- Messages
- 8,308
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Analogue can't be dying if Thomas Heaton's taking it up...
[exit thread stage left... at speed...]
[exit thread stage left... at speed...]
and the site receives a small commission
The death of analogue photography.
- Thread starter MrDrizz
- Start date
- Messages
- 23,512
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
It's interesting how broad a 'church' film is, with some choosing to use large format for image quality, and others here choosing to shoot and liking polaroid.
D
Deleted member 21335
Guest
Appreciated. I have one more here that I need to add a soundtrack to. I chose the wrong film (200 speed) because I didn't know enough about it so my first three are extremely grainy.
I have done and still do all of those, although I haven't managed to shoot this 5x4 yet, it is loaded and ready to go. I love it all, from the Polaroids up to the large format and in between, 35mm and 120 film. Everything, the whole process from the cameras themselves to the loading of the film, the shooting of it and of course, the look and feel of film. It's unable to be truly replicated with anything digital and that is why I dislike the comparison between the two because they are so vastly different and the only thing they have in common is they are both methods of image capture.
Well.... I've been shooting a mix of film (35mm and 120 Ektar and Portra) and digital (Fuji X100S) across a project and whilst there's differences I've found the images interchangeable at A4 print size. They certainly don't look out of place next to each other.
This video echos my experiences, where he's shot a X100F and Portra in a Pentax 645 across a project
Please note- I'm not trying make this a film vs digital post. I enjoy shooting both and I'm glad I can mix up formats in a project.
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,770
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
..and when joe public switched to digi they didn't care that if they had used Kodakchrome for their important shots, they would have lasted well over 100 years (if stored reasonably) and then it is estimated that there could be a slight colour shift of one colour... probably could be corrected in something like Photoshop in the future.
- Messages
- 104,466
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But most choosing to use it for pure cussedness
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,963
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But most choosing to use it for pure cussedness
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing to excess.
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
I didn't know who Thomas Heaton was, so I googled him, and he does some nice landscapes, doesn't he? Was he the one that photoshopped a picture with a beach hut, and it caused some controversy? Or is that someone else?
I'm sensing a bit of defensiveness form the advocats of LF cams...
That's fine. See my cathedral organ analogy above. LF wouldn't work for me, that's not how I work, and such a thing would be totally unsuitable for the vast majority of photography I do. Incapable, in fact; LF film wouldn't work at a music gig in a dimly lit basement club with limited space for the performers, let alone a photographer. What's your fastest film? ISO 400? I'm regularly shooting at ISO 6400 and higher. Forgetting all the other considerations. But then; you wouldn't take a cathedral organ into a small, dimly lit basement club...
Whatever format you use, doesn't give you some sort of elevated 'status' over users of other formats. As I said earlier; horses for courses. There's no need for elitism in photography; it's one of the most democratic artforms/means of visual representation ever invented. For me, there's as much validity in the 'phone snaps done by moody teenagers of themselves and their mates, as there is in the most finely crafted landscape shot on a LF cam. It's all photography, it's all good.
Last edited:
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,963
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,770
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,963
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd suggest an Intrepid 5x4, as they are inexpensive and relatively simple. But you will need a lens and a film holder as a bare minimum. All the other stuff I use (focusing cloth, lupe, exposure meter) can be ignored or have simple substitutions. Developing can use the same equipment as roll film.
Alternatively, you could go for a Chroma snapshot.
And as the lowest cost of all - make a pinhole 5x4 and then you don't even need a lens and film holder. If you use Ilford Ortho film, a red safelight is possible, so you could even see what you're doing when loading.
Alternatively, you could go for a Chroma snapshot.
And as the lowest cost of all - make a pinhole 5x4 and then you don't even need a lens and film holder. If you use Ilford Ortho film, a red safelight is possible, so you could even see what you're doing when loading.
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,770
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well IMO using a MF and I assume LF lens (don't have one) the picture looks better compared to 35mm because of the lens perspective..am I talking cobblers or is it a fact?
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
Totally wrong. Hence my comment regarding 'defensiveness'. Curious as to how and why you've completely misunderstood/misinterpreted my comments?
What 'attacks'?
- Messages
- 1,690
- Name
- Lloyd
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think I wasn’t clear enough, I’m talking about the way the inherently longer focal lengths used on MF/LF have a distinct look (that isn't necessarily just about resolution) compared to an equivalent lens on 35mm. The difference isn’t as apparent when you shoot normal focal lengths (although it's still there if you look closely). 45mm on 6x7 doesn’t distort and stretch out the image in the same way that 24mm on 135 does even though they give you a very similar horizontal field of view. It's more subtle when you use normal focal lengths, for example if you shoot a portrait with a 105mm on 6x7 you get the same flattening of facial features as you would if you shot a 105mm on 35mm film, but you still get the normal field of view of a 50mm lens on 35mm. Now those differences are even more pronounced when you step up to large format, there's a certain transparency in the way the longer lens translates 3D space to a flat plane. Whether that actually matters is up to the photographer, you need to choose the appropriate tools to convey your intent.
It's a fact, see above.
Asha
Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 11,274
- Name
- Asha
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Defensiveness?
Perhaps from me but not for LF per say.
I will pull other formats and digital apart but in light hearted banter..... nothing more, however those formats, having used them, no longer interest me as they do not offer me what I wish for in my hobby.
I’ve been defending the fact of what a LF negative can offer in terms of iq when it comes to printing large when comparing to smaller formats.... particularly 35mm. There is 14 times (approx)the surface area of a 35mm neg on a 5x4 neg .
That speaks for itself when it comes to enlarging!
Tbh I losing track of the point that you are actually trying to get across.
Nonetheless you appear to have some issue ( minor as it may be ) with LF togs/ togging.
Perhaps you wish not to accept what a large neg can give to a print or perhaps having tried LF yourself, you feel a little put out because you either cannot get from it what you want in photography or you are irritated because you can’t do with the faffing about ( your words!) whilst others , like myself can.
I really don’t know and in all honesty and I’m sorry but I really don’t care .
I do however wish you well with whatever format and medium you choose to shoot and hope that you are happy FOR YOURSELF with the results that you obtain.
I am happy with the methods and results that I obtain FOR MYSELF , including the mistakes as I learn from them, even if my choices clearly don’t fall into your category.
Feel free to respond to my words but don’t expect a response as tbh I’m becoming somewhat tired of the content of this thread.
I bid you a pleasant evening.... mine atm is wonderful sat here having recently exposed a sheet of5x4[emoji6]
s
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,770
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Asha if you feel lonely in your thread start I could always dig up my old outings that I've posted here
If you are just using B\W for your landscapes it's a learning curve (well I know that you know that) as a lot of my B\W scenery shot, on 35mm, were rubbish as e.g. grass blended in with light green shrubs etc and gave no contrast esp in the midday sun, so always prefered colour for the easy way out.
If you are just using B\W for your landscapes it's a learning curve (well I know that you know that) as a lot of my B\W scenery shot, on 35mm, were rubbish as e.g. grass blended in with light green shrubs etc and gave no contrast esp in the midday sun, so always prefered colour for the easy way out.
Last edited:
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes.
Clearly. It was simply that ultimately; the format doesn't matter. It's the end product. If you 'need' LF to create that end product, fine. If all you needed was a 'phone cam, also fine. I'm not 'down' on any format. If you enjoy, it, that's all that matters. Crack on.
LF doesn't work for the type of photography I want to do, mostly. Although I wouldn't mind a go for some architectural stuff, I have to say. Or at least a T+S type lens. But there's really not enough to tempt me into LF photography, at least not at the moment. I really don't know where you get the idea that I'd be 'put out' by not wanting to use LF though. What's that all about?
Why not just enjoy the view then? Seems somewhat counter productive to faff about setting up a camera you then don't use, when you could have just looked at the view.
You clearly do, otherwise you wouldn't have spent time composing that confused and misguided post.
You too. Nice pic. You do know there's a foot in the bottom of the image, don't you? Oh, and how did you get the picture from the film, to show on this site?
Ah, bugger. I spose we'll never know...
Sigh...
- Messages
- 8,308
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Asha
Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 11,274
- Name
- Asha
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes.
Clearly. It was simply that ultimately; the format doesn't matter. It's the end product. If you 'need' LF to create that end product, fine. If all you needed was a 'phone cam, also fine. I'm not 'down' on any format. If you enjoy, it, that's all that matters. Crack on.
LF doesn't work for the type of photography I want to do, mostly. Although I wouldn't mind a go for some architectural stuff, I have to say. Or at least a T+S type lens. But there's really not enough to tempt me into LF photography, at least not at the moment. I really don't know where you get the idea that I'd be 'put out' by not wanting to use LF though. What's that all about?
Why not just enjoy the view then? Seems somewhat counter productive to faff about setting up a camera you then don't use, when you could have just looked at the view.
You clearly do, otherwise you wouldn't have spent time composing that confused and misguided post.
You too. Nice pic. You do know there's a foot in the bottom of the image, don't you? Oh, and how did you get the picture from the film, to show on this site?
Ah, bugger. I spose we'll never know...
Sigh...
:sleep:
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh yeah, returning to Don McCullin for a moment:
"Don McCullin doesn’t trust digital photography. Calling it “a totally lying experience”, McCullin, famous photographer of war and disaster, says that the transition to digital capture, editing and storage means viewers could no longer trust the truthfulness of images they see.
One of the 20th century’s greatest war photographers, McCullin covered conflicts in Cyprus, the Congo, Biafra, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, El Salvador, and the Middle East. He is the author of more than a dozen books, including his acclaimed autobiography, Unreasonable Behaviour (1990), and 2001’s retrospective Don McCullin. Winner of numerous awards, including two Premier Awards from the World Press Photo, in 1992 he became the only photojournalist to be made Commander of the British Empire (CBE).
Speaking at Photo London in Somerset UK after having been named the Photo London Master of Photography for 2016, McCullin said he did not consider his photograph “art” and did not enjoy it being “sanitized” as is so easily done with digital media. According to McCullin, the inherent truth of photography has been “hijacked” because of the quick and easy nature of digital image making. “I have a dark room and I still process film but digital photography can be a totally lying kind of experience, you can move anything you want … the whole thing can’t be trusted.”
Under pressure of time, McCullin does use digital cameras for assigned work, but he remains committed to film, recalling one of his best experiences with film being just this year, standing on Hadrian’s Wall in a blizzard. “If I’d have used a digital camera I would have made that look attractive, but I wanted you to get the feeling that it was cold and lonely,” which it was, he said. For that, a roll of old school Tri-X or HP5 fit the bill perfectly.
McCullin particularly dislikes how digital cameras allow manipulation of color. “These extraordinary pictures in colour, it looks as if someone has tried to redesign a chocolate box,” he said. “In the end, it doesn’t work, it’s hideous.”"
Many years ago, I asked Don what he felt about the issue of potential manipulation (of images and the notion of 'truth') in a burgeoning age of digital media, Photoshop and that. I can't remember his exact words, but it was along the lines of 'images have always been manipulated, edited and put into particular contexts, to fit a particular narrative'. From what I remember, he didn't seem to feel digital/computer based photography was a particular threat to the 'truth'. So it is interesting that more recently, he has come to view digital photography as 'hijacking the truth'.
Maybe it's cos he used a digital Canon.
"Don McCullin doesn’t trust digital photography. Calling it “a totally lying experience”, McCullin, famous photographer of war and disaster, says that the transition to digital capture, editing and storage means viewers could no longer trust the truthfulness of images they see.
One of the 20th century’s greatest war photographers, McCullin covered conflicts in Cyprus, the Congo, Biafra, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, El Salvador, and the Middle East. He is the author of more than a dozen books, including his acclaimed autobiography, Unreasonable Behaviour (1990), and 2001’s retrospective Don McCullin. Winner of numerous awards, including two Premier Awards from the World Press Photo, in 1992 he became the only photojournalist to be made Commander of the British Empire (CBE).
Speaking at Photo London in Somerset UK after having been named the Photo London Master of Photography for 2016, McCullin said he did not consider his photograph “art” and did not enjoy it being “sanitized” as is so easily done with digital media. According to McCullin, the inherent truth of photography has been “hijacked” because of the quick and easy nature of digital image making. “I have a dark room and I still process film but digital photography can be a totally lying kind of experience, you can move anything you want … the whole thing can’t be trusted.”
Under pressure of time, McCullin does use digital cameras for assigned work, but he remains committed to film, recalling one of his best experiences with film being just this year, standing on Hadrian’s Wall in a blizzard. “If I’d have used a digital camera I would have made that look attractive, but I wanted you to get the feeling that it was cold and lonely,” which it was, he said. For that, a roll of old school Tri-X or HP5 fit the bill perfectly.
McCullin particularly dislikes how digital cameras allow manipulation of color. “These extraordinary pictures in colour, it looks as if someone has tried to redesign a chocolate box,” he said. “In the end, it doesn’t work, it’s hideous.”"
Many years ago, I asked Don what he felt about the issue of potential manipulation (of images and the notion of 'truth') in a burgeoning age of digital media, Photoshop and that. I can't remember his exact words, but it was along the lines of 'images have always been manipulated, edited and put into particular contexts, to fit a particular narrative'. From what I remember, he didn't seem to feel digital/computer based photography was a particular threat to the 'truth'. So it is interesting that more recently, he has come to view digital photography as 'hijacking the truth'.
Maybe it's cos he used a digital Canon.
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
What was that? Come on, speak up, so the whole class can hear!
Actually, keep it quiet, or you'll wake Asha up...
- Messages
- 8,308
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
OK.
Imagine the kids (esp the cute one) are digital photographers, the shooting range target/unicorn is the quintessential "landscape photograph". The internet is the annoying ginger kid. And Gru is the [LF] Film Photographer.
Some people just want to grow up early. There's no rush.
[/wine]
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
I've not used that button, I've just stopped my troll food order. It's fun to look at them feeding as they do such silly and amusing things, but like you, I'm bored now.
- Messages
- 23,512
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I can't see the posts you're referring to, but with Don McCullin getting name checked I can guess who.
- Messages
- 9,212
- Edit My Images
- No
As the saying goes: "it takes two to tango". What I see here is a mixture of people who "know" they're right and assume an air of superiority which is calculated to anger the people who hold different opinions. As I see it, if you want to use film, be it in a Minox or a Gandolfi: go for it. If you want to use digital: the same.
There are discussions to be had and lessons that each can take from the other but only if everyone starts from respecting the other person's choices. There is no right or wrong in photography, just what works for each of us.
There are discussions to be had and lessons that each can take from the other but only if everyone starts from respecting the other person's choices. There is no right or wrong in photography, just what works for each of us.
- Messages
- 6,320
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Don't look at me mate, you'd never see me getting involved in these... Drat
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,770
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
H'mm looks like someone annoyed the mods.
- Messages
- 16,290
- Name
- Andy Grant
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
Blimey, don't tell me the Government has told them that they can't go to Brighton next bank holiday either?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,320
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Would you go as far as to say they're large format holes?
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,770
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
...because the digi guys who pop over here don't realise they most of us filmies have digi cameras as well and don't live in a cocoon world of film and we know the pluses and minuses, so they can't teach us anything.
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
Plus, the last time some of us used a digital camera might have been an hour ago, and the last time they used a film camera might have been 18 years ago. Some probably don't realise that improvements have occurred in film technology, and they're basing their comparison on a roll of Tudor C41 they shot nearly twenty years ago and had developed by a disinterested youth using a high street mini-lab machine set to full auto and producing third-rate glossy 3.5 x 5 inch prints.
Last edited: