Film and Digital – Side By Side
I’ve been using these Lightroom presets for a while. I’ve mentioned them before and they bear mentioning again. They are Micky G’s Black & White Presets for Lightroom.
I’ve often wondered how good/accurate they are. I’ve been pleased with them, to say the least. While I was out shooting last week, I came upon the scene pictured here and took a number of photos with my 645e. At that time, I just happened to remember that I wanted to make a comparison of a real film shot with one of the B&W presets. Well, I was shooting with some 10 year Tech Pan and that, unfortunately, is not in the preset list. However, a close cousin, Agfa Pan 25 is. Since I was shooting on the tripod, I decided to go for it.
I took the shot, first, with the 645e at f/5.6, removed the camera, put on the D300 with the 18-270 mm Tamron, moved the zoom to 35 mm, approximating a normal lens, adjusted the aperture to f/5.6, and took the same shot.
As many of you will notice this is not exactly a controlled experiment. First, f/5.6 on a 35 mm camera does not give the same depth of field as f/5.6 on a medium format camera. I’m not quite sure what the relationship is, but i probably should have gone a stop higher on the 645e. You can see the difference in DOF between the two but, in truth, I really like the DOF fall off of the 645e. I remember shooting with my view camera and f/5.6 was like shooting at f/1.4 on a 35 mm. There was hardly any DOF at all.
In looking at the two photos, I’m quite impressed with the job that the filter did. It looks pretty realistic. I tried not to tweak much at all with either of the photos and I like the whites of the film better; however, that could easily, very easily be tweaked to make them look the same, but out of the box, that’s a pretty good starting point!
What do you think?
Not bad for a 10 year-old
Kodak Tech Pan 25 – Expired April 1999 – Rodinal 1:300
I think that those of us who have been shooting film for quite some time tend to romanticize our favorite films. I know that I do. For me, there were two films that I always tried to keep on hand. Agfa Pan 25 and Kodak Tech Pan 25. Yeah, I was, and still am a big fan of very low ISO, tight-grained film.
You could probably do the same thing with digital, but I don’t see someone going back and waxing romantically about a 4 MP digital camera, but who knows. I guess that any thing is possible.
So it was that I ended up in Bull Hole in Coolomee, NC with 2 rolls of expired Tech Pan 25. Tech Pan was known to have very high contrast and was almost a lithographic film, great for copying line drawings, etc. However, if developed properly, it could deliver some great tonality and nearly untouchable, unseeable grain.
I had planned to use these two rolls on something else, but when I saw the forest, the snow, the river, and the rocks, well, let’s just say that a guy can change his mind two.
After shooting both of the rolls, I was quite satisfied. I even did a couple of comparison shots, taking the same shot with both the film and a digital camera, just to see what the differences were. More on that in a different post.
This evening, I could hardly wait to get the rolls into the soup, or at least one of the rolls. As the film is 10 years past expiration date, I hoped that everything would turn out right. I developed them, waited the appropriate time for them to rinse, then had a peek. At first, the negatives looked a bit thin and low contrast, but after they dried and I scanned them, they were all pretty darn good!
As I remembered, the grain was almost impossible to see and the look of the photos was just as I liked them. The top photo is a little contrasty, but it was taken at about 10 AM with a pretty hefty does of sunlight entering from the right. I love the shot.
The other shot, of the beech tree, well what can I say. This tree was one handsome model.
I can’t wait to see what’s on the other roll!
Nostalgia
Ilford Delta 400 – Rodinal 1:50 – Mamiya 645e
It has been a slow week around the blog. I’ve not had much to say and I’ve not had the opportunity to get out and shoot at all. This week has been kind of busy in the evenings. Those couple of evenings that I was free to go and shoot have been quite dreary or rainy.
I have quite a few rolls of film 120 film in the vegetable draw of the refrigerator, no vegetables though. 
Last week I was looking through the film and came upon a few rolls that brought instant waves of nostalgia. They were two of my favorite films: Agfa Pan 25 and Kodak Tech Pan 25. A couple of the rolls expired in 1999, the others, 2004.
Seeing those rolls took me back in time to when I used to make my usual Saturday journey to the local photo store, whose name escapes me, and plow through their outdated film bin. I’d cherry-pick out all of my favorite B&W films, purchase them at half price, or less, and leave happy. If that store didn’t have it, I’d move on to Metzger’s Photo or Van Photo hoping that they might have some. It was very rare for me to pay full price for a roll of film. Other friends like Robert Terry, who visits this blog, would purchase 100 foot rolls of film and would roll their own. It was cheaper that way, but I never did roll my own film. I just liked to grab and go.
After my fleeting bit of nostalgia, I grabbed a couple of rolls of Tech Pan and put them into my bag. I knew almost right away where I would shoot them, at least I thought so, but I needed to wait for the conditions to be right. Well, this week has taught me patience.
I’ve considered this subject before and have shot it with my D300 and liked the results, but there is something special about doing it in a film that is long gone. It just fits the subject. I won’t say what it is, but I pass it every day that I go to work and I’m just chomping at the bit to do it. I may actually wait until I have a Saturday morning available to do it because the light from the east just makes this subject look wonderful and I want to take my time with it. Further, as I can most likely not get anymore of this film, that makes it even more special.
Much thanks to Tom A, The Photo Father, for giving me these rolls. I am looking forward to using them. The photos may not match the nostalgia, but who cares! I’m thankful for the memories.
By Request: More thoughts about the Leica
In my post, Exploring something new, Chris Klug asked:
Those trees really give the image some nice framing. I wonder: have you come to any conclusions yet about people and their love for Leica cameras? Any insights?
The bold emphasis is mine. Chris seems to have knack for asking those interesting questions that cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, but hey, it keeps me in business.
I’ve been pondering this since he asked, thinking about my own experience with the M6 since I’ve had it. First, a little side step.
When I was in NYC with Tom, The Photo Father, we were walking up 5th Avenue. I spotted a man with a Leica around his neck. Leica’s, it seems, to someone who knows about Leica’s are very noticeable. To those who don’t know, they seem to be nearly invisible. As we passed, I stopped, turned around and called the man back. Not only did he have a Leica, is was the brand new M9. Tom and I engaged him in a short conversation and found that he was from Spain. What I remember most, though, is that he said: I really like the M9. It’s cool. It’s digital, and it’s fun. BUT I will probably go back to shooting with the M6 because I like it better.
My own experience with the camera has been quite favorable. I wrote about it here in September of 2009. Nothing’s changed. Ergonomically, I like my D300 better. It fits my hand better, but nothing that I own, beats this camera for stealth. If I were to compare it the Olympus 35 LC, well, they both get the shot, but the Leica just feels better. It’s heavier, the controls are positioned better, and it just gets out of the way and lets you do your job. Take photographs.
I just read a post on T.O.P. called: Leica, could be worse. Mike asserts that Leica cameras are a Veblen good. A type of product that defies normal market trends. In other words, the desire for the good does NOT decrease once the price goes up. In some cases, it can actually increase. Well, personally, the M9 is priced out of my range and I have no desire for it anyway. I like my rangefinders to be film, I think.
I don’t own this camera because other people cannot own it. That wouldn’t make it more important to me. I bought it because I got a good deal; I could help out a friend, and I was very curious as to what was the big deal. I still cannot fathom what is the big deal other than my personal feelings that when I hold the camera, it feels like a quality engineered tool. Could I get the same shots with my Olympus? Absolutely. I have no doubt about it. I might miss a few more because it is so easy to upset the settings on the Oly, but as far as image quality and the ability to get the shot, I think that I’d be hard pressed to tell.
Personally, I think that people want to believe that it is better because they paid more for it. It’s kind of like going to a retail store and buying $100 audio cables and believing that you are seeing a better picture on your screen than I get with my $25 cables. Maybe you are. Maybe you’re not. Both are conducting electricity. One may have a little more loss than the other, but not so much as to make a difference to the eye. Also, more important, is the legacy that the camera has. History counts! During the time that it was made famous, it was certainly the best instrument made. Now, there are many other cameras that can match its abilities for far less money.
So, Chris, that’s what I think. Now, hang on for the contradictory statement: I don’t think that there is anything special, certainly not magical, about the camera, but I’m glad that I have one.
And I don’t know why
Leica M6 – Ilford HP5 – Rodinal 1:50
Let’s keep this short and sweet. Sometimes a scene grabs you and you have to capture it. I saw this as I was leaving work. It had been raining all day and was rather dreary when I left, sometime around 5:00 PM. Usually the parking spaces would be full and, as it was around 5:00 PM … let’s just say that good parking spaces were easy to come by.
As I walked to my car, I saw this tree and the pattern that it had worn in the paint on the wall behind it. Or perhaps the tree has protected it from the fading effects of the sun. I didn’t investiage. I started to ignore it, but felt that I simply must take this shot. I went to the car, grabbed the Leica, took about 3 shots, and went on to shoot other things.
Perhaps my mind was receptive:
A very receptive state of mind… not unlike a sheet of film itself – seemingly inert, yet so sensitive that a fraction of a second’s exposure conceives a life in it. — Minor White
Why I took the shot, I may never know, but I felt that I could not ignore it. I’m sure that I’m not alone in this.
Exploring something new
Leica M6 – Ilford HP5 – Rodinal 1:50
Within a few days of arriving in Charleston, I remember thinking: OMG! What is that smell? There must be a paper mill nearby. Sure enough, there was, right in the same neighborhood where I worked. Great! People who had worked in the area for some time assured me that I’d get used to. They assured me that I wouldn’t even notice after a while. Well, they didn’t say exactly how long that would be. I imagine, now, that it is on the order of years, as 18 months have passed and I can still smell it.
Perhaps, though, I only smell it now on the stronger days. I don’t seem to remember smelling it everyday, though, in the winter time the smell is less pungent because of the lower humidity and temperature, I suppose.
I’ve been looking for other, non beach, venues to shoot. Charleston has a few parks, but mostly tourist spots where you have to pay $25 or more to get in. I was looking for a spot a little less quaffed, tony, and more everyday folksy. I wanted a spot that would be a challenge to photograph or that I could take some time to explore and have to work at it a bit.
Since we moved to a different building this past summer, instead of being about 2 blocks away from the paper mill, I have to drive by it every day. It never ceases to capture my attention. It seems to have so many different looks depending on weather condition. I have a feeling that I’m going to find some good locations from which to photograph it, but not at the moment.
Right next to the plant there is a very small park. The park is just big enough to have a playground, small restroom facilities, a place to launch your boat, and, of course, a few trees. It is bounded on the western side by a busy street, a chain link fence and some oil processing company to the south, and a river occupies its north and eastern edges.
On the way home from work, I decided to stop by. What I noticed was that, for sure, the smell of the mill was strong. Also, no matter where you went in the park, you saw the mill. You can see it from the playground; it’s reflected in the water of the river. It’s everywhere.
At first, I tried to find some framing that didn’t include the plant, but was unsuccessful, save for shooting macros. So, decided to try to incorporate the plant into the shots. Add to this that highway I-526, a major Charleston highway, runs right above the park and it’s support structures can be seen in most any framing attempt.
Over the next few posts, I’ll be using photos from this park. As a matter of fact, the photo from yesterday’s post was taken in this same park. Also, strangely, I’m eager to return, despite the smell. It appears to be an interesting place to photograph.
656 and going strong
Who knows where it’s going?
When I started with this whole film thing, I had no idea where it would lead. I certainly had no expectations that it would magically make me a better photographer. As a matter of fact, I had no expectations other than it would be different and fun and it has been exactly that.
As I scanned the last few images from the last roll that I developed, I looked at my photo count and see that I’ve scanned 656 negatives. Certainly the bulk of them have been 35 mm scans as they are easy to do. I can do 12 at a time. With 120, it’s one at a time, so I tend to not scan the entire roll. I pick and choose. As near as I can tell, I’ve shot about 18 rolls of 120 film, or about 270 images, of which I’ve scanned 196. I’ve shot 13 rolls of 36 exposure 35 mm film and scanned 460 of those images, giving me 656.
I’ve (re)learned a lot about film and have developed likes and dislikes. More than likely I’ll stay in the middle of the range with Ilford films. Though I like really small grain, and Ilford Pan F suits the bill, I don’t like its really high contrast all that much. I prefer FP4’s tonal range as well as HP-5’s speed and tonal range. I shot a roll of Ilford Delta 3200 and, IMHO, it should be Delta 1000. It’s cool in a pinch and I have another roll of it to shoot that I’ll probably shoot at 1000 ISO. My go-to developer is still Rodinal. I hear that my mad scientist friend, Tom, is mixing up a home brew batch for himself!
I’ve found that I really like medium format film. It’s beautiful and I don’t have to break the bank to have a full frame camera, 35 mm or medium format.
Of course, my D300, slighted though she may have been, is still my go-to camera for color, low light, and sports. It just cannot be beat. On the streets, it’s the Olympus and the Leica, and for B&W landscapes, the Mamiya 645e. I want to try a roll or two of color slide film, but also want to keep costs to a minimum and not have any outside development costs.
Thanks to Tom, I have some old school 120 film that I’m going to shoot. Some of it is 10 years old! I’m not quite sure what the developing times will be, but I’ll do some research and figure it out. It’s all about the fun anyway.
Although I make jokes about digital being “The Dark Side”, of course, you know that I don’t mean it. No one’s going to pry my D300 from hands!
It has indeed been fun and I still look forward to those evenings of developing film while watching a movie. Hopefully, you’ve found this interesting, too. Perhaps it may have even sparked your interest a bit … maybe you’ll try some film one day. It’s great to have choices!
Loading ...