The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Do you guy's remember what film is? If not, here are a few images...

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I have just been scanning some stuff, new and old, so I figured I would post some images. Other film users are welcome to add their own!
These are all delta 400@800. Remember grain? It's what high ISO's used to look like before the D3. It has its charms.





The Zeiss 18mm is pretty great on film. WIDE. SHARP.


25mm Zeiss maybe? I remember that it was midnight in Iceland in July...film was probably e100g.

35/1.4 apsh?


cheating...it's with an xpan and neopan 400.


28/2 asph on a CL if I recall correctly...

cl with 40/2
Anyway, film can be nice. Digital's great too. I really like that I can shoot both. I hope things stay that way.
 

gogopix

Subscriber
yup, ancient technology..color way off, grainy, poor contrast...

really made you focus on photography! :thumbs:
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
These were great to see! Thanks for posting them. I especially like the last one of Mr. Clean in the White Room.

It reminded me of the boxes upon boxes of negatives and slides I have stored in the attic. I haven't touched them or seen them in over 20 years. I think I need a cheap scanner just to play around with them.

Tim
 

JPlomley

Member
First posting.....just picked up an M8 two weeks ago, but in line with the thread here is one from an M6TTL (0.58 VF) and ZM 35/2 Biogon; 1/8th f/2.8 on Delta 3200 rated at EI 1600 and processed in Xtol.
 
M

matmcdermott

Guest
As much as I like my M8, whenever I look at my archive of slides and negatives I find it a much more enjoyable experience than sorting through files on my computer. There's something more tactile for me in working with film, that's lost with digital capture. It's really all the scanning that pushed over the edge to an all digital workflow. I never minded darkroom work (though Cibachrome printing sometimes got a bit, well, fragrant...no caustic is a better word), but even though I got good at scanning I always found it a bit tedious.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I think that is a good point Mat. Digital for me is more about getting the job done. My digital work is more often for documentation and work than for "art". I find that I prefer film, particularly black and white for my personal work and art. This is not to demean digital, I just have not engaged with it in a visceral way. I think it is because of what you describe -- the process of developing something physical, physically placing it in an enlarger, developing the paper in a chemical reaction...these things lend a sense of reality to the process, whether justified or not. For this reason, I tend to feel closer to my black and white prints than to any other output method in my photography.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Oh man . I keep getting yelled at from my daughter because i have 6 banker boxes full of images in her closet. No way am i digging those out.:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Some nice images here though
 

JPlomley

Member
the process of developing something physical, physically placing it in an enlarger, developing the paper in a chemical reaction...these things lend a sense of reality to the process,

Well stated Stuart. Which is why I happily tote along my Mamiya 7 and 65mm lens loaded with Delta 400 alongside the M8 and 35 Biogon. For landscape photography it is Arca Swiss and Rodenstock all the way with a drum scan to get it into the digital domain. These are truly amazing times we are living in with a plethora of capture media, output media, and hybrid approaches at our fingertips.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
It really is. I love that if I have to shoot headshots or cover a concert, I can reach for a digital camera and get a fantastic, flexible image that I can evaluate at that time to make sure I come back with a useable, salable image. On the other hand, film has the advantages I described above.

By the way, the Mamiya 7 really is a great image maker, isn't it?
These aren't the best I have taken, but I have posted a lot around the web before, so I am trying to find some that I have not shared already...at least not much.





 
M

matmcdermott

Guest
Digital for me is more about getting the job done.
This is why I first bought a DSLR--work--which I had previously mostly done with an M6, but clients wanted digital files more quickly than processing/ scanning allowed and at the time there wasn't a DRF. When the M8 came out I jumped at the chance to go back to using a RF for more than just personal projects. Sometimes I consider going back to shooting film for anything that doesn't require a quick delivery time just because I like the physicality of film, but then I realize I'm always lugging my laptop around anyway...and...and... and...
 

Don Hutton

Member
Here's a "film shot" from this week - old cotton mill in Atlanta. 35mm Lux ASPH on a Leica MP - scanned on a $700 desktop film scanner... :bugeyes:

The crop is a 4x2inch crop from a 20x30inch print at 360DPI. If you would like to see the full rez scan, send me your email address....
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Impressive shot Don!

I still shoot film too, though not as often as I used to. Have a few old Leica M bodies, a modern 4x5 and even a film back for my medium format digital body. As for the look being off color, grainy, etc, it can be and IMO that is one of the beauties. For example, I like how the current Portra 160 generates a kind of 1960's feel to the images.

As a sidebar note, I consider myself relatively facile with all aspects of Photoshop, and have yet to truly replicate the color neg film look with a digital capture. And please don't bother suggesting the various plug-ins available. I've tried them all and while some are very good, none are as good as what I can do with CS directly, and I still 'aint satisfied -- it's why I still keep film and film cameras around.

Cheers,
 
M

matmcdermott

Guest
Continuing the idea of being "off" color, etc... That was one of the things that I always liked about film: how different stocks had different palettes and if you wanted that look you just used that film. I still think this way in a digital workflow, which is why I run everything through Exposure, rather than use profiles in the raw processor--process the raw file to be as neutral, low contrast original as I can get, then apply whatever digital film stock is most appropriate. While I acknowledge the advantages of the an all digital workflow (and wouldn't use one otherwise), I'm still an analogue guy underneath it all.
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-known member
Good post Stuart - film is irreplaceable for me as far as B&W work goes - high meg digi approaches but still can't quite deliver the brilliant shine of properly exposed transparency. Yep I keep a few bricks in the fridge -:)
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Impressive shot Don!

I still shoot film too, though not as often as I used to. Have a few old Leica M bodies, a modern 4x5 and even a film back for my medium format digital body. As for the look being off color, grainy, etc, it can be and IMO that is one of the beauties. For example, I like how the current Portra 160 generates a kind of 1960's feel to the images.

As a sidebar note, I consider myself relatively facile with all aspects of Photoshop, and have yet to truly replicate the color neg film look with a digital capture. And please don't bother suggesting the various plug-ins available. I've tried them all and while some are very good, none are as good as what I can do with CS directly, and I still 'aint satisfied -- it's why I still keep film and film cameras around.

Cheers,
Jack,
It is a futile exercise because there is no way in post to duplicate an H&D capture curve. We actually made use of those curves depending on the type of result we wanted. High-key, low-key both made use of the H&D curve characteristics. Halation is another thing that you can't easily mimic in post.
Film also has sort of a built-in unsharp mask as chemical development waste-products and depletion of developing agents acted to sharpen edges.
Today we would call these "artifacts". They made our lenses look better, grain hid other flaws, and the H&D curve, when the film was properly exposed, shifted the "look" of the image.

All that is true, but I have spent many an hour aligning masks and making dye transfer prints. Today I process images maybe 100+ times faster, and I don't have to worry about scratching my mats:)
-bob
 
Top