Film? cause it's easier

[heningstepfield]

<p>hi all,<br>

ha ha...now I fled because I simply did not have the energy to repeatedly defend myself on points that had already been dealt with, the tread got so long that I fear folks were rehashing specific points...over and over again...certainly don't expect everyone to read the entire thread, as it is very long, but on the same side, if you are going to post, it would be great to understand where the thread currently stands...perhaps it's not a linear discussion...and the subject matter simply grew too wide to be easily ingested by folks who prefer to read only a title<br>

hey, them are my thoughts (and I've been wrong before..haha)<br>

now all this excitement has made me go through my images and select several hundred, of which I'm now cleaning up in LR and PS, I hope to create an ebook for kindle over this next month...i'll toss you a link when it's up, as well as share certain images here<br>

ha ha, thanks for the motivation to publish!<br>

aside from the confusion and attacks (ha ha...yup I'm sensitive) I do value the brain trust here at photonet, and will continue to challenge convention...in ways and means that a novice must in order to find his way.<br>

Thanks all...keep on snapping</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Taking you now at face value, I wish you luck on your project, and I sincerely look forward to seeing your work. I don't think there's any reason to save up a large body of work to be released in some a magnum opus. I think by offering up a few images here and there, you might get a lot of great feedback from others. What's the worst that could happen? Someone wouldn't like your work, perhaps? I can't think of any photographer who's work isn't hated by someone -- if only because it's done in the "wrong" medium.</p>

<p>Enjoy your film. I'll enjoy my digital. It's all good, worthwhile, and fun! :-)</p>

[heningstepfield]

Thanks Sarah, that initial step needs to be taken...simply wanted to have a body of

work to select from, upon review, after my first year and bit shooting, I think I may just

have that...or at least the start of such

I'm now editing, and researching what is common place for folks to do

Prior to placing their images for sale, it appears that registering copyright

Is a normal course of biz, as is making your images web traceable in some manner,

And, refreshing ones' InDesign skills appears to be on the list of to-do's as well,

All in all, I'll aim for a month, thanks again, cheers

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There may be a problem, though. You talk about the patina of film, which I assume you see and others might see in the prints. I know some photographers who say the same thing and I have every reason to believe they perceive a difference in prints shot from film. But online, we're only going to get the benefit of your scans on a screen, so we will be necessarily missing much of what's important to you about your work.</p>

[heningstepfield]

<p>well - I hope it comes across...(again...but I've been wrong before)</p>

[heningstepfield]

<p>Hi - meant to attach this shot with my last post...but it was over 100k...so I was denied...tossed it back into LR...exported low rez...and I hope it comes through this time</p><div></div>

[heningstepfield]

<p>fun shots both the Street Musician and the Veggie Salesman...while both are shot on expired film, processed with a batch of Chinese chemicals (only a developer and fixer) the street musician was shot on a canon eos 620 (best $10 to $25 camera on ebay today IMO)<br /> The Street Musician is from one of the cleaner 'expired film' rolls that I have had the fun in taking,<br /> while the Veggie Salesman attached to this post is one of the dirtiest (veggie salesman is Hasselblad ELM with expired 120, I forget the brand.)<br /> <br /> for some reason this represents the visual span of where my work appears to be taking me...(patina...I hope so)</p><div></div>

[heningstepfield]

<p>one more, then I'll create a gallery, this shot fell before me - i'll take luck over skill any day, had my trusty EOS 620 ebay $10 camera on-hand...just as she looked up<br>

(processed again at home...using some kind of developer and fixer that I can't read the label directions cause they are in mandarin - and although I have some grasp of the spoken language...well reading it...not in this life, I go for 7 minutes at room temp for each step...agitating between beers...sometimes works...sometimes not)</p><div></div>

[heningstepfield]

<p>to toss in a summary...I just don't think I could have...(now I have to be careful here...cause this is what got me in trouble in the first place) but I just don't think I could have gotten these images as easily if I had shot on digital...hence the title of my post:<strong> Film? cause it's easier </strong>(including the irony..as shooting dig is way easier...but the output between dig and film is different....film to me is capturing a dream, while dig to me is capturing reality.<br>

I prefer to dream.<br>

I feel lucky to be within, what I guess to be, film's last 20 years..and although i'm picking this joy of a sport late in life, i intend to shoot the sh#t out of it while it is available...for better or for worse. thanks all for your help, catch ya next thread!</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>There ya' go, FM! Very good! I think you've done a good job of capturing the environment, and I like the tonality of your photos.</p>

<p>That said, you can absolutely do the same thing with digital photography. Take a look at some of my photography at this page: <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/gallerysdf.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/gallerysdf.htm</a>. You'll find quite a few early (1970's) B&W shots from Mexico, shot with Plus-X (my B&W film of choice in my early days). You'll also find quite a few modern monochrome digital shots from Colonial Williamsburg. To my eye, at least, they are not that different. If anything, shooting in digital color gives me considerably more filtering and tonal curve options that let me achieve better subject/background separation in my monochromes, but that's another discussion.</p>

<p>What makes some film different from some digital is the grain, but I've found if you crank up the ISO a bit, you'll definitely get noise/grain (if that's what you want), and in fact you'll see the grain in some of my Colonial Williamsburg shots, especially those shot with my 40D. You won't see much grain in my film shots, because again, I liked Plus-X, and I even processed in Microdol-X. There are also applications that will give digital photographs grain, emulate different films, etc. Silver Efex is one.</p>

<p>The tonality whether, film and digital, is just about whatever you want to make it. I use very "film-like" contrast curves in my digital monochromes. It's really not hard to do this with a bit of practice. My only point is that you should not close your mind to digital photography. In the end, you should do whatever works for you, which you're already doing.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting photographs! I look forward to seeing more! :-)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Thanks for sharing your photos - they're worth to be shown, really nice work. The proper way to silence a wonky thread. That'll teach me to respond cynical and snarky ;-)<br>

But seriously, love the photos. While I agree with what Sarah said about getting a consistent look regardless of recording media, the one thing that counts is that you have the results you're happy to show, you enjoyed getting those results and nobody was harmed in the process (right?).</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Oh, and if I would only make one suggestion: There's really no reason to use expired film and mystery chemistry. You should buy your film in fresh, 100' spools, not expired canisters, even if you have to order from NYC. Learn to bulk-load. This is a very cheap way to go, and you'll gain consistency in your results. And then find a Chinese friend to translate some of that Mandarin for you. Be compulsive about your times, temperatures, etc.</p>

<p>I admit there's such a thing as happy accidents, where something you didn't expect creates an unusual effect you find interesting. However, in my experience, I get the best results when accidents are kept to a minimum, and consistency becomes my friend. That's because more interesting shots are lost than gained due to accidents. This is especially true of film/chemical methods. Just my 2c. ;-) </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Well done, FM! The pictures are good enough to stand on their own, you sold them short in your earlier postings! Film IS easier in the sense that the simplest way to get the “gritty Tri-X” look is to use Tri-X, but as Sarah says, you can do the same with digital and by doing so gain consistency and avoid any of the surprises which outdated film may serve up. <br /> It’s also arguable that digital is better as a learning tool – the feedback loop is much shorter, since you can see your results immediately. But it is ultimately a question of what you feel comfortable with and what works for you. In music, blind listening tests have shown that many people (including violinists) have great trouble distinguishing between a Stradivarius and a top-notch modern instrument, and yet soloists would insist on using the Strad every time.<br /> I have also turned back to film for a certain look – partly because of nostalgia, partly because for me as an oldie it’s what I know best. If I’m still taking pictures in 15 or 20 years’ time, and there's no more film,I shall have to sit down with Photoshop and find a new way to get the same result – and maybe no one but me will notice the difference. But – whatever you do, keep on taking pictures!</p>

[Thomas J.]

<p>Just wanted to throw my hat in the ring here briefly, since much of the discussion on the thread leans toward the never-ending debate of film vs digital. I consider myself a fan of photography first and foremost and have incorporated digital and film shooting into my life quite nicely. Shot film since the late 80's, got a D100 in 2006, D80 in 2010, and a D7000 in 2012.<br>

<br /> Few months ago I got a part time photojournalist gig with the local newspaper in my area of NYC. Of course, this gig requires a dSLR because of the deadlines and such, so when I go on any assignment with my D7000 I also pack my Leica M5 loaded with Tmax 400 pushed to 800. When I get my digital shots, I pull out the Leica to pop a few frames off. Later on, after I send my color shots into the newspaper and after I get my negs back from the lab, I convert the digital shots to B&W and compare them to the film images. I dunno, I think the B&W film shots look so much more "authentic" and the slight film grain is so much more pleasing than digital noise, IMO. There's also something more pleasing (more "artistic") about film's less than razor sharp rendition of the scene compared to digital's razor sharpness of the same scene. Although it's not completely apples to apples since I'm using a 17-55mm zoom on my Nikon and a prime 35mm on my Leica, the film just outright pleases me more. I guess it's just a personal thing. <br>

<br /> Nowadays, I only use the D7000 for work, shoot film for the joy and the fun when I'm just walking around town. I think the proliferation of high quality digital cameras has impacted the world of photography negatively as much as positively. I won't get into that now, but just go on Flickr and see the thousands of boring digital shots (mine included) and tell me how much better we all are shooting digital cameras.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I totally understand people shooting film if they prefer it - it's a different medium and there are bound to be people who like one or the other, or love and use both. I hope film stays around forever, so that those who want it can still have it. I don't see this as some big "versus" issue, although I accept that people love to pick a side and then throw dirt at the other - be it Ford / Chevy, Mac / PC, Canon / Nikon, whatever. I have no time for that as it generally just reflects insecurities.</p>

<p>However, I don't understand why the proliferation of high quality digital cameras has impacted the 'world of photography' (I'm not sure how that is defined) negatively. I'm really only interested in my own work and digital has been great for me personally. The number of images taken by non enthusiasts has, of course, gone through the roof - cell phone cameras, Facebook, Flickr, etc have changed the way people think of images. The ease and immediacy has let people share images with friends, family and the outside world in ways unimaginable only ten years ago.</p>

<p>Of course many are derivative, boring and trite, but great images are still great images - talent is still talent, passion is still passion, and what other people are doing just doesn't matter. If it makes them happy then I see it as a positive thing - anything that adds to people's quality of life and enjoyment (as long as it doesn't negatively impact someone else) seems great to me. The closed little elite club of "Photographers" may not be as exclusive, mysterious and revered as before, but if you concentrate on your own thing, I don't see why that matters. I'm very open to theories and discussions though - it's a changing world and I'd love to hear alternate perspectives.</p>

[heningstepfield]

<p>thanks for the support folks, really means much to me! sarah, l dive into your images this weekend (going crazy for a few days...) thanks for tossing me your link! I have thought about buying in bulk and self-loading...perhaps this is something I should dive into (for some reason though I simply get excited about expired film...odd really...but great fun!...when it works)<br>

I know where we are all headed - into the land of digital forever, so with film's last stand clearly in-sight (again, I'm guessing a 20 year time-line) I think it to be a fun challenge to shoot as much of it as possible...I may change my tune, but I find it impossible to resist the incredible film equipment prices today, canon T90's for under $100, Nikon F100's under $200, EOS 620's at $10....kid in a candy store is what I feel like. Every month or two I snag another cheap camera and try to learn it...hey it's an obsession that's cheaper then golf, and when I'm street shooing with my Hasselblad ELM...well I can assure you it's great exercise lugging that weapon around. It's simply fun for me. Thanks for encouraging me to upload! Cheers</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>I find it impossible to resist the incredible film equipment prices today, canon T90's for under $100, Nikon F100's under $200, EOS 620's at $10....kid in a candy store is what I feel like.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Be very careful! You're teetering on the brink of a serious pathology called "camera collecting." I suffer from it myself! ;-)</p>

[heningstepfield]

<p>Sarah, my your words ring true...but at these prices. I was in a vintage camera shop in Shanghai yesterday. there was am F4 going for $180, damn, almost bit, but I walked away while glancing with love towards an FD 'L' lens going for $300 (just knowing how well it would pair up with my T90)<br>

oh well, back next week to Canada, where my love of sub-$5 point and shoot film cameras becomes the center of my attention (obsession)<br>

packing...must pack now...bought a few yongnuo flashes with stands and softboxes, the stands and softbox attachment combind were under $30 each, as was the Yongnuo speedlight, incredible prices....I want to try studio portraiture when I return to North America...so thought to blow my $100 budget on a few items...fingers crossed (oh, and of course had to buy another 30 rolls of expired film...yup, I'm loosing it) </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Ah, a fellow strobist in the making! ;-) (I assume you know about the strobist lighting 101 blog. If not, google it.) The Yongnuo flashes seem the way to go, but here's how I do it with the pre-Yongnuo Vivitars:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/vivitar285mods.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/vivitar285mods.htm</a></p>

<p>Anyway... expired film, strobes in softboxes on stands... You are truly a demented soul. You have my respect! :-)</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>I won't get into that now, but just go on Flickr and see the thousands of boring digital shots (mine included) and tell me how much better we all are shooting digital cameras.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think that there are several things at play here. We are seeing so many more people sharing their photos today. We can see the photo albums from hundreds of people. How could one do that in the past? </p>

<p>We also have to see what people want from their photography. Most people want to document their lives. They take pictures of family. They take pictures from their vacations. They enjoy these photos and think others will feel the same. Think of all the vacation slide shows you have seen. Very few were better than what see see on Flickr or other sites.</p>

<p>I think photography is better today because of chimping. People can take a shot and review it. They can see if they chopped off a head or a foot. They can see if a person's face is too dark to recognize. Is this great photography? No, but it is better for the average person.</p>

<p> </p>

[heningstepfield]

<p>now sarah, i'm seeing your flash - i'm liking it....let me keep an eye open for these beasts while I flop around with my yongnuos for a tad<br>

dove into your site checking out all - nice sarah, I'll make a point of visiting it on a reg basis, like your B&W work!<br>

I'm off for a 24 hour multi legged flight tomorrow...resting today...bringing back bout 1400 negatives from my last month of fun and games...oh the joys of scanning...wish me luck! (I hope one or two make it)</p>

 

[heningstepfield]

<p>Hi Thomas, thanks for sharing your findings on film...this is a good find, makes me almost think that I might not be crazy for reporting similar findings (ha ha)</p>

[heningstepfield]

<p>Hi all, thanks for the motivation. After a few weeks of sorting through negatives and learning how to make an ebook for kindle, it's live.<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GW1TCPU/"><em><strong>The Last Film Shoot: Streets of Shanghai Vol 1. 2013</strong></em></a></p>

<p>I've started a blog to promote the images that were captured during 2013.<br>

<a href="http://heningstepfield.com/"><em><strong>heningstepfield.com</strong></em></a></p>

<p>I'm at the point where I'm begging for reviews to place on my amazon book page.<br>

(they tell me reviews are worth gold when launching an ebook)<br>

So if you can pop over to my blog and pic a photo to review, or a general comment on the entire collection then I would be happy to do the same for you.<br>

Thanks again for the motivation!<br>

Cheers<br>

Hening Stepfield<br>

(formerly Film Music)</p><div></div>