I'm writing this after doing about 20 prints (today and yesterday). And I have to tell you - I have to confess - that as much as I hate to say it - the majority of the film shots have a better presence - oh - let's just say it out loud - look better than the prints from digital capture.
I'm not able to explain it - in any scientific way. I could say things like: the dynamic range is greater with film, but that can be countered with sandwiching techniques with RAW images.
You could say it's the smoothness of digital - but I've pushed some of the captures through GrainSurgery with sampled grain - and it just ain't the same.
There is absolutely no doubt - digital is much more convenient, and I won't count the ways. You know that.
But honestly, I can see myself beginning to work in both worlds again. I wouldn't give up digital for what I'll call "assignments" which come along once in a while. I would probably use it for "events" where I'm going to be shooting a lot.
But I may just go back to film for my usual walking around no direction known work. Most probably the Canon Elan 7N.
Don't start some big flame over this - because it is just my personal (what else could it be) opinion (after a year plus of digital capture). Plus - I'm only talking about for b&w. If I do get the urge for color - once in a blue moon - that would still be digital.
Barrett - do you have any of my HP5 left?
9 comments:
Dave,
Out of curiosity, were the the majority of these film prints that brought about this decision from an automated camera, like your EOS Elan 7, or one of the manual cameras you shot before (say... the Leica). Or are they just spread out across your cameras? I'm also thinking that it may be more than just film vs. digital, but instead something even less tangible about the camera itself. Just a thought.
-Paul
Actually - the prints I was doing were spread out: digital and various film cameras. But I had been thinking about this before today - just haven't had the nerve to mention it.
It's not "the camera," i.e. the 20D. It's the look of film. As a matter of fact, the prints I've been doing were from:
4 x 5 Wista; medium format Rollei; the Canonet!!; the Elan 7; just all over the place. The films are mostly HP5 and TMY.
I have reached the opposite conclusion. I like the results in digital much better. I find the absence of the grainy look much better. I have been using Power Retouche in Photoshop CS to convert color to B&W and also to modify color photos. I do play with teh grain in B&W but find that I use the setting for Ilford Pan F most of the time. Also add sharpening. Especially in B&W I get better results in digital than compared to what I got in the darkroom. Dave has much more experience in the darkroom but for B&W I think you can get a better print quicker. I'm far from a Photoshop expert though.
I would use film more if I could find a competent neighborhood lab. Most of the places up in the 80's on the East Side stink. I use film when I want a lighter, smaller camera to carry for street candids, etc. For that I use the Leica M 4-P and Bessa R2. For good developing I end up going to Alkit Photo on Park Ave. So for developing and scanning.
So Dave, want to buy some old Canon F 1 bodies and a lot of lenses. Never use the stuff anymore.
Craig - I think it gets down to an aesthetic preference - and as they say - no accounting for tastes. I'm way too busy with various projects to start up with film etc. now - and maybe by the end of the summer the urge will have vanished.
Two CDs will be coming out with my photos. And there is the whole book publishing adventure; and I have to say that orders are coming in damned often; which reminds me, I wanted to "up" the print prices.
As far as developing b&w film - I'd go back to doing that myself. I actually never particularly minded doing film developing (as opposed to darkroom printing) so long as it wasn't some crazy amount of film - then I would generally use a pro lab.
There are good labs around - not here on the upper east side though. I've used some of the "color" b&w films, and they're not bad, but developing was very different in local labs and not consistent.
Anyway - no Nikon cameras needed :) Got all the Canon lenses.
Could just be nostalgia for that real film look.
(Oh, Zeus, still thy thunder...!)
The digital "look" is something one either loves or loathes (assuming one has some understanding of photography; but just as many people who have little understanding of cinema can't tell the difference between something shot on motion picture film and videotape, people with little knowledge of photography won't understand what the fuss is about). Some see the "grainless" aspect of digital photography as something akin to the "grainlessness" of large-format photography. I don't - the difference is usually fairly obvious, and I don't cotton to it.
That said, I've stuck to film for reasons that go fairly beyond the "look"; familiarity of the 35mm format is one reason - the thought of dealing with odd-size sensors gives me a bit of a headache. Another big reason is the fact that I switched from SLRs to rangefinders for about 90% of my shooting, which rules out digital by default (the Epson/CV-Cosina RD-1 barely gets to the starting line, IMO).
Yet another big reason is simplicity - yes, simplicity. Back in the heyday of the auto-everything point-n-shoot film camera (c.mid-1980s to about 2001), I found it amusing when a tourist couple, espying my highfalutin "pro" camera off my shoulder, would walk up to me, p/s camera in outstretched hand, and ask if I could take their picture in front of (Choose One: Empire State Building; Lincoln Center; South Street Seaport; et cetera). Playing against the New Yorker stereotype, I'd happily oblige, then attempt to wade through the laundry-list of options their camera offered. It made a fancy-ass Nikon F4 or Canon EOS-1n a no-brainer by comparison. Digital is no better - in some cases a bit worse. Makes a Leica, or, in my case, a Hexar RF, seem the proverbial no-brainer. I can leave all the digital jiggery-pokery for after the shoot - scanning, (usually) minor tweaking in Photoshop, and printing (Note to Dave: shocking as it might sound, I'm actually now leaning heavily toward HP's 8750 - details later). Shooting film, in short, isn't about nostalgia or stubborness or romance ('cause that's the way Ansel/Henri/Weegee/Everybody at Magnum did it), or being too old or brain-dead to Get With The Program; it's about picking a medium that works, for me, and sticking with it. At least until I have to start dealing in illegal controlled substances to get a roll or two of the stuff. Of course, by that time, we'll likely have far bigger matters to deal with...
Dave, how do you currently scan your B&W negs?
Have you experimented with different scanners and compared the outputs?
Dave,
Just read the tail end of your blog (I try to be thorough, even at 2 in the morning). Yeah, I do...Shall I ferry five or ten rolls your way when I'm in Manhattan tomorrow? ;-)
ever read my words?
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14480719&postID=112288823118115594&isPopup=true
it's the sixty-four-dollar question at the moment how Lulu will do with your photos, isn't it?
For me its not the result because film and digital can produce good, and almost difficilt to tell the difference results. The issue is the camera you use and what you are doing. Film rangefinders are still better for quick candid and street photography. Last weekend I used my Nikon D 70 for somestreet/candid stuff and they can see you coming. Doesn't seem to matter how quick you are. With the Leica/Bessa you don't seem to get noticed.
Post a Comment