Good news for photographers who yearn for film like images
- Thread starter sharf
- Start date
- Status
Verywierd said:
Maybe.
Yes, Agfa had bitten the dust. Agfa had problems even before digital. Digital just delivered the final death stroke.
Yes Kodak had stopped making papers. But in their shoes are smaller companies that are happy to make a million a year. Kodak was not happy with many millions a year.
Ilford had bounced back and are making more films and even films in peculiar sizes.
Also, the sale of largeformat cameras had grown quite a bit.
student said:
YEAH! thats true
heng i still have my agfa's and kodaks
.I still yearn alot for agfa's contrast graded papers (0-5) and their byratas!
lets not talk about kodak stopping to make papers.....
lets look at their films. Those who have used it b4 will understand the sheer joy in using tech pans, or even the ROYAL GOLD series from kodak.
I believe that those who haven't really dabbled enuf with film OR digital for that matter really don't understand the sheer joy in manipulating the medium in their hands. just as an eg. I haven't dabbled much with Ilfords papers and were rather skeptical about it having some really better papers over agfas.
For the same scenario, some of us were prolly dabbling with alot more film and am still in the process of adopting digital, and vice versa. Ultimately, its not about how fantastic different mediums have over each other, but rather how much we as individuals understand how to manipulate the medium we have.
ARGH!!!!!! still experimenting with post processing (digitally) :sweat:
V
vince123123
Guest
Hmm I don't think I said that everyone who prefers to use film are fanatics, I just said that there are always film fanatics around - perhaps you should pause and read too. Perhaps there was some unfortunate miscommunication/misunderstandings.
There wasn't any labelling of people who use film in general and it was not intended to be a digital vs film debate again. I'm not sure but you might be jumping the gun a little to say that "the digital types want to label people who prefers films as fanatics".
And you are absolutely correct - there will also be digital fans and fanatics, just like there exist film fans and fanatics.
There wasn't any labelling of people who use film in general and it was not intended to be a digital vs film debate again. I'm not sure but you might be jumping the gun a little to say that "the digital types want to label people who prefers films as fanatics".
And you are absolutely correct - there will also be digital fans and fanatics, just like there exist film fans and fanatics.
student said:
You can call me a digital freak. Ever since I bought the computer and a digital camera, I could do almost anything I wanted sometimes even more than I could ever imagine. Film is dead to me for one particular reason: The odour from the chemicals in the darkroom. I am quite sensitive to certain odour especially the toners and spending those days in the darkroom at times got me really sick. But that didnt stop me from the darkroom until digital cameras came along. I do miss the smell of the darkroom and all the freaky stories I would share with my ex-boss. Thanks to the dim-lights. Hehe.
BTW, Dr Chong, how are the Canon B&W tones less 'compelling'? I am really curious to know. Cheers!
BTW, Dr Chong, how are the Canon B&W tones less 'compelling'? I am really curious to know. Cheers!
I don't recall using toners for development.. :think: Let's see.. developer/replenisher, stop-bath, bleach-fix/replenisher...hazmee said:
I don't think there's much smell bro B&W chemicals and you're probably using tray and exhausted chemicals for colour. Fresh chemicals for colour has a smell but not that strong. I used drum processing so not much smell.. all contained in the drum. Still, I am using digital more than film now.
Ah... semantics... i like...
in local context, 'fan' would carry a tad less perceived negative connotation than 'fanatic'. People here are likely to associate fan with 'strong or loyal supporter', while fanatic with 'obsessed lunatic'. Alright, i'm exaggerating yet again...
I can't help but be reminded of my audiophile counterparts who spend 10-20k on their CD player to get it to "sound like LP"
Film fans or fanatic or users, just shoot film. Simple as that.
There's still film around us aplenty. The extinction lies in the future. Film can still be found without hunting too hard.
But I find that it is indeed quite an obsession to see efforts trying to get digital to duplicate film, or condemning of digital format because of characteristics it has but film doesn't. Oh well. To each his (and her) own.
in local context, 'fan' would carry a tad less perceived negative connotation than 'fanatic'. People here are likely to associate fan with 'strong or loyal supporter', while fanatic with 'obsessed lunatic'. Alright, i'm exaggerating yet again...
I can't help but be reminded of my audiophile counterparts who spend 10-20k on their CD player to get it to "sound like LP"
Film fans or fanatic or users, just shoot film. Simple as that.
There's still film around us aplenty. The extinction lies in the future. Film can still be found without hunting too hard.
But I find that it is indeed quite an obsession to see efforts trying to get digital to duplicate film, or condemning of digital format because of characteristics it has but film doesn't. Oh well. To each his (and her) own.
hazmee said:
I had mentioned before. but will mentioned it again. Once again, I realise that my impression might have been formed by the processing skills or lack of processing skills.
I had photographed with someone who used a 20D. When we downloaded the images, I was struck by the differences in the way Canon renders the color images compared to my Olympus E1. The canon images were smooth! Silky! Although I prefer the Olympus colors, I thought the Canon effects do have its advantages.
Since I like B&W imagery, I had also converted the color digital images to B&W. And I must say, I do like what I saw on my iMac G5. I have not yet printed any of my B&W images.
The first time I saw a B&W image posted on CS was by Petf69. To me that image was horrible! He explained he was trying for a "Geisha effect". Whatever it was, it look ghastly to me. It may have been poor processing skills on his part. but to my eyes, the image was ghastly. There was a "paste/glue" like stuff over the image. I thought perhaps this might be the reason why the color images were so silky?
The next image was Bree shown by DeadPoet. DP used Canon DSLR (?1DsMkII). Many people said how wonderful the B&W image was. But to my eyes, it had the same problem as Petf69. Less gross, but there anyway. I just do not like it. My esthetics, or poor sense of esthetics.
So this is my impression of B&W images captured digitally. The B&W images scanned from prints do no exhibit this effect.
So far I have only talked about images seen on the LCD. But soon I hope to make identical images and print them digitally and traditionally, and see what the differences are, if there are any. There are problems in making comparison. But I will find ways to deal with them.
I was using the 20D for quite sometime and I do agree with you about the silky smooth images. It wasnt a problem for me until I 'settled' for a 1Ds not because its full-frame. Its digital grain and color rendition mimicks the film. To my eyes at least. Maybe we could bring our prints and compare. Cheers!student said:
that's the point of film nowadays isnt it
dealing with the bad odours, the limitations of film, all the "less advanced" things that go with it
only to get a result in your very hands that you can look at and be proud of.
it's not really about film v.s. digi for quality anymore. there is no question that digi has taken over the mainstream
but to know photography is to know film, because isnt that what photographers do? fight pass the limitations and the imperfections, only to make something beautiful out of it all
dealing with the bad odours, the limitations of film, all the "less advanced" things that go with it
only to get a result in your very hands that you can look at and be proud of.
it's not really about film v.s. digi for quality anymore. there is no question that digi has taken over the mainstream
but to know photography is to know film, because isnt that what photographers do? fight pass the limitations and the imperfections, only to make something beautiful out of it all
V
vince123123
Guest
Hmm, well I meant "fan" not as a short form of fanatic or the device generating wind, - but more of an enthusiast or something who likes/loves that subject matter. The definition of fan and fanatic seem rather different to me.
lsisaxon said:
dslang said:
I would not say that, even though film is my preferred media.
But I do understand what you are trying to say. The result of a tactile labour which is very different from using the mouse.
I personally would rather say that to know photography is to know life, and the medium used/chose only reflects the personal choice of the individual photographer, taking into consideration his experience/exposure to various media, money, and esthetics..
Yes, that fan you're referring to which most people use is actually short for fanatic. Like I'm a fan of so and so artist.. It's supposed to mean fanatic. Like fan club, it's supposed to be a clubful of fanatics - people who are just crazy about that particular person/topic. The reason why it seems different to you is because it has been misused. An enthusiast is just an enthusiast, not a fan/fanatic. Fan/fanatic is probably someone who cannot live without, for example-film fan, film or another example-Zoe Tay, Zoe Tay. These are what fans are.. fanatics.vince123123 said:
This is from the Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: 3fan
Function: noun
Etymology: &nbs probably short for fanatic
1 : an enthusiastic devotee (as of a sport or a performing art) usually as a spectator
2 : an ardent admirer or enthusiast (as of a celebrity or a pursuit) <science-fiction fans>
Here's another link... http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fan
fan[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE]
([FONT=verdana,sans-serif] P [/FONT]) Pronunciation Key (f
n. An ardent devotee; an enthusiast.
[Short for fanatic.]
dslang said:
Photography is NOT an Outwardbound challenge, it's not an obstacle course, it's not a rite of passage ... what does bad odors, and less advance things has to do with photography, same goes with why do we have to know film before we know photography and this fight pass limitation and imperfection crock!
Photography is to capture an image or create an image, on film or digitally! But as you said, it's to make something beautiful out of it all.
Do I care if the original image is on film or digital if the final product is "beautiful"? I got the image I want. I got the image that wows. Does it matter whether I suffocate in the dark room or suffer wrist sprains creating the image? It does not.
Oh, by the way, we can hold the product create digitally in our hands, that is call a print!
It's not digital grain. It's the sensor finally having enough resolution to give you what the lens could give. On a 20D or anything in the region of 6-8mp, the sensor resolution just smooths anything out. But if you just were to print on 4R, doesn't make a difference because the Frontier machines only print at 300dpi, so for a 4"x6" print, you only need 1800x1200 ~2mp.hazmee said:
LittleWolf
New Member
student said:
I hope Ilford survives, but there are some troubling signs.
"Ilford films" aren't quite Ilford anymore. The film segment was acquired in a management-buy-out and is now run by Harman Technology Ltd under the label "Ilfordphoto". Sounds familiar? IIRC, Agfa's film department also was spun off in a management buy-out and called AgfaFoto before it went bankrupt.
The other worrying sign comes from Ilfordphoto's new website. There's a lot of campaigning for b/w film, including free workshops/master classes etc. This can be seen as a sign of support to the photographic community, but I fear it may also be a sign of a despair.
- Status
Similar threads
