Analog Dreams are Over

[nei1]

Ive posted a photo in the cameras other than leica section which I believe illustrates the difference between these two mediums.I"m interested to see if anyone agrees with me or if its bias of my aging brain......
Its the space in the photograph ,the area around each figure in this example,that leads to a naturalness and peceived dimensionality that is somewhat less in normal digital photography.Im not stating this as fact but as an impression that I have and am more than interested in all of your views.
I hope Im not viewed as a trouble maker here,believe it or not Im genuinly looking for a way in to digital...............Neil

 

[emmawest72]

Neil,

Just had a look at your photograph. With nice stuff like this why would you even want to go digital?

 

[Riccis]

Neil:

I agree with you... Those tones you can only get with film... I am very good with PS and can get very close to this look with a bunch of custom curves that I created and used to apply to different areas of the images (highlights, midtones, shadows) with multiple opacities and blend modes but you know what, it just takes too long...

Again, I don't mean to come as an anti-digital person as I was very successful with it but the time it took me to get my signature look (with no filters or out of the shelf actions but with the process mentioned above) was not worth it to me and just shooting film got me there.

Cheers,

 

[jonoslack]

Neil, William, Riccis
You're right - absolutely, there is no way to get this look with digital, you can get close to it, but not there.

On the other hand, there is no way to get the look of digital with film.

They really are different, and film has it's charms, but so does digital (at least, in my opinion).

Here is a shot which is clearly and obviously digital - of course, you may not like the look, but it's brisk and crisp, mirroring the 'feel' of the scene (at least, I think so).

I'm not fighting any battle here - I wanted to go back to film for some of my output. . . . I simply realised that I don't currently have the time to do it.

 

[JPlomley]

Neil, I agree completely with your assessment which is why I just added an M7 to join the ranks of my two M8's. I've not touched my M8's since getting the M7 about three weeks ago. The prints are simply atmospheric. I've posted a couple of images recently in the Fun with Leica M (Film) which I think nicely illustrate this.

Concerning the image you mention, I'm very curious about your post-processing workflow. In fact, I'm interested in anyones post-processing workflow, particularly using a Nikon 5000 (which is probably the worst light source for B&W film).

Cheers,
Jeff

 

[helenhill]

DIGITAL is Certainly Cool
and thats what brought me back to Photography
but when I look at my recent Film work
I'm in LOVE with the ATMOSPHERE, Charm, & Edge
which at present I am not able to achieve in Digital
so I'm abit Lost
in Loving Film but the extra workload can be a Drag....
Best-H

 

[helenhill]

I also tend to shoot much less with film but my keepers are much higher.
Voila!

This to me is SOOOO TRUE !!!!

 

[nei1]

This is a detail from that posted photograph,it represents about an inch and a half by two inches from the print size available from the scan of some 25x17inches more or less.
Is it possible that our brains can see these building blocks of the image while assesing the image as a whole.For me the grain of the analogue image is stunningly beautiful;.............for me the closer I get to a digital image the uglier it gets.
Is it this instinctive vision that has led to the magapixel race as a way of hiding the digital nature of the image from our subconscious.
I write this to stimulate discussion,they are presently my views but am open minded enough to be persuaded otherwise.......all the best.......Neil.

 

[emmawest72]

Jeff,

Workflow...I have used a nikon coolscan IV up until 2 weeks ago and I did the follwing:

Find a good neg ( easier said than done )

1/ Dust of neg
2/ scan in 16 bit TIFF ( b&w mode) using vuescan. I would always scan to get a washed out neg with little contrast in order to have maximum material in scan.
3/ Open in PS to do curves adjustment, both overall and local by using selections. I would be using dodge and burn techniques as in the traditional darkroom. Most of the time I will be working with a wacom tablet. Much easier for me.
4/ Save As 16 bit TIFF. I will keep the original scan in case I would like to come back to it.

5/ Both scans are imported into Aperture.

6/ If it will be printed I will apply some sharpening (in PS) but I will never save the sharpened file.

Hope this helps.

 

[nei1]

Williiam,Riccis and Jeff,thanks for your comments,as to workflow Im pretty new to this and like William Im using photoshop in a very darkroom like way.Similarly Im making a flat scan,16bit tiff,import into photoshop,darken a little and "spot"the image at 100%.This is then my base that I make a duplicate from that to carry on working.Sharpening is something Im not sure about,at the moment I use smart sharpen that Ive set to 60%:All a bit vague Im afraid...................Neil
p.s.the photo was taken with tri-x at1250asa developed I think in aculux.

 

[charlesphoto]

Charles and Lars
Thanks for chipping in.
I quite understand, and I think I'm with you. I gave up painting and took up photography as I didn't have time (my that was a long time ago).

But with MF there is a different issue - I HAVE been tempted to go there, but whatever 'eye' I may have for a photograph is a very instinctive and reactive.

You know the old thing about photography:
"take a ranging shot, then think about it and get the shot you really want"
well, for me, it's ALWAYS the ranging shot which is the good one. Subsequent shots have less and less to them.
Using a tripod is the same, by the time I've got there I've forgotten the initial idea. It's not laziness, it's simply that whatever it is I see in a good photo is not under the control of my intellect, and it's very ephemeral.

So, MF is not for me - and therefore I think that film isn't either (at the current time anyway).

Hmmm, I think you should check out my website. My last book on breakdancers was all shot with medium format. Lots of my travel stuff as well. The RF Mamiyas, Rolleiflex TLR, and Hasselblad 6X6's are very receptive cameras and I rarely ever pull out a tripod (I'm just not a tripod kind of guy). But it is a different way of working, and one tends to take a few less images and compose a bit more carefully. Not a bad thing really! Used MF film gear is so cheap these days as well.

All that said, I've been suckered by the M8. Esp for personal work it's nice to see that lab bill go bye bye.

 

[TRSmith]

For me the grain of the analogue image is stunningly beautiful;.............

I understand this and pretty much agree. However, I respectfully feel it begs the question... "why?" Is it possible that at least to some extent we respond to film because of nostalgia or some deeply embedded judgement learned in an early aesthetic awakening? Do we unconsciously attempt to recreate images that we learned to judge as "Art"? Was it the grain or the deep blacks or the little highlight details that were the convincing and final arbiters of the images we saw as being the ultimate? I don't think so. They played a role perhaps, but were secondary (or less).

Even if that's partly true, beautiful grain and lovely film blacks are not enough to guarantee a beautiful image. Poorly conceived or executed shots that have film qualities but are otherwise banal are just as banal for having been shot on film. The same is true for digital.

 

[Oxide Blu]

I understand this and pretty much agree. However, I respectfully feel it begs the question... "why?"

I think it is rooted in a primal subconscious thing that picks up on the difference in image structure. Silver halide photography is random; random does not exist with any digital computing. I think our brains pick up on that.

 

[nei1]

Thats what I tried to say Oxide Blu,you put it betr


Tim, to follow youre arguement to its conclusion I would be using a paint brush and yes there are good and bad images in every medium,but here the question is over a brand new one,and thats a rare event.

 

[jonoslack]

Is it possible that our brains can see these building blocks of the image while assesing the image as a whole.For me the grain of the analogue image is stunningly beautiful;.............for me the closer I get to a digital image the uglier it gets.
Is it this instinctive vision that has led to the magapixel race as a way of hiding the digital nature of the image from our subconscious.
I write this to stimulate discussion,they are presently my views but am open minded enough to be persuaded otherwise.......all the best.......Neil.

Hmm
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
don't get me wrong, I would love to be shooting some film, but it isn't because I'm dissatisfied with digital, it's because I think that film has real charm.

Certainly some digital images get nasty the closer you get . . . usually those from compact cameras where they need to add bucket loads of noise reduction . . . However, I've been zooming in to a few images I took today, and I can't bring myself to see them as ugly.

This is a topical shot from today - with a 100% crop afterwards. Of course, it's obviously digital, but do you really think it ugly?

 

[jonoslack]

Hmmm, I think you should check out my website. My last book on breakdancers was all shot with medium format. Lots of my travel stuff as well. The RF Mamiyas, Rolleiflex TLR, and Hasselblad 6X6's are very receptive cameras and I rarely ever pull out a tripod (I'm just not a tripod kind of guy). But it is a different way of working, and one tends to take a few less images and compose a bit more carefully. Not a bad thing really!

Hi Charles, your work is great, but that is exactly the bad thing that I was talking about. The minute I start to be a 'bit more careful' it's gone . . . added to which, most of the time when I'm shooting I'm climbing through hedges and walking long distances . . carrying MF gear really isn't a feasible option.

I think the distinction is between 'going out to take photographs' and 'going out AND taking photographs' Most people do the former, but I definitely do the latter. Nothing is ever planned.

Used MF film gear is so cheap these days as well.

But as you say below, not the lab bill!

All that said, I've been suckered by the M8. Esp for personal work it's nice to see that lab bill go bye bye.

 

[PeterA]

film is messy digital is clean. in any clean comparison - pixel peeping stuff..digital wins.in a print the mess works. landscape shooters love digital worship it and kiss its feet for good technical reasons - a lot of less savoury utilitarian shooting - product shots /architecture/fashion - all that 'stuff' that ends up in magazines and then the bin and then landfills - that is the world of digital.

your film shots should be family and loved ones or Linhoff technica super wide dead flat field of view or large format 8x10 so you do a contact print or transparencies so you cna whack on light table and go oohh ahhh..

film is hard work digital is the easy floozie.

both work for me.

 

[nei1]

Looks flat Jono,no 3D.Check out the Dp1 image link in the small camera section.

 

[jonoslack]

Looks flat Jono,no 3D.Check out the Dp1 image link in the small camera section.

Pointless continuing - we'll have to agree to differ.

 

[nei1]

Sorry to offend Jono,thought you were made of sterner stuff,maybe I should have included that your shot of the daffodils is beautiful,but it is also flat.