film or digital?

Thanks all.

I really appreciate the input on my composition. Not often nowadays you get much honest feedback….the "like" button has killed conversation I fear.

I shan't weigh into the debate of the genuineness of final outputs. Suffice it to say that I lost momentum a year or so ago and really need to build that darkroom! I cannot abide by the fact that my photos stop at the screen. Cannot! (Marlof: I have not forgotten the prints I owe you my friend…good excuse :hmmm:)

Maybe it's that my eyes are beginning to fail me as I age. Things have softened and the contrast pushed to the negative of the slider, but film 'files' are resonating with me more and more. Post-scan the tweaks are so minor +-10 maximum anywhere in LR, while I find myself fussing like a cat over its fur with digital files and sometimes I pity that poor Clarity slider :D.

Anyway the idea here was never to evangelise - converting wayward souls back to the old pagan ways - but to luxuriate a little in the aesthetic. And again the resonance of silver halide with me is purely on that emotional rather than intellectual level (read: I can't explain why I love them so).

@Kyle: Mate I would love to see some files if you are willing to share them. I'd especially like a little blind side-to-side to sharpen my eyes and mind to the differences.
 
EDIT: If you don't want to see the answer before you guess, scroll slowly and stop at the second picture, below.

Ok, here's one of them. Then I'll post the other, give you a few minutes, and post the side-by-side.

3i0u.jpg
 
Hp5! Woot! That's what I used in school :D. Not that I remember anything about it really, tho. I spent that whole class whining about how little time we had to do anything fun n artsy. Lol!
I like the harsher second one. And I'd imagine it to be the digi, since it's harsher. But I'm clueless about things Iike this, lol
 
And the side-by-side shot. The difference in lens angles (28mm Rokkor vs 35mm equiv Fuji) means I just snuck in the corner of the digital file and lined it up as best I could.

lrbr.png


So the IQ on the fuji shows up in the mid-grade details, and the fuji glass is a hell of a lot better in the corners. That HP5 film is very contrasty stuff, very gritty looking. TMax would've been a much better comparison, it's very creamy and grey in comparison, more like the Fuji file here.

Here's an older TMax file from last year for comparison. The gradient from light to dark is more subtle and delicate on the TMax. The Ilford stuff would've been a lot more harsh on the hood and chrome.

38079789.jpg



***So perhaps I should clarify: The top photo was the Fuji, and the lower contrasty one was HP5 film.***
 
that bottom car one is a lot sharper - that would fool me for a digi photo

in contrast I was looking at some old macro photo prints a few weeks ago & was surprised how soft they all were - in my memory they were ultra sharp
 
ReD said:
that bottom car one is a lot sharper - that would fool me for a digi photo

in contrast I was looking at some old macro photo prints a few weeks ago & was surprised how soft they all were - in my memory they were ultra sharp
Click to expand...

The car shot was with this late 60's Rokkor 55mm F1.7 MC lens that just defies explanation with its wonderfulness. I had a revelation a month or two back, looking at all the film shots from the last year, and realizing that so many of my favorites were from that lens, even though I "think" I like (and therefore use) the 28mm MD at least twice as much. That old 55 just does it all. So damned crisp.
 
My favorite for all sorts of reasons in your second image, Mark. Beautiful depth and the detail - and the light. Of course, I have no idea if that was "reality" but I'd want to stand there.

Now I'll go back and read everyone's comments and see which is which.
 
Both shots in the end being digitized, the film version is at a disadvantage, not being presented in the media is was designed for. And of course proper development schemes at both the negative and print stage could easily bring in the foreground highlights lost. That said, I like the second better for several reasons. It is sharper, which may mean it was shot with a better lens or that the first lost detail in the film scan. I warmer color is lovely with the subject,, and I think the digital shot is framed better.

I love film, and still have a darkroom going, but we all know that per size of the photo-sensitive surface, digital resolves more at this point. Having spent almost thirty years working full time in dark rooms (and then doing my own work in my own at home) I probably learned more about darkroom technique than I'll ever know about the digital darkroom, which I'm still learning. My fondness for silver imaging, especially in black and white, has a lot to do with the fact that I am a good darkroom technician, and it's hard to totally give up something you do particularly well. But money is tight and materials for processing and printing film are expensive. So most of my time is spent trying to get as good at digital processing as I was in a conventional darkroom, especially a black and white darkroom. The tonal richness of a silver print on graded fiber paper, taking advantage of any split development procedures available and useful, is breathtakingly beautiful. But it won't show on a screen. You need to see the silver.
 
@ Larry: Thank you so much. Very inspirational. I need to see negative outputs "as God intended".
We recently had a Avedon exhibition here in Canberra. There was a few particular prints that had me utterly transfixed. The print was simply exquisite! I cannot die without having created something like this myself.

Kyle: That was an excellent side-by-side. It's a shame I didn't get the chance to make the call on #2 - my preference, especially the rendition of the whitewash. Curious my mangrove film shot was done with HP5+ too….souped in LC29. My film of choice is normally TMY (TMax400) in Xtol. …or Foma100 in Rodinal. Anyway, I quite like HP5. At first it was a poor replacement for Tri-X but I have come to like it. Also I'm trying to show my support for Ilford and their commitment to film.
 
I had a 4x6 made at the time, and it looked pretty good for the price. Now I have a decent home scanner and could clean that junk off the negative (above the headlight), and make a proper scan, if I were going to print it.
 
I hope to join in soon - I was fed up with the exposure meters not working on my Fuji STX1 & Konica S3 (external exposure meter was proving a pain to use) so today I bought a Cosina C1 full manual with K mount adaptors for my Tamron Lenses. Also got myself a Lockable cable release

Never looked at Cosina before and google tells me the model up C1s is identical to the Voigtlander VSL43. There are a few small differences between the C1 & C1s - (mainly the C1s has a self timer) but its basically the same body
 
"which, of course, makes zip difference to how good a photograph is ..."

Indeed. I did enjoy large and medium format black and white film photography for the richness of tone and texture it could reveal, in part, but also in good measure because I simply enjoyed the slow, contemplative process. But I never lost my fondness for my Olympus OM-1 -- not to this day. I think the fight about sensor size is rather funny, though, as I always thought anything you could use hand-held was small format.

Film has a tonal beauty all its own, just a platinum prints have a unique beauty, so too do silver prints. I've seen some gorgeous ink-jet prints --oh, pardon!, I mean giclée -- but they are not silver gorgeous, but rather dye gorgeous. For the longest time I would not shoot black and white on a digital camera. I was happy to do my color digitally, but I would not trust the process with my beloved black and white. I no longer feel that way, but I'll not willingly consign silver based photography to the dustbin of history either. At 62, I'm old enough to stand a chance of ending up there myself before the medium I love does. It will, though, I think, continue to be a smaller and smaller niche, for certain craft photographers. I wonder if we will once again end up coating our own plates and papers.

I'm blathering.
 
The discussion about Mark's (rather beautiful) photograph has largely been couched in terms of the chimerical "IQ"; it's this continual reduction (or supplantation) of image aesthetics to (or by) "IQ" that has really led to my giving up on digital forums, including SC.

I really don't give a damn for "sharpness", grain, 100% crops or even whether it's created on film or electronically; the question for me is "what does this photograph do?" not "what's the resolution of this image?"

And Lawrence, 62 is not old
 

Similar threads

wt21
    • Like
Film vs. Digital DR and tonal gradation
Replies
12
Views
4K
Archiver
A
kennethcooke
Film Film V Digital
Replies
2
Views
668
kennethcooke
kennethcooke
M
Leica Digital M Handgrip and or Thumbs Up
Replies
10
Views
3K
swamiji
swamiji
Back
Top