Old Film Cameras

[americaman]

I disagree. I believe Photoshop in the hands of the clever can replicate any film look from Daguerrotype (sp?) to anything made in the last century and a half.

Mind you, I am not that person. But what do you like about the 'look' of 35mm film?

I like the softness, the colors, and of course the subtle grain.

In the last thread about this subject one or two people said that you can recreate the film look, but I haven’t seen it, and they gave no examples. Yes, you can try to mimic it, but it is not the same. Mastin Labs and VSCO have been unable to recreate it. I have never seen an edited digital photo that looks the way a 35mm shot would. You can get closer to the 120 look, but it is still not the same, and that is why people will pay big money to have their weddings shot in all film (and why some directors prefer to shoot their movies in film). In the majority of cases you can tell a photo is digital right away; it’s sharper than film.

However, I will say that for whatever reason black and white digital photos can be indistinguishable from film. I don’t know why though. Someone can probably explain it here.

 

[olkofri]

Just an aside, and not pertinent to the digital vs film debate, when I was learning photography in the mid 60s I found that fixed focal length lenses taught me more than zooms. I believe that mastering a particular fixed lens caused me to consider more fully my relationship to the subject. Nothing wrong with zooms, but for the student they aren't the best.

I still use mostly primes for my professional work. Heck, I just finished a portrait session all done with a Canon EF-100 2.8 Macro. Had to be using the foot zoom and focusing manually, but I find primes trump zooms in image quality, and once you get used to working with them you don't miss the zoom at all.

 

[woodsroad]

...when I was learning photography in the mid 60s I found that fixed focal length lenses taught me more than zooms.

As in most things, one size does not fit all. Although I too started with fixed lenses, and have made some of my best photos with them, I did not blossom as a photographer until I bought my first zooms. While the discipline of a fixed focal length lens can be productive, and prompt the inexperienced shooter to get off their ass and move around, fixed lenses are also very limiting. To be able to reframe quickly, without fishing for a different lens, is priceless. Fewer missed shots, and more creative transparency (the equipment not getting in the way of making the picture).

In 1993 I was covering a governor’s race. The two candidates had been bitter enemies throughout, avoiding each other at all cost. Suddenly, and unexpectedly, they both showed up at the same event. I had been looking for profile shots of the one candidate that I was following, so I had an 85 and a 180 on my two cameras. Now, suddenly, I have the two candidates 6’ in front of me, back to back. As I removed the 85 with one hand and had a 20 in the other hand ready to snap in place, they turned and looked at each other for a split second, and I missed the shot. Luckily, nobody else got it either, but the next day I sold my Nikons and bought all new Canons with the zoom trio of wide, medium and tele.

For me, the ultimate question is: Did you make the best picture possible? Equipment dogma plays no part in that.

 

[sablebrush52]

Just an aside, and not pertinent to the digital vs film debate, when I was learning photography in the mid 60s I found that fixed focal length lenses taught me more than zooms. I believe that mastering a particular fixed lens caused me to consider more fully my relationship to the subject. Nothing wrong with zooms, but for the student they aren't the best.

Working with primes forces you to work within the limits of that lens' field of view and perspective properties. You become much more familiar and attuned to what you have to work with. A corollary to that is "limited palette" painting where you are required to work with five or six hues to create the image rather than grabbing every tube you can lay your hands on. Like with smoking a pipe, it's 25% equipment and 75% technique.
Also, the zoom lenses of 50 years ago required a significant trade off in terms of speed, sharpness and contrast compared to primes.

 

[olkofri]

the ultimate question is: Did you make the best picture possible? Equipment dogma plays no part in that

Yup. Again, a lot depends on what you're shooting. In my studio, I have full control, so it's prime territory. But for reportage, I take a zoom and take no chances.

When I was in Germany I did most of my shooting with a zoom, even though I still tried to follow my (sluggish) take-your-time methodology. This was taken with a 16-35mm:


Moment in Time

Nevertheless, I still took two primes with me: my architectural tilt-shift:



And my nifty-fifty:


Tested

 

[woodsroad]

​

Charles Rex Abogast/AP​

Me, 1993, covering the New Jersey governor's race with Christie Whitman and one of her cows. And a 16-35 zoom on a Canon A2E. Note the 70-200 on the second body, slung over my shoulder, and the lack of a giant Domke camera bag. Everything that I needed was in that little red fanny pack. At age 30, I was already suffering the slings and arrows of carrying too much heavy gear on my neck and shoulders every day. Zoom lenses helped reduce that load considerably. enabling me to soldier on at the Philadelphia Inquirer for another 15 years.

 

[craiginthecorn]

I definitely miss the darkroom magic, but my Sony A7 series cameras are more fun in the end.

 

[anotherbob]

The notion of “Knowing” composition and lighting is somewhat amusing to me. Yeah, I studied it when I was a teenager, read the Ansel Adams technical books, but really, you either have an innate sense of light and form or you don’t. For me, content is what I pursue, light and composition fall into place like tumblers in a lock. Work it a bit until it all drops into place, then the warm and fuzzies light up and I press the go pedal. Unless, of course, I have to create light, then there’s a logistical/mechanical/mathematical component that comes into play. But it still is really just a matter of lining it all up quickly until it snaps into place. The juggling act is reacting to fast moving action and making light and composition happen on the fly. It brings me an indescribable sense of wholeness when it all comes together.

the most important thing about learning comp in my opinion is just that it helps a new photographer think about the whole photo not just the subject.

 

[anotherbob]

I like the softness, the colors, and of course the subtle grain.

In the last thread about this subject one or two people said that you can recreate the film look, but I haven’t seen it, and they gave no examples. Yes, you can try to mimic it, but it is not the same. Mastin Labs and VSCO have been unable to recreate it. I have never seen an edited digital photo that looks the way a 35mm shot would. You can get closer to the 120 look, but it is still not the same, and that is why people will pay big money to have their weddings shot in all film (and why some directors prefer to shoot their movies in film). In the majority of cases you can tell a photo is digital right away; it’s sharper than film.

However, I will say that for whatever reason black and white digital photos can be indistinguishable from film. I don’t know why though. Someone can probably explain it here.

I forget which director used real film but the producer was reluctant and made him pass a test to see if he could spot real film versus a digital mockup and he scored nearly 100 percent.

 

[jpberg]

View attachment 56395​

Charles Rex Abogast/AP​

Me, 1993, covering the New Jersey governor's race with Christie Whitman and one of her cows. And a 16-35 zoom on a Canon A2E. Note the 70-200 on the second body, slung over my shoulder, and the lack of a giant Domke camera bag. Everything that I needed was in that little red fanny pack. At age 30, I was already suffering the slings and arrows of carrying too much heavy gear on my neck and shoulders every day. Zoom lenses helped reduce that load considerably. enabling me to soldier on at the Philadelphia Inquirer for another 15 years.

Camera stuff is one thing.
What were you thinking with that jacket?

 

[woodsroad]

Camera stuff is one thing.
What were you thinking with that jacket?

That jacket was early Gore-Tex from Campmor. I wore it so that my mom could spot me on the evening news.

The bright red made me a natural cutaway for the TV cameramen. That and I always pretended that I didn't see them shooting me and I'd make some kind of sarcastic expression, roll my eyes, shake my head, or do something that was useful for their editor. Mom was somewhat incredulous that her son was actually getting paid every day to take pictures. Twenty years into my career, she would still start out our phone conversations with either "I didn't see any of your pictures in the paper today, are you still working there?" or "I saw one of your pictures in the paper today, I thought you weren't working there anymore".

 

[anotherbob]

Camera stuff is one thing.
What were you thinking with that jacket?

in the early 90's that jacket was low key and subdued.

 

[olkofri]

in the early 90's that jacket was low key and subdued.

That's easily fixable in Photoshop. ?

 

[anotherbob]

That's easily fixable in Photoshop. ?

If I photo shop it I will always go for funny. Photoshop is great for funny collages.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Ah, I remember those great ads which were tagged with

"In Philadelphia, everyone reads The Inquirer!"

 

[woodsroad]

If I photo shop it I will always go for funny.

​

 

[jpberg]

View attachment 56545​

INTERWEB TRICKERY!

 

[anotherbob]

Ah, I remember those great ads which were tagged with

"In Philadelphia, everyone reads The Inquirer!"

I know that isn't true since not everyone there even reads anything.

 

[anotherbob]

View attachment 56545​

the cow needs a pipe and a silly hat.

 

[cshubhra]

1. When I was in film, I did not get the techniques mastered, but was doing great on compositions
2. When I went digital my techniques became quite good, treatments were improving but laziness started to creep in, specifically on compositions and histogram corrections on GIMP
3. When I went to iPhone, I lost interest, technique, composition, creativity - everything became snapshots and no one can tell that I was an okay ish amateur once