Film revival?

[Norma Desmond]

outsourcing the actual processing of the film doesn't change any of this

100% wrong!

[Moving On]

Simple enough......

I like the simple straightforward approach.

 

[inoneeye]

wow.I feel compelled to offer a counterpoint to some of the other film experienced folk. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to darkroom work.

There are endless variables at a persons disposal when processing a single or roll negative. I have never experienced a lab that offered other than a very limited selection of the available chemistry. Typically a 'custom' lab will offer +/- development but only based on time not dilution, temperature or altnernative chemistry. Then to request a pyro developer or temperature adjustment or x2 bath development...., if even available begins to become very costly. A person can opt to work directly with a freelance darkroom tech but again there will be limitations unless you work on formulas and recipes that the two of you have come to agreement on. Unless it is a close friend this is also likely to be costly. And you will probably need to supply the necessary chemistry.

When I shoot film I often keep some cryptic notes for neg processing later. Sometimes I need to sacrifice an entire roll for a single neg requiring dedicated processing. It does matter sometimes. It may mean that all the other images will be flat or blown highlights just so that single important image can be brought to life as I saw it.

 

Not all home darkrooms explore the possibilities, they are content with formula. But some chefs learn the benefits of exploring beyond the recipes.

The craft is something that you develop by learning the possibilities and limitations over years.

[tomspielman]

A digital photographer may or may not do their own post-processing. They might not be particularly skilled at it, or maybe they just find it time consuming and not very rewarding. But if they're professionals or are just serious about their pictures, they don't hand their files off to just anybody. They communicate what they want. They look for people who can produce the final images that they had in mind. They might try multiple people before the find the right one. It's like a collaboration.

 

I would guess the same is true of a film photographer. There's craft and artistry all the way from selecting the equipment, deciding what to shoot, composing the shot, etc, etc. And for film photographers, there's also choosing the film, not just based on the conditions, but based your preferences. And there's choosing who and how it gets processed. Somebody whose dabbling in film might not care who processes it or care much about the film. Somebody who's serious about it does. They select a lab or an individual based on the results they produce. They are specific about what they want. They may not do the work themselves but that doesn't mean they just roll the dice and send it anywhere.

 

I agree that there's craftsmanship involved in processing film, or it can be a very mechanical process. Just like a digital workflow. In either case being a photographer can mean you do your own processing or post processing. Or you may not. It's like producing music. The digital age means that a single artist no longer needs an elaborate studio to produce commercial quality music. They can do it all on their own even, or they may choose to take advantage of the skills of others.

[ben_hutcherson]

Just going to say-it takes me a LOT less time to work up an NEF to be presentable than it does to get a print I'm truly happy with.

 

I cut out some of the guesswork when I lucked into a darkroom light meter, but I still spend a lot of time tweaking the exposure and the contrast grades to get a basic print that I'm happy with.

 

Before I start printing, I make some basic aesthetic choices about how I want the print to look, and those are all dictated by paper choice. Ilford-the major paper maker these days-makes multigrade(VC-variable contrast) paper in two different materials(fiber base and resin coated), 3 different tones(cool, neutral, and warm), and about a half dozen different finishes. Each of those imparts a different look to the image.

 

I then decide how I'm going to set the borders, and of course crop and focus the image. Of course, digital photographers crop too. Many digital photos never see print, though, and you can get "burned" if you compose in the entire frame and then realize you're going to mess yourself up when you put a 2:3 digital original on an 8x10. Somehow or another, it always seems more "real" to me when I'm starting at the image projected on a card on the enlarger easel, although hitting 4:5 and clicking and dragging a box in Lightroom is both easier and more flexible.

 

While we're at it, I'll mention that I have two enlargers-a Beseler 23C and a Leitz Focomat V35. The Leitz is an "autofocus" enlarger-as the head is raised and lowered, a cam racks the lens in and out. Unfortunately, I don't have the original lens-which was a bit of an oddball(and naturally quite high quality) 40mm f/2.8. The "right" lens is more than I paid for the enlarger. Fortunately, it uses a standard M39(AKA LTM) lens mount, so I have a 50mm f/2.8 El-Nikkor on it. The focus isn't terribly far off, and I usually just need to tweak the fine focus a bit.

 

The Beseler is a different story, though. It is quite traditional in construction, meaning that the head height and focus are totally independent. The general procedure I use is to raise/lower the head until I have the composition ABOUT there, then focus it. Focusing changes the composition quite dramatically, though, so it usually takes some back and forth of focusing and composing until I have exactly what I want and have the focus dead on.

 

Oh, I'll also add that I was taught that for the best sharpness, it should be focused at the actual aperture to be used. I usually print with f/2.8 lenses at f/5.6(two stops down from max as a general rule). The 75mm lens on my Beseler(which is dedicated to medium format) is f/4, so I'm usually at f/8 on it. Focusing is difficult, especially with a large print at f/8, but fortunately it rarely requires more than a tiny adjustment.

 

In any case, just getting the "starter" print can take a while. Once I have a print with exposure and contrast I'm MOSTLY happy with, I go to dodging and burning as necessary. This is kind of print specific thing. Sometimes it involves making masks, sometimes using "wands" to wave over the print, and sometimes just using your hands. Of course, if one were just spitting out routine prints you probably won't go through this step. I don't make a habit of printing things unless they're worth printing, though, so I go for the best. I'm no Ansel Adams, Edward Wesson, or O.W. Link(my personal favorite photographer) in the darkroom by any stretch but I learn more and get better with every print I make.

 

Fortunately, developing prints is fast although if you're using FB paper the recommended wash times are QUITE long-I think for archival work they suggest more like 24 hours of wash time, and then it takes time to dry(I do have a print dryer). RC paper is a lot more cantankerous-you can usually get away with 20-30 minutes of washing and I usually just stand it upright on a rack to dry. It will dry within an hour. For a lot of reasons, I use RC paper-especially if it's a photo being given as a gift(my mom has taken to "ordering" prints from me by the half dozen to dozen of family stuff, whether people or building) since I just don't have the time or space to work that kind of volume of FB paper. Also, this may seem a bit pretentious, but when I do prints in volume I sign and number them. That was by request at one point, but truthfully once the negative is out of the enlarger I can never exactly reproduce it and for this kind of subject matter it's nice to have a record of at least who took the photo and also what/who it is.

 

I won't pretend that digital PP work is easy, as really getting into it and making a photo the best you can takes quite a long time(although starting with a good RAW file helps a whole lot, just like starting with a good negative). Still, I admit that there are PP trends that come and go that tend to-IMO-get a bit overdone. 5-10 years ago, it was "selective coloring."

 

These days, my big pet peeve is HDR. On one hand, it's fun to see the better DR than your eyes can capture, but on the other hand I see a lot done(overdone) to the point where they are unnatural. I'm sure I've looked at plenty of HDR photos where it wasn't so obvious and I don't mind those, but I think you all know the sort I'm talking about where it's very in your face.

[rossb]

I enjoy developing B/W film I suppose. It's easy to do and satisfying to some degree. I find it easier and with less cost then a mail order process to have it done for me. There are no labs around so I cannot do that.

[Norma Desmond]

In either case being a photographer can mean you do your own processing or post processing.

OK.

 

But the point I've been making ever since Bob brought it up is not whether a film photographer SHOULD do their own post processing. It's that a film photographer who DOESN'T do their own post processing has no business, as Bob did, referring to digital photographers as shallow for using their LDCs. Bob is choosing to hand off an important step which he could choose to maintain more control over, giving himself more technical and creative options. That's fine. But then don't sit back and claim that waiting for your negs to be returned is somehow deeper gratification than looking at a stupid LCD screen while you're shooting. My argument is with the cold hypocrisy, not so much with his chosen methods.

The assertion that one can't be a serious film photographer when a lab processes the film is false

You're hung up. Read what I just wrote to Tom to see what my problem has been all along with Bob. It was not about whether he was a serious film photographer, but about whether he was condescending to criticize digital photographers for using LCD screens while he's farming out an important step of the process he's chosen. It's more about not throwing stones than about film v. digital or who's a serious photographer.

[Norma Desmond]

In my above post to Tom I, of course, meant processing, not post processing. I know Bob did some post work, which he talked about.

[Norma Desmond]

This is such a non-issue you're bringing up and arguing about. Do you seriously feel that "offended" by the mentioning of photographers relying on their LCD screens? Hilarious.

Do you seriously thinking "Hilarious" dismisses all the bogus claims you've made and makes up for your misstatements about the zone system and processing?

 

No, I did not feel all that offended by Bill's comments about LCDs. I thought it was an unwise, trite, and misplaced thing to say and felt like addressing it, because it's not like he's unique in thinking or saying it. The thread took on a life of its own from there. We ALL made a big thing about a lot of things in this thread. But, if you want to lay it all at my doorstep, trying to inoculate yourself from responsibility and from all the incorrect things you've said, be my guest. I can take it.

[Norma Desmond]

Say Goodnight already.

You can exit the thread any time you like. What YOU care about is not my concern. You may have noticed that I didn't address you about Bob's remarks. You addressed me about my remarks to Bob. So you obviously did care, but I'll let you continue to deceive yourself into thinking you don't care. I did already say "goodnight" a long time ago. And then I changed my mind. Is that allowed in your "recipe" for how everyone else has to behave in PN threads?

[Norma Desmond]

"Hilarious" is redundant. You get two demerits and have to stand in the corner. The point was, which you've conveniently avoided addressing, that you DID CARE enough about what I said to enter the thread and take me on over it. I was in conversation with Bob and you inserted yourself into that, presumably because you cared enough to do so. Your now saying you didn't care is pretty disingenuous . . . though not at all HILARIOUS. You had every right to say whatever you wanted to say, but you have no right to now lie and claim you didn't care. Well, I guess you have a right to do that, but it seems pretty transparently a bogus thing to do. Describing someone's ideas and disagreeing with them is not telling someone how to act. But you are right, I was confusing you with Mark, who's told me several times how to act.

[Norma Desmond]

I think it's a futile exercise.

And yet you persist. That's not hilarious but it is, perhaps, a bit sad.

[Norman 202]

I think this fred needs a cliched comment followed by a crap foto so here goes

 

“why can’t we all love one another “

 

 

:)

Edited March 18, 2018 by Norman 202

[Moving On]

Here is a pretty good summation of both methods of image capture.

Written by the same guy.

And look at the dates the pieces were written....;)

 

10 Reasons I Switched From Digital To Film Photography

 

Why I Switched From Film Back To Digital Photography

 

If you combined the two articles that would be a good explanation why I enjoy both.

As stated in the article advocating digital, why limit yourself.

Two articles written a day apart.

Sometimes I switch between the two in a matter of minutes..

Edited March 18, 2018 by Moving On

[chuck909]

Are you guys going to have seconds and stand at 20 paces?

[c_watson1]

Right. That's the one that's being left out when "serious" film guys send their film away to be processed. That's the point. And, I should have been more specific. I was talking about the choices made AFTER the pic is taken, not choices like composition, etc., which we all make. I'm talking about the significant choices made when processing that some film goers are foregoing by sending their film to a lab and the cluelessness of then claiming to be more of a craftsman than digital folks who do make all those decisions.

 

Ever hear of a clip test, mate? Have you ever seen a grease pencil mark-up of a proof print by Avedon who pushed printers to the wall to get the look he wanted? The printers had few doubts about his "involvement." Think your understanding of "post" in film work is wanting, especially when it comes to photographers who actually fed kids and paid rent with the profits generated by their work.

[AJG]

Just going to say-it takes me a LOT less time to work up an NEF to be presentable than it does to get a print I'm truly happy with.

 

I cut out some of the guesswork when I lucked into a darkroom light meter, but I still spend a lot of time tweaking the exposure and the contrast grades to get a basic print that I'm happy with.

 

Before I start printing, I make some basic aesthetic choices about how I want the print to look, and those are all dictated by paper choice. Ilford-the major paper maker these days-makes multigrade(VC-variable contrast) paper in two different materials(fiber base and resin coated), 3 different tones(cool, neutral, and warm), and about a half dozen different finishes. Each of those imparts a different look to the image.

 

I then decide how I'm going to set the borders, and of course crop and focus the image. Of course, digital photographers crop too. Many digital photos never see print, though, and you can get "burned" if you compose in the entire frame and then realize you're going to mess yourself up when you put a 2:3 digital original on an 8x10. Somehow or another, it always seems more "real" to me when I'm starting at the image projected on a card on the enlarger easel, although hitting 4:5 and clicking and dragging a box in Lightroom is both easier and more flexible.

 

While we're at it, I'll mention that I have two enlargers-a Beseler 23C and a Leitz Focomat V35. The Leitz is an "autofocus" enlarger-as the head is raised and lowered, a cam racks the lens in and out. Unfortunately, I don't have the original lens-which was a bit of an oddball(and naturally quite high quality) 40mm f/2.8. The "right" lens is more than I paid for the enlarger. Fortunately, it uses a standard M39(AKA LTM) lens mount, so I have a 50mm f/2.8 El-Nikkor on it. The focus isn't terribly far off, and I usually just need to tweak the fine focus a bit.

 

The Beseler is a different story, though. It is quite traditional in construction, meaning that the head height and focus are totally independent. The general procedure I use is to raise/lower the head until I have the composition ABOUT there, then focus it. Focusing changes the composition quite dramatically, though, so it usually takes some back and forth of focusing and composing until I have exactly what I want and have the focus dead on.

 

Oh, I'll also add that I was taught that for the best sharpness, it should be focused at the actual aperture to be used. I usually print with f/2.8 lenses at f/5.6(two stops down from max as a general rule). The 75mm lens on my Beseler(which is dedicated to medium format) is f/4, so I'm usually at f/8 on it. Focusing is difficult, especially with a large print at f/8, but fortunately it rarely requires more than a tiny adjustment.

 

In any case, just getting the "starter" print can take a while. Once I have a print with exposure and contrast I'm MOSTLY happy with, I go to dodging and burning as necessary. This is kind of print specific thing. Sometimes it involves making masks, sometimes using "wands" to wave over the print, and sometimes just using your hands. Of course, if one were just spitting out routine prints you probably won't go through this step. I don't make a habit of printing things unless they're worth printing, though, so I go for the best. I'm no Ansel Adams, Edward Wesson, or O.W. Link(my personal favorite photographer) in the darkroom by any stretch but I learn more and get better with every print I make.

 

Fortunately, developing prints is fast although if you're using FB paper the recommended wash times are QUITE long-I think for archival work they suggest more like 24 hours of wash time, and then it takes time to dry(I do have a print dryer). RC paper is a lot more cantankerous-you can usually get away with 20-30 minutes of washing and I usually just stand it upright on a rack to dry. It will dry within an hour. For a lot of reasons, I use RC paper-especially if it's a photo being given as a gift(my mom has taken to "ordering" prints from me by the half dozen to dozen of family stuff, whether people or building) since I just don't have the time or space to work that kind of volume of FB paper. Also, this may seem a bit pretentious, but when I do prints in volume I sign and number them. That was by request at one point, but truthfully once the negative is out of the enlarger I can never exactly reproduce it and for this kind of subject matter it's nice to have a record of at least who took the photo and also what/who it is.

 

I won't pretend that digital PP work is easy, as really getting into it and making a photo the best you can takes quite a long time(although starting with a good RAW file helps a whole lot, just like starting with a good negative). Still, I admit that there are PP trends that come and go that tend to-IMO-get a bit overdone. 5-10 years ago, it was "selective coloring."

 

These days, my big pet peeve is HDR. On one hand, it's fun to see the better DR than your eyes can capture, but on the other hand I see a lot done(overdone) to the point where they are unnatural. I'm sure I've looked at plenty of HDR photos where it wasn't so obvious and I don't mind those, but I think you all know the sort I'm talking about where it's very in your face.

Ben--If your enlarging lenses are decent ( and your 50 mm f/2.8 El Nikkor certainly is) you shouldn't need to worry about focus shift on stopping down. I see a fair amount of blurry prints from sharp negatives from some of my beginning photo students because they are focusing at f/5.6 or f/8 and can't see well enough to know when they are in focus. I have always focused/composed at full aperture and then stopped down to printing aperture while the light is still on so I don't forget and make a print that is too dark.

[Sandy Vongries]

Grain reticulation focusing device - no guessing.

[tholte]

Almost 14 pages on this topic. A few interesting points (cough, cough) but it does show that this subject continues to get a rise of a lot of people in the photographic community here and elsewhere. Film and digital are nice and will suffice!

[ben_hutcherson]

Ben--If your enlarging lenses are decent ( and your 50 mm f/2.8 El Nikkor certainly is) you shouldn't need to worry about focus shift on stopping down.

 

I rarely see any on my El-Nikkor, but I do on the no-name 75mm on my Beseler.

 

Given how cheap enlarger lenses are these days, I have no excuse for not having bought a better lens for it. When I bought the enlarger, it had a 50mm Rodenstock on it. Since I intended to do MF on it, they swapped it out for an MF lens and this particular one was the only one they had over the 75-100mm FL that they could fit into a board on hand. It's not the best, but then I have

 

I probably should go for a 90 or 100mm lens since I do 6x7 and 75mm is a bit uncomfortable for that size negative. I actually have a 100mm f/3.5 Kodak lens that I'd like to get on a board, but sometime like a 90mm Rodenstock would be great.

 

In any case, I do focus with a grain focuser, so I can see focus shifts and also nail the focus pretty easily.

[AJG]

75 is pretty short for 6x7 unless it is a wide angle design. I have both 80 and 105 El NIkkors for medium format, with the 80 rated to 6x7 by Nikon, although I always use the 105 when I print 6x7 negatives. At today's prices for used enlarging lenses I would definitely go for another lens if I were you.

[donald_miller5]

The local camera shop down town told me he sold 3 times more film cameras from January 2017 to September 2017 than he did for all of 2016.

[arthur_gottschalk]

I often think just how perfected film cameras were when they met their demise. And all that infrastructure-- buy film anywhere, great pro labs, easy repair and parts. My partner still shoots film, but she converts it all to digital. She has access to an Imacon scanner, but spends days at that task, has a small fortune sunk into computers, screens, hard drives etc. My guess is that those digital files will be difficult to use in ten or twenty years. I'll stay with my Hasselblad. But it's getting very difficult to work with obsolete equipment. Parts for many film cameras have disappeared, quality repair is difficult to find and the only pro lab is 65 miles from me. I just wish that Hasselblad had perfected the 200-series cameras. That would be nirvana.

[donald_miller5]

I often think just how perfected film cameras were when they met their demise. And all that infrastructure-- buy film anywhere, great pro labs, easy repair and parts. My partner still shoots film, but she converts it all to digital. She has access to an Imacon scanner, but spends days at that task, has a small fortune sunk into computers, screens, hard drives etc. My guess is that those digital files will be difficult to use in ten or twenty years. I'll stay with my Hasselblad. But it's getting very difficult to work with obsolete equipment. Parts for many film cameras have disappeared, quality repair is difficult to find and the only pro lab is 65 miles from me. I just wish that Hasselblad had perfected the 200-series cameras. That would be nirvana.

I would not use the word obsolete. Just that there are no new ones and I assume all film cameras have a limited life expectancy. No profit for manufactures to cater to film enthusiasts

[tomspielman]

You can still buy new film cameras. For example, the Nikon F6.