Ilford get sassy!

Pookeyhead

Pookeyhead

Messages
11,756
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
11219366_10206086270868020_5269454734418881084_n.jpg


Gotta say... I agree. Why emulate film when you can shoot film? If that's how you want your images to look, why fake it?
 
Film fans don't need telling, but will any current non-film fans really think - I'll buy a new camera to buy expensive film, have it expensively processed and wait a while to do so and see what I shot, then (as I have no darkroom) I'll need to have my images scanned so I can process them in Photoshop

I doubt it

Re fans will just smugly agree with Ilford's advert, most others will simply think 'What's the point?"

Having shot quite a few rolls of Ilford's finest in the past I'm very much in the latter camp now and although I have a Plugin with film options I never use it. This advert isn't trying to sell me the benefits of film its just trying to knock digital, I think that's a mistake

Dave
 
I have just gone and put my film camera away, after using it a week or two ago. Only use it every now and again, but my interest has just been woken up again :)
 
To be fair whose benefit is this for is it for the photographer, or for the owner of the photograph? Will the owner of the photograph notice any difference? If not, I suppose you could argue why bother with the effort of film, just simply shoot digital! Maybe it's for the benefit of the photographer, who enjoys using the film, and can see the difference :)
 
DG Phototraining said:
Film fans don't need telling, but will any current non-film fans really think - I'll buy a new camera to buy expensive film, have it expensively processed and wait a while to do so and see what I shot, then (as I have no darkroom) I'll need to have my images scanned so I can process them in Photoshop

I doubt it
Click to expand...
Ain't necessarily so, I admit sourcing film and developing it is becoming more and more of a chore; but you can buy film cameras very cheaply these days - I have three cameras from the 1990s that are still going strong, but you can buy one for very little money, and are far more durable than a digital camera

I do think you have missed the point. It's sometimes too easy in the digital world to go snapping away and then think about converting the image to mono on the computer. If you have a mono film in the camera it makes you think more about the image making process. One trick they have not pointed out and it's something that was sort of mentioned of Farsebook recently there is still a bit of magic when the developed film returns from the lab and you get to look at something that is real and not destined to remain hidden away on a HDD.


But it is getting harder to use film, I admit. Cost of developing to a reasonable standard sets the tears flowing.
 
welshwizard645 said:
and are far more durable than a digital camera
Click to expand...

An oft quoted comment, but is it really true ???

None of my digi cameras has even broken despite each passing 70,000+ images by the time I replaced them - that would equate to close to 2,000 rolls of 36exp film and even though I shot on film for 20 years I know for certain none of my film cameras ever came close to that many rolls and 2 did break :(

I do appreciate that the film experience and result is different to digital, and that it still has a place and large following, I just don't think that advert will help gain any new interest

Dave
 
welshwizard645 said:
Ain't necessarily so, I admit sourcing film and developing it is becoming more and more of a chore; but you can buy film cameras very cheaply these days - I have three cameras from the 1990s that are still going strong, but you can buy one for very little money, and are far more durable than a digital camera

I do think you have missed the point. It's sometimes too easy in the digital world to go snapping away and then think about converting the image to mono on the computer. If you have a mono film in the camera it makes you think more about the image making process. One trick they have not pointed out and it's something that was sort of mentioned of Farsebook recently there is still a bit of magic when the developed film returns from the lab and you get to look at something that is real and not destined to remain hidden away on a HDD.


But it is getting harder to use film, I admit. Cost of developing to a reasonable standard sets the tears flowing.
Click to expand...

Have to agree some very good film cameras can be had for very little money, absolutely no need to spend big money on a film camera. My old film camera is still in as new condition, and when I get it out it really is a pleasure.
 
At least the ad is a reminder that there are still some companies making film and intending to support the format for the foreseeable. I assume many believe that film is a legacy format and only consider digital. Hopefully there will be some kind of revival like vinyl is enjoying at the moment. Be interesting to see if the thing with vinyl is a current "fad" or if it can support a large industry indefinitely...
 
Ilford has reported increasing sales over the last few years. It's never going to be mainstream again but it's nice to know that it's in a sustainable position.

Just like vinyl records which had their highest sales in the UK for fifteen years last year - and I heard on the radio last week that Tesco is going to be selling vinyl again.

I have seen quite a few photographers who abandonned film for digital in its early days, recently try out film again. Not a complete return but just for a go now and then. I have also heard of photographers who use digital for work but use film for their personal, leisure time photography.

Ilford just need to get rid of that horrible American # symbol and use a perfectly good British No. Instead!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Ilford has reported increasing sales over the last few years. It's never going to be mainstream again but it's nice to know that it's in a sustainable position.

Just like vinyl records which had their highest sales in the UK for fifteen years last year - and I heard on the radio last week that Tesco is going to be selling vinyl again.

I have seen quite a few photographers who abandonned film for digital in its early days, recently try out film again. Not a complete return but just for a go now and then. I have also heard of photographers who use digital for work but use film for their personal, leisure time photography.

Ilfor just need to get rid of that horrible American # symbol and use a perfectly good British No. Instead!


Steve.
Click to expand...

A bit like fishing, a proper past time :)
 
Steve Smith said:
Ilford has reported increasing sales over the last few years. It's never going to be mainstream again but it's nice to know that it's in a sustainable position.

Just like vinyl records which had their highest sales in the UK for fifteen years last year - and I heard on the radio last week that Tesco is going to be selling vinyl again.

I have seen quite a few photographers who abandonned film for digital in its early days, recently try out film again. Not a complete return but just for a go now and then. I have also heard of photographers who use digital for work but use film for their personal, leisure time photography.

Ilfor just need to get rid of that horrible American # symbol and use a perfectly good British No. Instead!


Steve.
Click to expand...

Its a nostalgia thing, just as with Vinyl.

I do agree that a lot of PS plugins to fake the film effect strike me as pointless, but just like overused HDR was the flavour of the month a while ago, so is film at the moment. Yes it is for pleasure rather than work and serious stuff, but nevertheless you cannot blame Ilford for developing their products. The more choice the better.

I even put some FP4 film in my old Bronica recently........
 
shreds said:
Its a nostalgia thing, just as with Vinyl.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's just nostalgia. Just as vinyl has a different sound to CD, film has a different look to digital.

Whilst I accept that for colour now, digital is the best choice, it cannot come anywhere close to film and proper optical printing for black and white.

Another indication that it's not just nostalgia is that a lot of youngsters who have not experienced vinyl or film when they were the only choice are now using them.


Steve.
 
Undoubtedly vinyl is different to CD/dowload and analogue synthesisers are different to digital synthesisers, as is film and digi.

But as the baby boomers have now more disposable income to revert and hark on about and be nostalgic in respect of the previous qualities of these mediums, then so to the next generation will be inquisitive regards the properties of these mediums and will wish to experiment for themselves.

There is space in the market for both and we are no longer need be subjected to the crap spurted out by multinationals about digi being better than analogue etc. Or anything else some marketing department wish to unreasonably inflict on everyone.

There usually is another way and ultimately the truth will surface ;)

However, I would agree with David Goodier above that there are many advantages in the commercial world of using digital imaging and that some of the reversion is undoubtedly (especially amongst the older users) due to nostalgia.
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
I doubt it

Re fans will just smugly agree with Ilford's advert, most others will simply think 'What's the point?"


Dave
Click to expand...

Not sure why film users are so often described as smug (although if the cap fits we should wear it) ....masochistic may be more accurate though :)

As to old cameras being more durable, there may be some truth but more to do with obsolescence. This is the oldest camera I still use from about 1890

Camera by SteveGam, on Flickr

How many digital cameras made in 2015 will be usable in 120 years time? Of course the two are not really comparable. Most of my film cameras are 100% mechanical so no electrics to go wrong, battery sizes to be obsolete, chargers to go etc. So a mechanical camera will surely last longer than a digital one just because there are fewer things to go wrong?
 
At the end of the day the advert has worked!! I have just ordered some HP5 and am look forward to digging out my EOS 600 and firing some rolls through it.

As for scanning my images and fixing them in Photoshop - the whole point is to take the time to get it right in the first place. You know, do a bit of photography rather than computer processing.
 
Last edited:
shreds said:
Yes it is for pleasure rather than work and serious stuff
Click to expand...

Actually, I use a digital camera when I want quick results to put on a web site etc.; all my serious stuff uses film.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Film fans don't need telling, but will any current non-film fans really think - I'll buy a new camera to buy expensive film, have it expensively processed and wait a while to do so and see what I shot, then (as I have no darkroom) I'll need to have my images scanned so I can process them in Photoshop

I doubt it
Click to expand...

It depends what motivates you. Film IS different. It LOOKS different, which is why there are so many presets and plug-ins that TRY to replicate it. People still want images that LOOK like film, but you'll never acheive it with digital, so yes.. I genuinely think people will. IN fact,, they do. Film is undergoing a bit of a renaissance at the moment. It's always popular with students, and a great deal of contemporary photography these days is shot on film.

All you're effectively saying is that you won't because you can't be arsed, which is fair enough, but I really do feel there are people who are tempted, and are curious.



DG Phototraining said:
Re fans will just smugly agree with Ilford's advert, most others will simply think 'What's the point?"
Click to expand...

The majority of casual shooters will probably think that yes. No offence.. but anyone who shoots weddings for a living will not want to touch it, and those without the skill to utilise it will also not be convinced. That doesn't account for everyone though.

DG Phototraining said:
Having shot quite a few rolls of Ilford's finest in the past I'm very much in the latter camp now and although I have a Plugin with film options I never use it. This advert isn't trying to sell me the benefits of film its just trying to knock digital, I think that's a mistake

Dave
Click to expand...

I don't think it's slagging off digital as a technology at all, I think it's speaking a plain truth: That digital processes that REPLICATE film are indeed fake, so why bother faking it if you want an image that appears to be film when you can just shoot some film. I think that's fair enough because it's basically true.
 
11951938_10206091066347904_4860453367218951215_n.jpg
 
wakarimasen said:
Looks good Steve. I always fancied building a camera myself, but couldn't find a good design to work from. Any tips?
Click to expand...

Well, if you send me your e-mail address, I could send you my drawing files...

Pookeyhead said:
but anyone who shoots weddings for a living will not want to touch it
Click to expand...

There are some high end wedding photographers using film (as I'm sure you know). It's not as convenient as digital though.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Both film and digital are great in their own way for their own things Personally I still use both and am stoked that Ilford are still going, HP5 is awesome. Ultimately I find digital is a lot more convenient in just about every circumstance but still think that nothing beats a properly exposed 4x5 transparency (apart from possibly a 10x8).

All this talk of 35mm film however make me think I will pick up a 35mm slr next week and some Portra 160.
 
Open thread at first post.
On the right hand side, about 1/3 down, are 'thread tools'.
1st option is 'edit thread title'

It's been annoying me all day :)
 
I like the adverts.

Then again, I have 6 roles of undeveloped film in the kitchen :) However, I do like not having to rush and get them imported into LR.

Cheers.
 
kendo1 said:
Open thread at first post.
On the right hand side, about 1/3 down, are 'thread tools'.
1st option is 'edit thread title'

It's been annoying me all day :)
Click to expand...

Good eyes did not even notice it, is it the I or the L that's missing? Could be a capital i :)
 
I like the technology, process, and results of film hybrid. I've now become so addicted to it, that when I'm asked to shoot in pure digital, it feels worthless to me - no spark. I just click away on burst, and hey presto, a dozen perfectly exposed, sharp, shiny, technically perfect images on a stick. I don't mean to devalue other peoples enjoyment - but I've personally lost my enthusiasm for pure digital.

I don't like technical perfect. So many people making shiny perfect images, guided by the same magazines. That's fine for them, but in life, I'm a messy disorganised, fuzzy person, and funny enough, that's how I like my photography. I love shooting on b/w film. Anyone here that knows me, will know that I often shoot on a compact 35mm film camera that cost me 50p at a car boot sale. It doesn't make shiny sharp images. I don't care. It makes images that do not look like everyone else's. They may not be art but they record my world through a different perspective. It's argent black and white. It's unpredictable

All photography enthusiasts find something that they enjoy, what makes them click. For me it's low budget hybrid b/w film photography. There's nothing smug about that.
 
kendo1 said:
Open thread at first post.
On the right hand side, about 1/3 down, are 'thread tools'.
1st option is 'edit thread title'

It's been annoying me all day :)
Click to expand...


Your OCD can get some rest now :)
 
XA2inmypocket said:
I don't like technical perfect. So many people making shiny perfect images, guided by the same magazines.
Click to expand...

I hear you. Digital is easy. For me the joy is in what I shoot, as in the subject. There's no challenge in digital... just far too easy. My next project will be film based... I'm almost certain.
 
The other thing to think of is digital isn't future proof. There was an interesting article in one of the mags this month regarding the longevity of digital files, how storage medium and software may change over the years to the point that renders the raw files of today useless. Whereas my box of negs could be printed from long after they scatter me around the hills.
 
AshleyC said:
The other thing to think of is digital isn't future proof. There was an interesting article in one of the mags this month regarding the longevity of digital files, how storage medium and software may change over the years to the point that renders the raw files of today useless. Whereas my box of negs could be printed from long after they scatter me around the hills.
Click to expand...

I refute that actually. I've got digital files created in the 80s on my system that have migrated from one defunct format to another over the decades. Formats and devices don't become obsolete overnight. You know when a format is on the way out, and you just copy the data to the new format when you upgrade.

Kodak Photo CD has been redundant for a long time now, and has not officially supported by anyone for ages. I found a Photo CD in a cupboard not long ago, and within minutes I'd found a free application to convert the .pcd files to TIFF files.

Your box of negs could be destroyed in a house fire and that's it... gone... whereas your digital files may be backed up on the cloud, or as in my case, a back up server in an out building.

Since I started using redundant back up systems many years ago, I've not lost a single digital file. I've lost or damaged many negatives however.

Digital almost certainly IS future proof. If people lose digital files it's because they're idiots who don't have robust back up solutions. If you're not an idiot, then you've nothing to worry about.
 
Last edited:
Film is the vinyl alternative. It has nothing to do with nostalgia or smugness. There are umpteen magazines on the newsagent's shelves dedicated to the latest cutting edge digital upgrade and image software. All sponsored by business. All telling you what you must do, what you need next (to spend money of course!) in order to improve. All telling you the rules of proper photography.

We all enjoy different aspects.
 
Last edited:
jonbeeza said:
Good eyes did not even notice it, is it the I or the L that's missing? Could be a capital i :)
Click to expand...

The dumb blonde in our local Boots always calls it 'Iford' for some reason?

Annoys the hell out of me too.

I now web order it.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
Film is the vinyl alternative. It has nothing to do with nostalgia or smugness. There are umpteen magazines on the newsagent's shelves dedicated to the latest cutting edge digital upgrade and image software. All sponsored by business. All telling you what you must do, what you need next (to spend money of course!) in order to improve. All telling you the rules of proper photography.

We all enjoy different aspects.
Click to expand...

What is nostalgia? A recollection usually of something good that you have experienced in the past. It is nostalgia for film but that doesn't make it bad, just different.

As for magazines (and speakers at talks these days) most have a commercial interest that is directly or indirectly in the background. So I just read the mags at WHS.

Also love asking the Nikon/Canon question at a Fuji talk or Bowens versus Elinchrome when someone is supposedly being independent but pushing a product.

;)
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I refute that actually. I've got digital files created in the 80s on my system that have migrated from one defunct format to another over the decades. Formats and devices don't become obsolete overnight. You know when a format is on the way out, and you just copy the data to the new format when you upgrade.
Click to expand...

That is true, but it requires you to be active in updating systems and copying to other formats. Once you're gone, that stops. Of vourse, you probably don't care past that point!

You can leave negatives in a box for years and they will still pass light in varying proportions to represent an image.

If we are considering Mr and Mrs Average here rather than a collection of photo enthusiasts and professionals, most people will own family negatives from 50, perhaps 100 years ago but would struggle to find any digital images which they had ten years ago.

shreds said:
What is nostalgia? A recollection usually of something good that you have experienced in the past. It is nostalgia for film but that doesn't make it bad, just different.
Click to expand...

It's not nostalgia if it is your current main photographic process. It has been mine for nearly forty years with just a couple of years off when I was seduced temporarily by digital.

Equally, When I play guitar, I often play it through a valve amplifier. This isn't due to a nostalgia for valves, it's because I believe they are the best method to get the sound I want.

Sometime I use a digital modelling amplifier. Guess what it tries to model... Old valve amplifiers. It gets close but not 100% A bit like trying to make digital images look like film!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
That is true, but it requires you to be active in updating systems and copying to other formats. Once you're gone, that stops. Of vourse, you probably don't care past that point!

You can leave negatives in a box for years and they will still pass light in varying proportions to represent an image.

If we are considering Mr and Mrs Average here rather than a collection of photo enthusiasts and professionals, most people will own family negatives from 50, perhaps 100 years ago but would struggle to find any digital images which they had ten years ago.



It's not nostalgia if it is your current main photographic process. It has been mine for nearly forty years with just a couple of years off when I was seduced temporarily by digital.

Equally, When I play guitar, I often play it through a valve amplifier. This isn't due to a nostalgia for valves, it's because I believe they are the best method to get the sound I want.

Sometime I use a digital modelling amplifier. Guess what it tries to model... Old valve amplifiers. It gets close but not 100% A bit like trying to make digital images look like film!


Steve.
Click to expand...

It might not be nostalgia for you, but it is what is driving many people back to film. Look at the style of the advert. It is very retro.

As for the kids starting out, they are just trying something different to the mass market, although most educational institutions normally start off with a grounding in film and traditional camera usage and techniques because it makes understanding the processes much easier. Those with such a grounding usually are able to take on board other photographic learning more readily than those only with digital P&S knowledge.
 
shreds said:
Those with such a grounding usually are able to take on board other photographic learning more readily than those only with digital P&S knowledge.
Click to expand...


This is true.. trust me on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top