, until the GFX. Beautiful color negative image.

--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)

 

[left eye]

So, I'm back from Tokyo (IMHO, the best city in the whole world)... and I'm just starting to go through the photos I made.

Pentax 645N + FA 150mm f/2.8, Cinestill 800T, hand-held

...one of the best images I've seen on DPR.

can I say that twice?

...one of the best images I've seen on DPR.

Maybe it's the lens, more 'optical' - less clinical than the current crop of flat 'digital' lenses.

Maybe it's the SLR mirror / OVF ... you are able to compose that without blowout EVF.

Maybe it's the film, DR, colour, contrast / tone.

+ all of the above influence the photographer ...which is another most important ingredient!

Yes Marco, I'm 100% with you on the photographic power of the tools we used 10 - 20 - 30 years ago, while the current tools are 'generating' results that just don't touch us - as photographers or viewers.

The closest I can get with digital gear, is the Pentax K-1 with 'Limited' lenses (-everyone should try this combo, really!), the 645Z, and my Sigma sdQuattro. My GFX doesn't come close to any of those.

Tokyo - and Japan, the spirit that made that camera and lens you are using - is somehow special to see through them, in a way that's not so special with current gear. Just a plain fact to my eyes, and a joy to see the above, keep 'em coming...

 

[JimKasson]

Yes Marco, I'm 100% with you on the photographic power of the tools we used 10 - 20 - 30 years ago, while the current tools are 'generating' results that just don't touch us - as photographers or viewers.

If you truly believe that, why are you using digital cameras?

 

[left eye]

Yes Marco, I'm 100% with you on the photographic power of the tools we used 10 - 20 - 30 years ago, while the current tools are 'generating' results that just don't touch us - as photographers or viewers.

If you truly believe that, why are you using digital cameras?

Time is shorter now.

Ben's recent threads about 'what is your one favourite prime lens', 'one favourite zoom lens', brought back to me how I thought his work with the D800 was spectacular, much more adventurous compositions than with the GFX. So not only film vs digital, also dSLR vs mirrorless ...and along with mirrorless the scanner-like lenses.

But yes good question, I often wish I could just give up the decades of investment - not only in gear, but knowledge in digital, but I can't. So I'm somewhere between, an eye on both. dSLRs and 'less digital' lenses are just about getting me there, without the whiff of chemicals or acid buzz in a nicked finger.

I've still got to unblock the nozzles on my Epson printer though, £1000 of ink and paper might do it, mmm it ain't cheap, digital.

 

[JimKasson]

Yes Marco, I'm 100% with you on the photographic power of the tools we used 10 - 20 - 30 years ago, while the current tools are 'generating' results that just don't touch us - as photographers or viewers.

If you truly believe that, why are you using digital cameras?

Time is shorter now.

Ben's recent threads about 'what is your one favourite prime lens', 'one favourite zoom lens', brought back to me how I thought his work with the D800 was spectacular, much more adventurous compositions than with the GFX. So not only film vs digital, also dSLR vs mirrorless ...and along with mirrorless the scanner-like lenses.

But yes good question, I often wish I could just give up the decades of investment - not only in gear, but knowledge in digital, but I can't. So I'm somewhere between, an eye on both. dSLRs and 'less digital' lenses are just about getting me there, without the whiff of chemicals or acid buzz in a nicked finger.

I've still got to unblock the nozzles on my Epson printer though, £1000 of ink and paper might do it, mmm it ain't cheap, digital.

Neither was film. $10 a shot for 8x10 Polaroids in the 80s. $12 for 36 exposures of processed 135 chrome in the same time period. Five bucks for a processed E6 8x10. And that was when film was cheaper in real terms. Today, Provia is more that twenty bucks a sheet in 8x10.

 

[SigmaChrome]

That's gorgeous! Love the DR - and the grain.

 

[batterypark]

Thank you for sharing the photo. Made my day.

 

[marco1974]

So, I'm back from Tokyo (IMHO, the best city in the whole world)... and I'm just starting to go through the photos I made.

Pentax 645N + FA 150mm f/2.8, Cinestill 800T, hand-held

...one of the best images I've seen on DPR.

can I say that twice?

...one of the best images I've seen on DPR.

Maybe it's the lens, more 'optical' - less clinical than the current crop of flat 'digital' lenses.

Maybe it's the SLR mirror / OVF ... you are able to compose that without blowout EVF.

Maybe it's the film, DR, colour, contrast / tone.

+ all of the above influence the photographer ...which is another most important ingredient!

Yes Marco, I'm 100% with you on the photographic power of the tools we used 10 - 20 - 30 years ago, while the current tools are 'generating' results that just don't touch us - as photographers or viewers.

The closest I can get with digital gear, is the Pentax K-1 with 'Limited' lenses (-everyone should try this combo, really!), the 645Z, and my Sigma sdQuattro. My GFX doesn't come close to any of those.

Tokyo - and Japan, the spirit that made that camera and lens you are using - is somehow special to see through them, in a way that's not so special with current gear. Just a plain fact to my eyes, and a joy to see the above, keep 'em coming...

Thank you so much. I'm touched.

--
Marco

Galleries by Marco Raugei

pbase.com

 

[Crispy_Bee]

Yes Marco, I'm 100% with you on the photographic power of the tools we used 10 - 20 - 30 years ago, while the current tools are 'generating' results that just don't touch us - as photographers or viewers.

If you truly believe that, why are you using digital cameras?

Time is shorter now.

Ben's recent threads about 'what is your one favourite prime lens', 'one favourite zoom lens', brought back to me how I thought his work with the D800 was spectacular, much more adventurous compositions than with the GFX. So not only film vs digital, also dSLR vs mirrorless ...and along with mirrorless the scanner-like lenses.

But yes good question, I often wish I could just give up the decades of investment - not only in gear, but knowledge in digital, but I can't. So I'm somewhere between, an eye on both. dSLRs and 'less digital' lenses are just about getting me there, without the whiff of chemicals or acid buzz in a nicked finger.

I've still got to unblock the nozzles on my Epson printer though, £1000 of ink and paper might do it, mmm it ain't cheap, digital.

If you want the analog experience in the digital age start by turning off your display and use memory cards that hold 36 images each. You can look at the EVF but you're not allowed to zoom to verify focus or use stuff like histograms, focus peaking, different image ratios,... Don't shoot raw, you have to pre-select the white balance, "film-simluation" and everything else beforehand. Medium resolution JPEG is all we need.
For ultimate realism turn down the EVF brightness to -3 or -5.

When you're done you can look at the photos but only after you get back home from the trip/shoot. It's part of the charm.

Then you can select the image you like best (but only by looking at a small preview image first, don't look closely, that's cheatering!) and print that one. Happy with the result? Or do you need some more editing? Fine, but only use RGB sliders, burn/dodge, crop and a bit of brightness adjustments. Retouch using brushes only, no repair tools, cloning or removal are allowed.

Now you can print it bigger and if you want to share it, simply scan the print and put it online - or better yet simply print a bunch of them and send them out individually.

And the best part: it'll be huge time saver!! :-D

Personally I'm happy with the digital experience but your mileage may vary ;-)

 

[marco1974]

Yes Marco, I'm 100% with you on the photographic power of the tools we used 10 - 20 - 30 years ago, while the current tools are 'generating' results that just don't touch us - as photographers or viewers.

If you truly believe that, why are you using digital cameras?

Time is shorter now.

Ben's recent threads about 'what is your one favourite prime lens', 'one favourite zoom lens', brought back to me how I thought his work with the D800 was spectacular, much more adventurous compositions than with the GFX. So not only film vs digital, also dSLR vs mirrorless ...and along with mirrorless the scanner-like lenses.

But yes good question, I often wish I could just give up the decades of investment - not only in gear, but knowledge in digital, but I can't. So I'm somewhere between, an eye on both. dSLRs and 'less digital' lenses are just about getting me there, without the whiff of chemicals or acid buzz in a nicked finger.

I've still got to unblock the nozzles on my Epson printer though, £1000 of ink and paper might do it, mmm it ain't cheap, digital.

If you want the analog experience in the digital age start by turning off your display and use memory cards that hold 36 images each. You can look at the EVF but you're not allowed to zoom to verify focus or use stuff like histograms, focus peaking, different image ratios,... Don't shoot raw, you have to pre-select the white balance, "film-simluation" and everything else beforehand. Medium resolution JPEG is all we need.
For ultimate realism turn down the EVF brightness to -3 or -5.

When you're done you can look at the photos but only after you get back home from the trip/shoot. It's part of the charm.

Then you can select the image you like best (but only by looking at a small preview image first, don't look closely, that's cheatering!) and print that one. Happy with the result? Or do you need some more editing? Fine, but only use RGB sliders, burn/dodge, crop and a bit of brightness adjustments. Retouch using brushes only, no repair tools, cloning or removal are allowed.

Now you can print it bigger and if you want to share it, simply scan the print and put it online - or better yet simply print a bunch of them and send them out individually.

And the best part: it'll be huge time saver!! :-D

Personally I'm happy with the digital experience but your mileage may vary ;-)

No-one in their right mind would ever argue that digital isn't more convenient.

But many of your other points - surely made tongue-in-cheek in an attempt at humour - are factually wrong, when it comes to the technical quality achievable when using film competently.

Basically, you're missing the whole point of why I choose to shoot film in this day and age. But that's OK - I have no intention to disparage digital (I use it too!), nor to somehow claim that film is "better". It isn't "either / or". It's both - for different experiences, AND different results.

 

[left eye]

Yes Marco, I'm 100% with you on the photographic power of the tools we used 10 - 20 - 30 years ago, while the current tools are 'generating' results that just don't touch us - as photographers or viewers.

If you truly believe that, why are you using digital cameras?

Time is shorter now.

Ben's recent threads about 'what is your one favourite prime lens', 'one favourite zoom lens', brought back to me how I thought his work with the D800 was spectacular, much more adventurous compositions than with the GFX. So not only film vs digital, also dSLR vs mirrorless ...and along with mirrorless the scanner-like lenses.

But yes good question, I often wish I could just give up the decades of investment - not only in gear, but knowledge in digital, but I can't. So I'm somewhere between, an eye on both. dSLRs and 'less digital' lenses are just about getting me there, without the whiff of chemicals or acid buzz in a nicked finger.

I've still got to unblock the nozzles on my Epson printer though, £1000 of ink and paper might do it, mmm it ain't cheap, digital.

If you want the analog experience in the digital age start by turning off your display and use memory cards that hold 36 images each. You can look at the EVF but you're not allowed to zoom to verify focus or use stuff like histograms, focus peaking, different image ratios,... Don't shoot raw, you have to pre-select the white balance, "film-simluation" and everything else beforehand. Medium resolution JPEG is all we need.
For ultimate realism turn down the EVF brightness to -3 or -5.

When you're done you can look at the photos but only after you get back home from the trip/shoot. It's part of the charm.

Then you can select the image you like best (but only by looking at a small preview image first, don't look closely, that's cheatering!) and print that one. Happy with the result? Or do you need some more editing? Fine, but only use RGB sliders, burn/dodge, crop and a bit of brightness adjustments. Retouch using brushes only, no repair tools, cloning or removal are allowed.

Now you can print it bigger and if you want to share it, simply scan the print and put it online - or better yet simply print a bunch of them and send them out individually.

And the best part: it'll be huge time saver!! :-D

Personally I'm happy with the digital experience but your mileage may vary ;-)

In the day I always shot B&W, various formats, including 5x4, developed my own films, and printed the results including dodging and burning in. When out with 35mm I always took a bag of film canisters, even if I didn’t use them all. So all of your suggestions are 180 degrees out in terms of my analogue experience - in fact they sound like how someone might use a digital point and shoot.

 

[DavidMillier]

Yes Marco, I'm 100% with you on the photographic power of the tools we used 10 - 20 - 30 years ago, while the current tools are 'generating' results that just don't touch us - as photographers or viewers.

If you truly believe that, why are you using digital cameras?

Time is shorter now.

Ben's recent threads about 'what is your one favourite prime lens', 'one favourite zoom lens', brought back to me how I thought his work with the D800 was spectacular, much more adventurous compositions than with the GFX. So not only film vs digital, also dSLR vs mirrorless ...and along with mirrorless the scanner-like lenses.

But yes good question, I often wish I could just give up the decades of investment - not only in gear, but knowledge in digital, but I can't. So I'm somewhere between, an eye on both. dSLRs and 'less digital' lenses are just about getting me there, without the whiff of chemicals or acid buzz in a nicked finger.

I've still got to unblock the nozzles on my Epson printer though, £1000 of ink and paper might do it, mmm it ain't cheap, digital.

If you want the analog experience in the digital age start by turning off your display and use memory cards that hold 36 images each. You can look at the EVF but you're not allowed to zoom to verify focus or use stuff like histograms, focus peaking, different image ratios,... Don't shoot raw, you have to pre-select the white balance, "film-simluation" and everything else beforehand. Medium resolution JPEG is all we need.
For ultimate realism turn down the EVF brightness to -3 or -5.

When you're done you can look at the photos but only after you get back home from the trip/shoot. It's part of the charm.

Then you can select the image you like best (but only by looking at a small preview image first, don't look closely, that's cheatering!) and print that one. Happy with the result? Or do you need some more editing? Fine, but only use RGB sliders, burn/dodge, crop and a bit of brightness adjustments. Retouch using brushes only, no repair tools, cloning or removal are allowed.

Now you can print it bigger and if you want to share it, simply scan the print and put it online - or better yet simply print a bunch of them and send them out individually.

And the best part: it'll be huge time saver!! :-D

Personally I'm happy with the digital experience but your mileage may vary ;-)

No-one in their right mind would ever argue that digital isn't more convenient.

But many of your other points - surely made tongue-in-cheek in an attempt at humour - are factually wrong, when it comes to the technical quality achievable when using film competently.

Basically, you're missing the whole point of why I choose to shoot film in this day and age. But that's OK - I have no intention to disparage digital (I use it too!), nor to somehow claim that film is "better". It isn't "either / or". It's both - for different experiences, AND different results.

Each to their own. I was a film photographer from 1975 to 1999 (there wasn't much choice!) and just as keen a photographer back then. But I have to say that when I look at my back catalogue of work, there really isn't anything from the 1975-1999 period that was much cop or worth keeping other than family pics. Despite spending an inordinate amount of time measuring negative densities with a densitometer and all that jazz, it was only when digital arrived as a consumer option that my photography became unfettered from technical issues and I could concentrate on making images for the image's sake. I truly was an incompetent film photographer.

My most recent foray into film photography was running a couple of rolls of film through the old 1950s folding camera I inherited from my dad. The results were execrable and reminded me perfectly of why I suck at film photography. All wishful thinking, and no delivery.

An example of a recent GFX picture (shot with an adapted superzoom). Easy, effortless, guaranteed to actually work:

An example of the very best shot out of two rolls of HP5 shot recently using the folder:

Has a certain olde worlde charm perhaps.

Now here are examples of the typical quality of shots from the same rolls of film:

Film work is a lot more technically demanding than digital, there are so many things that can go wrong and ruin a shot. Using this old camera was a reminder of just why in the old days we were just pleased if a picture "came out". It wasn't guaranteed.

Film has its charm, but digital was liberation. I won't be bothering with film again.

Correction: I actually used two different folding cameras. One was my dad's, the other a top of the range model from the same line I picked up off ebay. The results from that one were worse, I think it has a lot of light leaks.

p.s.

Looking at my dad's family pics with the folder, they were ok. But they are all contact prints. I don't think these old folders were up to enlargement.

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[marco1974]

Yes Marco, I'm 100% with you on the photographic power of the tools we used 10 - 20 - 30 years ago, while the current tools are 'generating' results that just don't touch us - as photographers or viewers.

If you truly believe that, why are you using digital cameras?

Time is shorter now.

Ben's recent threads about 'what is your one favourite prime lens', 'one favourite zoom lens', brought back to me how I thought his work with the D800 was spectacular, much more adventurous compositions than with the GFX. So not only film vs digital, also dSLR vs mirrorless ...and along with mirrorless the scanner-like lenses.

But yes good question, I often wish I could just give up the decades of investment - not only in gear, but knowledge in digital, but I can't. So I'm somewhere between, an eye on both. dSLRs and 'less digital' lenses are just about getting me there, without the whiff of chemicals or acid buzz in a nicked finger.

I've still got to unblock the nozzles on my Epson printer though, £1000 of ink and paper might do it, mmm it ain't cheap, digital.

If you want the analog experience in the digital age start by turning off your display and use memory cards that hold 36 images each. You can look at the EVF but you're not allowed to zoom to verify focus or use stuff like histograms, focus peaking, different image ratios,... Don't shoot raw, you have to pre-select the white balance, "film-simluation" and everything else beforehand. Medium resolution JPEG is all we need.
For ultimate realism turn down the EVF brightness to -3 or -5.

When you're done you can look at the photos but only after you get back home from the trip/shoot. It's part of the charm.

Then you can select the image you like best (but only by looking at a small preview image first, don't look closely, that's cheatering!) and print that one. Happy with the result? Or do you need some more editing? Fine, but only use RGB sliders, burn/dodge, crop and a bit of brightness adjustments. Retouch using brushes only, no repair tools, cloning or removal are allowed.

Now you can print it bigger and if you want to share it, simply scan the print and put it online - or better yet simply print a bunch of them and send them out individually.

And the best part: it'll be huge time saver!! :-D

Personally I'm happy with the digital experience but your mileage may vary ;-)

No-one in their right mind would ever argue that digital isn't more convenient.

But many of your other points - surely made tongue-in-cheek in an attempt at humour - are factually wrong, when it comes to the technical quality achievable when using film competently.

Basically, you're missing the whole point of why I choose to shoot film in this day and age. But that's OK - I have no intention to disparage digital (I use it too!), nor to somehow claim that film is "better". It isn't "either / or". It's both - for different experiences, AND different results.

Each to their own. I was a film photographer from 1975 to 1999 (there wasn't much choice!) and just as keen a photographer back then. But I have to say that when I look at my back catalogue of work, there really isn't anything from the 1975-1999 period that was much cop or worth keeping other than family pics. Despite spending an inordinate amount of time measuring negative densities with a densitometer and all that jazz, it was only when digital arrived as a consumer option that my photography became unfettered from technical issues and I could concentrate on making images for the image's sake. I truly was an incompetent film photographer.

My most recent foray into film photography was running a couple of rolls of film through the old 1950s folding camera I inherited from my dad. The results were execrable and reminded me perfectly of why I suck at film photography. All wishful thinking, and no delivery.

An example of a recent GFX picture (shot with an adapted superzoom). Easy, effortless, guaranteed to actually work:

An example of the very best shot out of two rolls of HP5 shot recently using the folder:

Has a certain olde worlde charm perhaps.

Now here are examples of the typical quality of shots from the same rolls of film:

Film work is a lot more technically demanding than digital

There you go. That I can agree with, 100%. But guess what? It's also a big part of why I choose to shoot film in the first place. I enjoy the challenge. And I derive satisfaction from (and take pride in) mastering the process.

And... not to boast or anything - but I can assure you that none of my film pictures look even remotely anywhere near those samples that you posted here. I know how to expose properly, I use well-maintained and properly functioning cameras (no light leaks etc., thank you very much), I have my film developed by a reputable pro lab, and then scan it myself on a well-maintained and serviced dedicated film scanner.

--
Marco

Galleries by Marco Raugei

pbase.com

 

[DavidMillier]

Well, yes of course, but my point was that digital just works, while film requires excellent equipment and technique; there is a lot more craft involved.

If you take satisfaction from mastering craft, then film is an obvious fit. If you just want results, digital is a lot easier: 2 year old kids can pull it it off. I wouldn't trust many 2 year olds with loading a film reel!

 

[Rich42]

Yes Marco, I'm 100% with you on the photographic power of the tools we used 10 - 20 - 30 years ago, while the current tools are 'generating' results that just don't touch us - as photographers or viewers.

If you truly believe that, why are you using digital cameras?

Time is shorter now.

Ben's recent threads about 'what is your one favourite prime lens', 'one favourite zoom lens', brought back to me how I thought his work with the D800 was spectacular, much more adventurous compositions than with the GFX. So not only film vs digital, also dSLR vs mirrorless ...and along with mirrorless the scanner-like lenses.

But yes good question, I often wish I could just give up the decades of investment - not only in gear, but knowledge in digital, but I can't. So I'm somewhere between, an eye on both. dSLRs and 'less digital' lenses are just about getting me there, without the whiff of chemicals or acid buzz in a nicked finger.

I've still got to unblock the nozzles on my Epson printer though, £1000 of ink and paper might do it, mmm it ain't cheap, digital.

If you want the analog experience in the digital age start by turning off your display and use memory cards that hold 36 images each. You can look at the EVF but you're not allowed to zoom to verify focus or use stuff like histograms, focus peaking, different image ratios,... Don't shoot raw, you have to pre-select the white balance, "film-simluation" and everything else beforehand. Medium resolution JPEG is all we need.
For ultimate realism turn down the EVF brightness to -3 or -5.

When you're done you can look at the photos but only after you get back home from the trip/shoot. It's part of the charm.

Then you can select the image you like best (but only by looking at a small preview image first, don't look closely, that's cheatering!) and print that one. Happy with the result? Or do you need some more editing? Fine, but only use RGB sliders, burn/dodge, crop and a bit of brightness adjustments. Retouch using brushes only, no repair tools, cloning or removal are allowed.

Now you can print it bigger and if you want to share it, simply scan the print and put it online - or better yet simply print a bunch of them and send them out individually.

And the best part: it'll be huge time saver!! :-D

Personally I'm happy with the digital experience but your mileage may vary ;-)

No-one in their right mind would ever argue that digital isn't more convenient.

But many of your other points - surely made tongue-in-cheek in an attempt at humour - are factually wrong, when it comes to the technical quality achievable when using film competently.

Basically, you're missing the whole point of why I choose to shoot film in this day and age. But that's OK - I have no intention to disparage digital (I use it too!), nor to somehow claim that film is "better". It isn't "either / or". It's both - for different experiences, AND different results.

Each to their own. I was a film photographer from 1975 to 1999 (there wasn't much choice!) and just as keen a photographer back then. But I have to say that when I look at my back catalogue of work, there really isn't anything from the 1975-1999 period that was much cop or worth keeping other than family pics. Despite spending an inordinate amount of time measuring negative densities with a densitometer and all that jazz, it was only when digital arrived as a consumer option that my photography became unfettered from technical issues and I could concentrate on making images for the image's sake. I truly was an incompetent film photographer.

My most recent foray into film photography was running a couple of rolls of film through the old 1950s folding camera I inherited from my dad. The results were execrable and reminded me perfectly of why I suck at film photography. All wishful thinking, and no delivery.

An example of a recent GFX picture (shot with an adapted superzoom). Easy, effortless, guaranteed to actually work:

An example of the very best shot out of two rolls of HP5 shot recently using the folder:

Has a certain olde worlde charm perhaps.

Now here are examples of the typical quality of shots from the same rolls of film:

Film work is a lot more technically demanding than digital

There you go. That I can agree with, 100%. But guess what? It's also a big part of why I choose to shoot film in the first place. I enjoy the challenge. And I derive satisfaction from (and take pride in) mastering the process.

And... not to boast or anything - but I can assure you that none of my film pictures look even remotely anywhere near those samples that you posted here. I know how to expose properly, I use well-maintained and properly functioning cameras (no light leaks etc., thank you very much), I have my film developed by a reputable pro lab, and then scan it myself on a well-maintained and serviced dedicated film scanner.

As someone who made a living in photography, graphic arts and commercial printing from the late 1950s through the mid 2000s, all quite firmly film-based, all requiring the dedication of incredible amounts of time and energy, and consummate knowledge of every aspect of technology, craft and esthetics, I find today's "true believer" cult of film adherents annoying and tiring.

Especially considering that more than half of today's "film work flow" requires scanning the film to a digital file. Sorry, but right there, the entire film "argument" falls apart.

Show me some 16x20 silver gelatin prints, 8x10 or larger contact prints, or dye transfers or cibachromes, even type R prints and I might want to start listening (or looking).

That's a practical impossibility now and diminishing in probability at an exponential rate.

But then, I would still show you the beauty and capability of the best that digital now offers, permitting those of us who actually did labor (and I mean labor) in the darkrooms of all those decades and who now have applied the same level of expertise to digital to confidently say that digital is better.

Nothing mean or demeaning in these words. Not a put-down. Just a reality check by one of the old guys who was there for the whole ride and who can see the landscape with necessary perspective.

--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)

 

[JimKasson]

Well, yes of course, but my point was that digital just works, while film requires excellent equipment and technique; there is a lot more craft involved.

If you take satisfaction from mastering craft, then film is an obvious fit.

Why stop there? Wet plate photography demands even more skill.

If you just want results, digital is a lot easier: 2 year old kids can pull it it off. I wouldn't trust many 2 year olds with loading a film reel!

 

[Crispy_Bee]

Yes Marco, I'm 100% with you on the photographic power of the tools we used 10 - 20 - 30 years ago, while the current tools are 'generating' results that just don't touch us - as photographers or viewers.

If you truly believe that, why are you using digital cameras?

Time is shorter now.

Ben's recent threads about 'what is your one favourite prime lens', 'one favourite zoom lens', brought back to me how I thought his work with the D800 was spectacular, much more adventurous compositions than with the GFX. So not only film vs digital, also dSLR vs mirrorless ...and along with mirrorless the scanner-like lenses.

But yes good question, I often wish I could just give up the decades of investment - not only in gear, but knowledge in digital, but I can't. So I'm somewhere between, an eye on both. dSLRs and 'less digital' lenses are just about getting me there, without the whiff of chemicals or acid buzz in a nicked finger.

I've still got to unblock the nozzles on my Epson printer though, £1000 of ink and paper might do it, mmm it ain't cheap, digital.

If you want the analog experience in the digital age start by turning off your display and use memory cards that hold 36 images each. You can look at the EVF but you're not allowed to zoom to verify focus or use stuff like histograms, focus peaking, different image ratios,... Don't shoot raw, you have to pre-select the white balance, "film-simluation" and everything else beforehand. Medium resolution JPEG is all we need.
For ultimate realism turn down the EVF brightness to -3 or -5.

When you're done you can look at the photos but only after you get back home from the trip/shoot. It's part of the charm.

Then you can select the image you like best (but only by looking at a small preview image first, don't look closely, that's cheatering!) and print that one. Happy with the result? Or do you need some more editing? Fine, but only use RGB sliders, burn/dodge, crop and a bit of brightness adjustments. Retouch using brushes only, no repair tools, cloning or removal are allowed.

Now you can print it bigger and if you want to share it, simply scan the print and put it online - or better yet simply print a bunch of them and send them out individually.

And the best part: it'll be huge time saver!! :-D

Personally I'm happy with the digital experience but your mileage may vary ;-)

In the day I always shot B&W, various formats, including 5x4, developed my own films, and printed the results including dodging and burning in. When out with 35mm I always took a bag of film canisters, even if I didn’t use them all. So all of your suggestions are 180 degrees out in terms of my analogue experience - in fact they sound like how someone might use a digital point and shoot.

Well this might come as a shock to you but I've worked with film for quite a while and with pretty much every format between 135 and 8x10".

Are you telling me you traveled and showed up to jobs with a bag of chemicals and lab equipment so you could develop every film right after shooting it? How does that work with TSA? Must be quite the "analogue exeperience!".

But on a serious note: while I miss some aspects of film photography, I certainly don't miss the weight, bulk, waiting, occasional disappointment later on, dust(!), chemicals (purchasing, storing, using, disposal), AF and MF misses, film and polaroid cost, waiting (yes, again, because you have to wait between just about every step all the time), having to switch to different film types and having to basically re-learn everything about the new film, changing film or changing backs, film curling, test strips, fiddling around in the dark to a.) figure out where to notches are on the LF film and b.) fiddling around with the one film holder you hate the most, not being able to focus stack and stopping down to f4billion, no IBIS and pretty poor OS/IS...

So don't get me wrong, shooting film is nice, it can be very rewarding and the overall experience can(!) be magical. But let's not kid ourselves because digital shooting can be just as nice, rewarding and magical - just without all the hassle and with a lot more freedom and possibilities.

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

Yes, there is some grain in the shadows (this was shot on Cinestill 800T), but I didn't have to "push" or otherwise heavily post-process the image in any way. This is essentially a fairly "straight" / plain vanilla scan (only cropped from 645 to square).

Pentax 645N + FA 150mm f/2.8, Cinestill 800T, hahand-held

Terrific choice of Cinestill 800T for this photograph. Rendered a cinematic vibe.

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

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

Why stop there? Go sit with whatever medium and whatever stylus floats your boat and just draw or paint that scene!

Seriously good skills and talent are required. One can develop (pun unintended) those skills and talent, but it takes a lot of time.

My wife does this. Her boat is floated by Pen and Ink. So much so, that's her nickname.

Here is the kicker. My first foray, 25 years ago, to the coast of North Carolina was to shoot lighthouses with a then brand-new Nikon D1. The goal was to produce a pile of 5x7 prints of not only the entire house, but many detail shots. Because the camera didn't sport the resolution necessary to print large and see the details in a single image.

Why? So Pen&Ink here could work up a series of lighthouse drawings. At her drawing table here at home and not rushing to make one sitting there on site. We shot three houses in one day as opposed to her having to spend one day at each.

Now I have a series of lighthouse quilt blocks shot with a MF camera and printed on a specialty printer (quilting fabric). They do sell. But her screenprinted blocks from her hand drawings outsell the photographic ones 6:1.

Stan