Agfa Pan 25 Lightroom preset
I’m making it a daily habit to visit Chris Klug’s blog. I like it. I’m also intrigued as to why he still uses film. So much so that I asked him to write a post about it. I’ll keep checking back. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with shooting film, to be sure. I’m just kind of an instant gratification guy these days and have been spoiled by digital.
However, I think that when I look back at an image scanned from film it seems to look ‘different’. I’m not sure of different in what way. Digital black and white is, I think, precise. Film seems to have a character all of its own. Though it’s been quite a while, I remember that I used to shoot about 3 different types of film, but only used one type of developer. I didn’t get crazy about my combinations. I just used what worked for me.
My favorite film was the venerable and slow Agfa Pan 25. Man! You almost needed a tripod in bright sunlight! However, this stuff was buttery smooth and you could enlarge it to your heart’s desire and see not a whisper of grain. And talk about tonality. Sweet! It was, if I remember correctly, fairly low to modest on contrast. This, though, was taken care of quite easily by using Kodak’s Polycontrast paper and the right color filter. My color equivalent was Kodachrome 25! I rarely shot color negative. I liked slow film, small grain!
Next up, for general duty and shooting in all types was, as far as I was concerned, the reigning champion of the time, Tri-X. ASA (back then) 400. I could use this film anywhere. I could push it a stop or two and still get some decent pictures. For you younger guys/gals, pushing film meant to shoot at a higher ISO than it was rated. So, pushing one stop was to shoot at 800, 2 stops, 1600. Pushing meant that development time and or temperature had to be increased to give the underexposed shadow detail to develop. If I shot one roll pushed, I’d have to save until I had another to develop so that I could do two rolls at a time.
It certainly was fun, back then and still there is nothing to match the anticipation of waiting for the film to be ready to view, or in seeing your photos develop right in front of your eyes. Nor has the feeling been matched of seeing a favorite photo printed on ‘real’ fiber paper, not resin coated Polycontrast paper. I guess that maybe I can understand the attraction, but now I just prefer less hassle. 
While thinking about this post, I just downloaded some free Lightroom presets that mimic certain types of film. The above photo, taken with my D2x at White Sands was done using the Agfa Pan 25 preset.
Addendum: Chris made his post already!
Related Posts :
I've been using these Lightroom presets for a while. I've mentioned them before and they bear ...
There’s no way I could’ve gotten it on film, both the exposure and the focus. Chris Klug - ...
I was reading Tom's post: Fiber Print "A Boys Life". In it he said: I have still never seen ...
21 Responses to “Stuck on film?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
My partner in crime has just taken up the film thing with a 2nd hand bronica, and he’s getting to know which film gives which effect and I must admit, there’s definitely a difference between that and the digital black and white conversions. It’s about the tonality, as you said. He was using velvia on our recent trip to sw ireland and i can’t wait to see the results, it was my particular favourite for flower macros especially and although I’ve had a twinge of “oh, it’d be nice…” i see the pain of having to scan the negs and it’s enough to keep me off it for another wee while!
On the other hand, I did just get myself a polaroid sx70 to combine the joy of film with the fun of instant gratification
@Julie: Ah, that’s the spirit! I remember the old Polaroid cameras. Sounds like fun. Thanks for the link, too. I’ll have to check it out!
We have to be careful now, checking in to Chris blog too often might end up in taking up film again…
Me myself shot a some Kodachrome 25 too, but mostly I used the lightspeed fast Kodachrome 64, which worked without tripod in sunshine.
And I totally forgot about plastic papers, I recall how wrong it felt when those were introduced on the market, long time ago. I was a bit conservative even then, but I guess I’m more flexible to this now.
This post makes me want to dig my Lloyd’s bulk film loader out of the basement.
@Rob: Well, then, you’d better not read Chris’s post on why he still shoots film! If you do, I’m sure that you’ll probably be rooting around in the basement this evening!
What a wonderful blog and photo’s here Paul. Found you via Chris’ site. Very nice all around.
Paul, thanks so for the mention, but holy smoke, the image above just rocks. Those dark tufts of grass in the lower left just set everything else up wonderfully. I never shot Agfa Pan. You’re not the first one I’ve heard talk lovingly about it.
@Ove: I know! I’ll have to be careful. I’m already feeling the tug! He made some really compelling arguments in his post!
@Tom: Thanks so much for stopping by. I’ve done likewise and have added you to my reader.
@Chris: Thanks! I did love to shoot with that film. It was my favorite. I wonder if they still make it.
I also do most of my landscape photography on film, specifically 4×5. Just seeing sheets of Fujichrome on a light table is enough to justify the effort of shooting, but having gorgeously detailed prints with vibrant living color at 24×30 inches justifies the scanning process.
That said, I also love shooting black and white in 4×5 as well as smaller formats… there’s a richness to it that I just don’t see yet with digital black and white.
@Paul: Good post Do you still have a film camera? I’ve still got an Olympus OM-1 SLR with a 50mm f/1.4 and a 75-150mm f/4 lens that I shot with when I was in the Air Force in the mid-70s. Beautiful little camera in E+ shape–don’t know if it’s worth much now but sometimes I’m tempted to load it up and shoot a roll for old times sake.
Here is a tip for you Paul for combating that nostalgia.
Keep your monitor brightness turned down and slowly turn it up and back for reviewing each image. :-p
Thanks for the link to Chris’s post – certainly some good points.
@Earl: No. I got rid of all of my film cameras. I’m strictly digital.
Talk about feeling left out. Wow. I haven’t a clue what you folks are talking about. I think I like Mark’s idea—and there are no chemicals to inhale. I just got a headache from using compressed air, for crying out loud.
All kidding aside, these kinds of conversation remind how sorry I am to have waited so late to discover photography.
@Anita: It’s never too late!
That said, I also wish that I had discovered it sooner, as it might have spared me the time that I’ve wasted in a soul-sucking IT career.
[...] read Paul Lester’s “Stuck on Film” post today and followed a link to Chris Klug’s “Why I Shoot Film” post. [...]
I went to a photography “meet up” recently. There were about 40 people that were digital shooters, and 3 film shooters. I briefly discussed with each of them why they shot film.
One guy was so nonsensical – it was comical. He said he didn’t feel that leaving his grandkids a bunch of CD’s was meaningful. He preferred boxes of negatives. I remarked “well, they won’t know what to do with those!” And he replied, “oh yes they will, I’m going to build them a darkroom!”
In the end it came to me that these 3 had no problem with digital, it was simply that they did not possess the computer skills to do digital effectively. That is one group of photographers that have been locked out: those unable to learn computers (and I know many).
Great blog, lovely pics. Thanks for the link to the LR presets.
Rakesh – If I should be so lucky to live long enough to be really outstanding at digital, then I could get bored and try film for the challenge. Let’s not hold our breath.
I’m just grateful I discovered photography when I did. I’m betting that you are, too.
I enjoyed Bob’s observation that many film people had been unable to learn computers. I am in a generation that I expect your examples represent; yet, I get along reasonably well with my computer, and I am not about to tackle film. I’m hanging on where I can keep my head mostly above water and staying committed to digital.
Anita — I sure am glad to have discovered photography when I did!
I probably wouldn’t be in Seattle if it hadn’t been for my love of photography, to be honest. And my IT experience is what got me here — if I hadn’t been in IT all these years, I’d have had to pay for relocation out of my own pocket, instead of having Amazon take care of all of that instead.
It was a lousy place to work (I escaped after only one year, like most people at my experience level who join them), but the relocation package was pretty good.
Anita, please remember these kind of discussions are like ‘which do you prefer, pastels or oils?’ One, in my opinion, isn’t better than the other. Certainly today film seems to be more of a bother and expense, so I understand why people might want to know why I go through the trouble. I will say that I hope someday you get the thrill of seeing your first b&w print come up in the developer. It’s quite something to see it come alive that way.
Chris – I love these discussions. I’m curious and love to learn about things I can’t (or won’t) investigate on my own. My crazy allergies will most certainly keep me out of the chemical darkroom, but I am deeply curious. I’m just a little jealous that I never saw a print come up in the developer. On the other hand, neither have I climbed a mountain, and with all my physical problems, I never will. There are other thrills and satisfactions aplenty.
I am a complete convert to digital. It is just not practical for me to use film. All my clients have required digital files so it seems pointless for me to go to the extra expense/time to go back to film. I’ve grown to prefer it from a practical standpoint I suppose. I personally don’t really miss the chemical darkroom all that much.
I’ve dabbled with some of the pre-sets out there and some are interesting and fun. I’ve found that they don’t all work in ever case without some serious tweaking. But they do give a good starting point.
That photo is awesome. Lovely subtle tonality.