and this is why I shoot film". Being a cantankerous old git, I'm really tempted to reply "really, who cares?". This, of course, is extremely uncharitable of me, to put it mildly, but the underlying point, which I don't think is totally trivial, is why should it matter if you shoot film? I can think of a few strong cases where it does matter, one being where archival is a primary concern, or others where it is imposed, for example being in a situation where you have to use a mechanical camera. Or, indeed, you want to use a format only available in film cameras.
But otherwise, the vast bulk of "reasons why I shoot film", apart from the geriatric "it slows you down" (really, ever tried an EOS-1v ?), seem to be associated with culture and fashion, and, inevitably, gear. The aesthetic stuff, sure, ok, but the idea by association that digital somehow has no aesthetic qualities is absurd. Anyway, developing an aesthetic surely means first working out for yourself the look you want. If that look happens to be best achieved using a particular film stock shot in a given way, fine, but I suspect in 99% of cases the process is reversed.
There's no need to turn it all into a cult.
There are some very clear exceptions, but the majority of film photography I see these days really takes the film "look" and lays in on extra thick with a blunt trowel. I find this really bizarre - back in The Good Old Days, when there was no choice, almost all today's film photos would have been consigned to the trash, at least by "serious" photographers. All the identifiers, excessive grain, weird colours, blocked shadows, dead highlights, were things that people went to huge lengths to circumvent. Film technology too was driven to eliminate these defects, as late-generation emulsions such as Portra, E100G, Ektar 100, Provia and so on clearly show. Digital just took it a step further.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I shoot film because several cameras I want to use require it. That's it. And I manipulate the film, generally, to make it as clean as possible.
Still, Emulsive is a great web site, and all these interviews are well worth reading, but not because of all the film mumbo-jumbo (which some, to be fair, avoid), but rather because there are some really interesting photographers getting promoted. But are they interesting because they shoot film ? No, well, not to me anyway.
Postscript: Actually, if you read Hamish Gill's interview on Emulsive, and scroll down to "WHAT DO YOU THINK IS PEOPLE’S GREATEST MISCONCEPTION ABOUT FILM PHOTOGRAPHY AND HOW WOULD YOU SET IT STRAIGHT?", you find he presents this whole argument way, way more eloquently than I ever could....which is reassuring.
Posted in category "General Rants"
on Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 04:16 PM
A roll of CineStill
in Film , Wednesday, March 29, 2017
I'm quite impressed with my first experience with CineStill 50 film. As promised, it is very fine grained, and allows for very sharp results, provided of course that operator issues such as focussing and scanning are carried out correctly. The exposure latitude also seems very good, probably quite similar to Portra 400. The character of the photos is interesting. More saturated than Portra, certainly, but not excessively so like Ektar.
Of course, at 50 ISO, even over-exposing by two stops, considering that the fastest XPan lenses only open up to f/4, hand-held it is strictly a bright daylight film.
This first roll is really pretty much throw away, just trying it out, and I had it developed by a 1 hour lab which does ok, but has no packaging for uncut film, so it ends up scratched and dirty.
And my somewhat interrupted love/hate relationship with Silverfast, and indeed Silverfast's makers, has resumed. Silverfast has had some more half-baked or oddball features added, but major issues remain (for example, why does it not cache iSDR results ? Why recalculate and reapply every single time, even if I just change the display type from "Corrected" to "Original" ? Why can I not add extra frames for batch scanning on my scanner ? And why, for heaven's sake, is their idea of a forum so unbelievably user-hostile ? I don't suppose we will ever know.
Anyway, here's a few more CineStill 50 shots. Up until now I'm using Negafix standard settings and correcting grey balance in Silverfast - one of the things it does exceptionally well. This grey balancing might be actually masking some special attribute of CineStill 50, but I'll think about that later.
Posted in category "Film"
on Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 01:22 PM
Film’s Not Dead (again)
in Film , Friday, March 17, 2017
Just recently as I was contemplating my great gear sell-off, two candidates for the chopping block which got a very late reprieve were my two "operational" film cameras, the Voigtländer Bessa 667 III and the Hasselblad XPan II. It turns out that 2017 was the first year, essentially "ever", that I did not shoot a roll of film. I did actually buy some Porta 400 but it is still on the shelf.
Then, somehow, I remembered reading about CineStill film, and idly decided to take another look. While their tungsten balanced 800T film doesn't interest me so much, the 50 Daylight film intrigued me, so I bought a couple of 35mm rolls from ars-imago, and popped one of them in the XPan. And it still works. And even more remarkably, so does my Opticfilm 120 scanner.
My very first shot on CineStill 50, to see if I could still work an XPan, and following a double shot of real espresso
Actually, I've just remembered why CineStill popped back into my head. It was actually because of ars-imago, although I didn't immediately realise it at the time. I recently backed the Lab-Box film processor initiative on Kickstarter (yes, I know, hardly consistent with my desire to reduce gear and give up film. Did I ever claim to be consistent ?), and that led me to various links about currently available films, and therefore, to CineStill. And then I realised that Lab-Box is an ars-imago project.
Ah yes, films. That reminds me of something. Back in September 2014, I backed another Kickstarter project. I was hoping to use my first rolls of FILM Ferrania's new product on my 2015 trip to Iceland. Well, my 2015 trip was postponed to 2016, but now, in March 2017, Ferrania's film still hasn't turned up. However, there is some degree of light at the end of the (drying) tunnel, as is evidenced by the following receipt.
I am also not all that interested in B&W film, but since it seems I'll be getting a processor, I need to have something to feed it with. And I could hardly pass up the opportunity to finally buy some new Ferrania film. Forza Ferrania!
So we seem to be heading towards some kind of convergence. Genuinely new E-6 film producers, to be joined by the revival of Kodak Ektachrome, various "niche" negative film producers ramping up production, and real innovation rather than reintroduction with the Lab-Box. I wonder when the camera manufacturers are going to start noticing ? Apart from Lomography, that is. After all, with digital camera sales falling off a cliff, they're going to need new markets to turn to.
Posted in category "Film"
on Friday, March 17, 2017 at 03:41 PM
in Antarctica , Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Over the weekend I brushed off these two photos from the archive and printed them on Hahnemuhle Bamboo paper. They look fabulous - to me, anyway.
Both were taken nearly 30 years ago looking over the Gerlache Strait, Antarctica, on Kodachrome 64 with a Canon FT which I had only the vaguest idea how to use, back in the day when I thought photography was too hard for the likes of me. I suspect, looking back, that my fascination for photographing delicately coloured sky had a lot to do with my then infatuation with medieval manuscript illuminations, which often feature such skies. Then again...
Posted in category "Antarctica"
on Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 06:34 PM
Timeless, by Rafael Rojas
in Book Reviews , Tuesday, January 24, 2017
A quick survey of this website will reveal the author’s recurrent obsession with Venice. Indeed, if Venice had ice and penguins I’d never need to go anywhere else. Since another popular theme of mine is phonebooks PHOTObooks, damn it, Apple auto-correct - then there is an obvious intersection to explore. However, as I’ve noted in the past, this particular crossroads is less populated than one might expect. In fact to date I’ve yet to find a book of Venice photography that really grabs me, although I discuss on that last link, there are a couple that get close.
Well, now there’s a new candidate to consider: Timeless, by Rafael Rojas. Over the past 5 years or so Rafael has been steadily building a reputation as one of Europe’s leading and most inventive landscape photographers. It might therefore seem a little strange for his first published monograph to feature not wild, colourful open spaces, but instead restrained monochrome studies of Venice. And indeed, taking it another step away from the habitual by photographing exclusively on film. With a fully manual prehistoric Hasselblad. But I’m certainly not complaining.
The first thing that struck me about Timeless was the painstaking attention to detail and to providing a rich visual, subtle experience - and this was even before I bought the book: the dedicated website is a work of art in itself. The physical book fully backs up that impression. It arrives nestled in a black, silver printed slipcase, the book itself bound in vermillion hardcover. The whole presentation is somehow reminiscent of the spirit of La Fenice, an impression reinforced by the frontispiece. The print quality is just sumptuous, with deep, rich blacks and subtle tonalities. At the risk of repeating myself, the care and attention to detail that just leaps out of the pages is quite remarkable.
photography copyright © Rafael Rojas
As far as I am concerned, any Venetian photobook loses points for the showing following subjects: gondolas, The Rialto, The Grand Canal from the bloody Rialto, gondolas, St Mark’s Square, carnival masks, actually pretty much anything to do with the carnival, and gondoliers. And San Giorgio Maggiore is right on the limit. Oh, and did I mention gondolas ? Naturally, I’ve personally photographed all of these hundreds of times. And naturally, most are to be found within the pages of Timeless. But, crucially, they are all treated in original and interesting ways. Moreover, Timeless visits the quiet backwaters of Venice, featuring places I immediately recognise without having any idea where they are, but could surely find. Laundry hanging out over a nocturnal Castello contrada, quiet details from areas so close to, yet so far from the swamped, stifling tourist hotspots.
The real star of Timeless, and indeed Venice itself, is stone. Stone in all its forms which has been used to create this absurd, impossible city, floating on a bed of mud and ancient wooden pilings. The photography revels in the endless combinations of texture of stone, the interplay with glancing natural and artificial light, with fog, with water, always reminding of the sheer unlikeliness and ingenuity of it all. Through the study of light and stone Timeless gets right to the heart of Venice. It’s a book to revisit and explore time and time again.
Obviously, I fully recommend this book. You should stop reading right now and get over here to order it. And yet…
And yet, Timeless is missing one important dimension for me. It’s obviously very subjective, but what else would it be: colour. For me, there is something absolutely unique about colour in Venice, especially winter light. It is incredibly hard to capture on film, needing an extremely delicate touch, and so I can understand the temptation of black and white. I don’t want to imply that black and white is some kind of surrender or second best choice - personally I’m completely inept at it, not that I’m much better at colour. But there still seems to be a certain strand of opinion that colour photography is for tourists. I’m certain Rafael Rojas does not share that view, and I understand that Timeless has certain set parameters, within which it succeeds brilliantly, but I’d love to see him produce a colour photography companion.
[Disclosure - I should note that Rafael and I are friends, but I’m a full-price paying customer, and this review was neither requested nor influenced in any way]
Posted in category "Book Reviews"
on Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 08:47 PM
Page 1 of 16 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›