|
Do You Remember Film?
#12768
01/24/08 11:45 AM
01/24/08 11:45 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Florida
Jim Garvie
OP
Addict
|
OP
Addict
Joined: Mar 2005
Florida
|
I was talking with a fellow photographer last evening and we were discussing how he had his camera set up. He was also complaining that the camera wasn't producing images with the contrast or color saturation that he wanted. When I asked if he shot RAW or jpeg, he said "jpeg". Why then, I asked, don't you adjust the shot parameters to increase contrast and color saturation? Because, he said, "that would be cheating."
After much further discussion, we agreed that setting up the camera to produce images that reflect the way you see your subject is not "cheating". It's part of the art of photography.
In the olden days of film (yeah, I actually remember most of it), we used to select the type of film we used not just based on the conditions but also on the type of image we wanted to create. There was a particular look to Kodachrome 25 (ask Paul Simon) and a different but equally unique look to Ektachrome 160. Yes there were differences in grain but there were differences in contrast, edge sharpness and saturation of particular colors in the palette that were important to the subject matter we were photographing.
These days, we tend to think that what comes out of the sensor is what we're forced to live with. While that may be important for photojournalists, it is not an issue for the photographer as artist. I find it ironic that folks that will not hesitate to use HDR in post-processing, won't dial up the color/sharpness/contrast of their cameras to achieve similar effects. Strange.
Today's cameras provide us with the ability to tailor our images to the subject matter we're shooting. My 30D gives me several "picture styles" -- each of which can be individually adjusted -- for different shooting experiences. So, I've dialed up a Kodachrome look; an Ektachrome look; a Velvia look; etc. I'm wondering how many of you do something similar to recreate that film look in today's images.
Jim
|
|
|
Yes I do Remember Film?
[Re: Jim Garvie]
#12771
01/24/08 02:10 PM
01/24/08 02:10 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Donner Summit, CA
glamson
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2006
Donner Summit, CA
|
Quote:
I was talking with a fellow photographer last evening and we were discussing how he had his camera set up. He was also complaining that the camera wasn't producing images with the contrast or color saturation that he wanted. When I asked if he shot RAW or jpeg, he said "jpeg". Why then, I asked, don't you adjust the shot parameters to increase contrast and color saturation? Because, he said, "that would be cheating."
After much further discussion, we agreed that setting up the camera to produce images that reflect the way you see your subject is not "cheating". It's part of the art of photography.
In the olden days of film (yeah, I actually remember most of it), we used to select the type of film we used not just based on the conditions but also on the type of image we wanted to create. There was a particular look to Kodachrome 25 (ask Paul Simon) and a different but equally unique look to Ektachrome 160. Yes there were differences in grain but there were differences in contrast, edge sharpness and saturation of particular colors in the palette that were important to the subject matter we were photographing.
These days, we tend to think that what comes out of the sensor is what we're forced to live with. While that may be important for photojournalists, it is not an issue for the photographer as artist. I find it ironic that folks that will not hesitate to use HDR in post-processing, won't dial up the color/sharpness/contrast of their cameras to achieve similar effects. Strange.
Today's cameras provide us with the ability to tailor our images to the subject matter we're shooting. My 30D gives me several "picture styles" -- each of which can be individually adjusted -- for different shooting experiences. So, I've dialed up a Kodachrome look; an Ektachrome look; a Velvia look; etc. I'm wondering how many of you do something similar to recreate that film look in today's images.
Jim
Jim,
Of course this type of question brings out an old duffer like me. I agree with Thedra that having used film and the darkroom, I do feel that it adds an insight to PP. I also agree with Tony that I would never never never NEVER go back. When I think about all the hassle that film was, I wonder now how I stayed in photography.
I agree with you whole heartedly that the image the camera captures is just the starting point and it is the photograpers option/responsibility to use it to create an image according to his/her vision. I think all great photographers have ascribed to this philosophy and it is their individual interpretations that has made them great. It is also the reason I only shoot RAW. Ansel Adams' book the "Negative" is dedicated to the premise that the camera captures the image using the technology of that camera, and then it is up to the photographer to transform that negative into an image based on there vision and abilities. Although it is "positive", I feel the RAW file is the same as the black and white negative. One of the revelations to me early in my photography came from reading the Negative and realizing that there was no single perfect image from a negative, but many different images that could be produced according to the vision of the photographer. I remember in some of my early darkroom classes, an exercise for the class was to take the same negative and print it according to your own vision. It was amazing to see the differences in the prints that the class came up with. I know for me personally, there are many times I go back to the original RAW file and play with it when I learn new techniques and/or new technologies arise. My chief regret these days it that when I first got into digital, I shot everything in jpg and for those images I have much less latitude to manipulate those images now.
I was a big Kodachrome fan in my film days, but I have to say that with digital I don't really go for a film look. Now I just go for the look that I like. As an aside, when I coverted many of my old kodachrome slides to digital with a film scanner, I was really disappointed because of the native high contrast of that film which gave very little shadow detail. My Ektachrome and Kodacolor negatives gave much better conversions. Interesting how things change. I would never go for a Kodachrome look in digital.
I guess I've gone enough here. Thanks for asking the question and getting me thinking about this.
Geo
|
|
|
Re: Yes I do Remember Film?
[Re: glamson]
#12772
01/24/08 06:38 PM
01/24/08 06:38 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Florida
Jim Garvie
OP
Addict
|
OP
Addict
Joined: Mar 2005
Florida
|
George, but, boy, did Kodachrome add pizzazz to landscapes! I'm not talking about the negative aspects of particular types of film but the "look" they gave you. Kodachrome always gave us that punchy, contrasty, in-your-face color. And the negative films had their own look, too whether Kodak or Fuji. My point is the same as yours: once you capture the image, how you reproduce it in media (prints, websites, etc.) depends totally on your vision of that image and not just what the camera's sensor picked up. Having spent my own time in the darkroom breathing hypo-clearing agent I can tell you that magic happened back there in the dark  . We were able to tone down those highlights and pull up those shadows, to dodge and burn and make the images look the way they should look. Today, PS lets us do much of that. And, yes, I usually shoot RAW as well because I like the ability to control the post-processing in a way not possible with jpegs. But when I do shoot jpeg, I use a profile that gets me as close as possible to the look I want. And I guess I can't help but make the analogy to film in that look. Tony, I'm glad those film days are gone, too. But I do like to sometimes recreate that look of TriX pushed to as high an ISO as possible. Ah, the grain . . .  . Jim
|
|
|
Re: Yes I do Remember Film?
[Re: Durwood Edwards]
#12775
01/25/08 04:25 PM
01/25/08 04:25 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Tucson, Arizona, USA
Tucson Jim
Old hand
|
Old hand
Joined: Jul 2007
Tucson, Arizona, USA
|
Quote:
I just wish my CF cards smelled and tasted like sodium thiosulfate!
My wife certainly doesn't miss the smell of chemicals wafting from my makeshift darkroom in the bathroom of our government quarters in Germany, or having to bother the neighbors across the hall to use the facilities whenever I was processing film. For that matter, I don't miss balancing the enlarger on the toilet seat either.
But, there would be a lot more traffic on the "fanboy" forums. I can see it now . . . "My Fujifilm can whip your Kodacolor's butt in a lowlight showdown." ... "Oh yeah, well my Agfafilm can take you both!"...
|
|
|
Re: Yes I do Remember Film?
[Re: Visceral Image]
#12777
01/26/08 06:32 PM
01/26/08 06:32 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
James Morrissey
I
|
I
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
|
I essentially grew up in a darkroom with my father as a youth. My father is a chemist, and to him, digital is anathama to everything that photography is all about. Much like his passion for Leica cameras, I think that he finds great amounts of joy in the chemical process. Dodging and burning until he is able to create great images without a computer or other such aid.
While I am all about digital, I will say that there is something to be said for the whole process. I don't shoot film for a variety of practical reasons, however, part of me says that film has become less and less popular for all of the wrong reasons. Even the best digital SLRs are only starting to match print film in terms of ultimate resolution. It is sad to me that what has really killed film is marketing and not over-all ability.
James
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered members (),
495
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums6
Topics627
Posts989
Members3,317
| |
Most Online629
Dec 4th, 2019
|
|
|
