analog film technology

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah!

by EveNSteve

Have you ever logged on to a photo web site and heard photographers argue about the merits of one film over another? This 100 speed vs that 100 speed. XP2 Super vs REAL black and white films. What a bunch of #$@$%!

One of my favorite arguments I recently came across online was one in which a handful of “photographers” (they sounded more like a bunch of old hens) clucked on and on about Kodak and the “crappy” quality of BW400CN. Ok, this film is new to me so I decided to try something novel…

I’d test the film myself! There’s a thought.

So having now done a quick and rather unscientific test here are my blah, blah, blah thoughts.

1. Fine grain when scanned on our Imacon scanner (oil mount) (professional processed C-41)…I don’t know about wet darkroom printing from these negatives and don’t really care as I am not heading back into the dark any time soon.

2. Not quite as sharp looking as say XP2 Super (smoother grain tho) or some other black and white negative films (REAL Black and White that is) or films processed using the very cul dr5 process but acceptable and perhaps ideal for portraits.

I just made using my in house workflow (oil mount scan, PS, ect…) a 16.85″ x 24″ print that is simply amazing. The grain is fantastic and at any “real” viewing distance the print has the sharpness one would expect from an analog process and not that hyper-digital sharpness crap. Oh, yeah…this is 35mm!

So what does this mean? First, stop kicking Kodak in the face. They make some good films (not all) but most problems photographers have with Kodak are the same problems other photographers have with Fuji and Ilford. Rather, we are a bunch of prima donnas(who me, YES you) that can’t get out of our own way and we want what we want now(I hear the hens clucking)! This demanding position of total excellence is fine from time to time but we need to be careful about spewing random meaningless talk that does nothing to help promote/ enhance our medium. That is not to say that Kodak and these other companies (The Photo Industrial Complex) don’t deserve to get kicked in the ass now and then but most of the talk I read on the web is meaningless and based on personal issues and not real photographic observations.

I have attached a sample image made using the BW400CN for those of you who need to see it to believe it (I’m in this group myself). The first is full size, the second (crop) is a crop from the full sized image (16.85″ x 24″)….very cul! This is 400 speed 35mm film!

Which process do I use (film)…when I can dr5 with FP4 or HP5 or if time is tight and the lighting is unsure XP2 Super or now BW400CN.


Film is Not Dead…No Kidding!

by EveNSteve

By Stephen M. Schaub

Film is not dead…yeah we know. Today I received a catalog from KEH proclaiming that Film Is Not Dead on the cover. Additionally, I also got a copy of an interesting study recently done by Kodak- to summarize:

9,000 professional photographers in the US were surveyed and over 75% said that they will continue to use film even as they embrace digital technology.

68% preferred the results from film to digital
48% find that medium and large format films capture superior quality
48% like the traditional photographic look
45% find film has better highlights and shadows
42% like film’s wide exposure latitude compared with digital
38% like film’s archival storage

The article goes on to state that Black and White in film is a big reason most photographers are still keeping film around (90%).

So what does all this mean?

In a nut shell…do both. Shoot film! Shoot digital! Do what you want and let the advertising hype just pass you by. I also received a copy of PDN today (current issue)…not surprising that almost every ad and new product review is about digital…how is that for reflecting what photographers are interested in (see above survey as a reminder).

We maintain that a good film scan is near impossible to beat in terms of quality and cost. Digital capture does have a place but… for now the Photographers have spoken.

Film is Not Dead…No Kidding!

by EveNSteve

By Stephen M. Schaub

Film is not dead…yeah we know. Today I received a catalog from KEH proclaiming that Film Is Not Dead on the cover. Additionally, I also got a copy of an interesting study recently done by Kodak- to summarize:

9,000 professional photographers in the US were surveyed and over 75% said that they will continue to use film even as they embrace digital technology.

68% preferred the results from film to digital
48% find that medium and large format films capture superior quality
48% like the traditional photographic look
45% find film has better highlights and shadows
42% like film’s wide exposure latitude compared with digital
38% like film’s archival storage

The article goes on to state that Black and White in film is a big reason most photographers are still keeping film around (90%).

So what does all this mean?

In a nut shell…do both. Shoot film! Shoot digital! Do what you want and let the advertising hype just pass you by. I also received a copy of PDN today (current issue)…not surprising that almost every ad and new product review is about digital…how is that for reflecting what photographers are interested in (see above survey as a reminder).

We maintain that a good film scan is near impossible to beat in terms of quality and cost. Digital capture does have a place but… for now the Photographers have spoken.

It’s About More Than Pixels Guys!

by EveNSteve

I’ve got a bone to pick…(who me?) I am getting really tired of reading “reviews” about how much better the release of new “X” digital camera or capture back is than film. Recently I’ve been noticing that many of these “experts” are making claims that 4″x5″ film has now been beat or surpassed.

Excuse me, but- what? Do I really need to say it? It’s about more than pixels, guys!

This is, we should all be aware, an argument designed first and foremost to part you from your pocket book. As in: spend, spend, spend!

Consider this… in order to get a capture device that will equal high-end film scans from, say, a medium or large format camera, you are spending $30,000+ dollars on bleeding edge technology (whoops- is it the technology that’s bleeding… or is that us?). Furthermore, remember its life-span is about equal to that of an ant when compared with the legacy of film-based cameras. Realistically, unless you have clients willing to spend tons of money for your services (great for you) or you are just really rich there is NO WAY to get back your financial investment in this type of system before the camera industry trumps your purchase and convinces you that, once again, it’s time to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade! I’ve been down this road enough to know that it is very difficult indeed. These days, I personally prefer the upgrade expense of a new roll of film or sheet of film, it just seems a bit more sustainable. Call me crazy, but I’d rather spend my money on technology that is immediately meaningful such as a better monitor or of course more RAM.

Not to mention, it really is about more than pixels… seriously! There is an inherent “look” to everything: a great film scan, a great digital capture, and to the finished prints from both types of files…you have to choose which you like. That’s right! Despite what you’ve heard, each one is okay. Ultimately, the choice is up to YOU. I will confess here and now that the very high end digital capture systems do in many ways equal great film scans in terms of resolution (or get darn close) but it is different look, kind of like the difference between vanilla and French vanilla ice cream- you know, similar, but different. Bleeding edge digital capture has it’s definitive place on high-end advertising shoots and for situations where you need really fast turn-arounds, but that is a small section of the overall photography market.

Another technique of these “expert” reviewers is to compare something like ISO 100 film with 100 ISO on a digital back… we are lead to conclude that at the best of the best all things are equal or better for digital. I guess these experts want you to forget that most pro film lines are available in ISO’s like 64, 50, 32, 25 and even 15…stack that side by side with a digital capture. Hey- film has this option (or in digital terms “upgrade”). It’s interesting that when there are positives on the digital side reviewers point it out at every opportunity but when the shoe is on the other foot? Silence. The fact is that a low ISO hi-res film scan is impossible to beat with the current digital technology. But why point that out? After all, we have to move those new digital cameras somehow to make room for the next “technological breakthrough,” which at the current pace should be sometime around next Wednesday.

So, the choice is yours… but whatever you do, don’t buy into the BS “reviews” who fail to realize that different is good! Choice is good! Right now we need reviews more about working with a system day in and day out, the durability of the system long term… and YES have an honest, open discussion about how to make your personal choice and investment work. For if we can’t, photographers will just keep on bleeding at the local camera store until there is nothing left to bleed.