Olympus UK E-System User Group

Olympus UK E-System User Group (https://e-group.uk.net/forum/index.php)
-   General photography news from DPNow.com (https://e-group.uk.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=66)
-   -   Four reasons why film photography is stupid (https://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47622)

Ricoh 8th April 2018 04:13 PM

Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
Hereís the facts: https://www.kpraslowicz.com/2018/04/...t-plain-stupid

Result: Film 0 : Digital 4

pdk42 8th April 2018 05:29 PM

Re: Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricoh (Post 444582)
Hereís the facts: https://www.kpraslowicz.com/2018/04/...t-plain-stupid

Result: Film 0 : Digital 4

I never doubted the result :)

OM USer 8th April 2018 06:12 PM

Re: Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
McAfee doesn't like the website!

pdk42 8th April 2018 07:01 PM

Re: Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OM USer (Post 444596)
McAfee doesn't like the website!

Who cares what McAfee thinks! It's pretty safe visiting web-sites; unless you go downloading stuff explicitly you won't come to harm!

Crazy Dave 8th April 2018 07:07 PM

Re: Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OM USer (Post 444596)
McAfee doesn't like the website!

Donít worry, while the conclusions are possibly OK, this is a pretty banal piece of work.

David

alfbranch 11th April 2018 08:47 AM

Re: Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pdk42 (Post 444597)
Who cares what McAfee thinks! It's pretty safe visiting web-sites; unless you go downloading stuff explicitly you won't come to harm!

Not always true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download

Ricoh 11th April 2018 08:50 AM

Re: Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Dave (Post 444599)
Donít worry, while the conclusions are possibly OK, this is a pretty banal piece of work.

David

And there I was thinking it was a serious piece of work. :confused:

Crazy Dave 11th April 2018 03:15 PM

Re: Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricoh (Post 444787)
And there I was thinking it was a serious piece of work. :confused:

Steve, I just dusted off my unused Nikon 35Ti and am seriously disappointed with the results. This is reputed to be a high-class point and shoot camera that cost serious money when it was launched and still needs close to £350 to buy. The photography is cr*p but the quality of the prints is rubbish. I used a lab for processing and some film bought from Boots. Its a pity as I thought that I would use film for a project tracing the locations frequented by an infamous East London criminal born about 1886. Still got a couple of frames in my XA so will be interesting to see the results from that.

Maybe that guy was right after all and the ghosts of past owners are jinxing my efforts? If you have any tips about film selection, processing, please let me know.

David

Ricoh 12th April 2018 06:24 PM

Re: Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
David, the Emulsive website is a good resource to help with film selection.

https://emulsive.org/film-reviews

Addendum: I would also recommend Twitter for film photography, very active with hashtags such as #filmisnotdead #believeinfilm and of course #emulsive. Just search anything with film in the hashtag and you can't go wrong.

Ricoh 12th April 2018 07:31 PM

Re: Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
I would add that the primary determinant is the lens. The camera body is nothing more than a light box with a method of regulating the shutter opening.

Ansel Adams once said the negative is the equivalent of the score, and the print is he performance. I don't think we should expect one of Mazart's concertos to be played equally well by the Royal Philharmonic, and an amateur bunch of musicians. It's the same with printing; the set of prints ordered at the time of processing are generated by a machine making exposure judgements based on negative density. For top quality you need an experienced print technician who can work with artistic judgement, based on the photographer's brief. Having your own darkroom would be beneficial, otherwise it's probably best to scan and print. (Have a look at Light Jet C-Type printing; digital scan printed on silver paper using laser light.)

Crazy Dave 12th April 2018 08:35 PM

Re: Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
Steve, thanks for that, very helpful. I’m ashamed to say that one of my reels had been in the plastic canister for at least 12 years going by the subjects! The other was about three years in the camera. So I’ve got fresh film in both the Nikon 35ti and the XA so the next batches and will try again. I’m really keen that my new project is captured on film. Thankfully, I have a friend whose sole camera is an Olympus Trip and she produces extraordinary images, so have booked a tutorial.

Regards

David

Ricoh 12th April 2018 09:09 PM

Re: Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
David,
For colour Portra 160 of 400 are highly recommended - really nice colours and phenomenal tolerance to exposure, -1 to + 4 stops. Ektar is also recommended for nice colour pop.

For B&W there are many films to choose, HP5+ FP4 Delta 100, 400 and 3200 (expose for 1600 and develop at 3200), all Ilford of course, plus a host of others.

Film is definitely not deceased, it's alive and kicking a**e !

pandora 21st April 2018 10:28 PM

Re: Four reasons why film photography is stupid
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricoh (Post 444918)
Ansel Adams once said the negative is the equivalent of the score, and the print is he performance.

A clumsy way of putting it. My view is that the camera kneads the dough, processing bakes the bread.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:35 PM.


© The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2019, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger