Lou. On film. 1995
Tri-X
When we go looking for information on the web we often have to wade through "stories." Stories about mythic lenses, or someone's experiences with this or that camera, or lens. Stories about how hard it was to get the image right. We are often told we should believe the technical information being shared with us because this or that photographer has owned 50 different cameras and 100 different lenses. We are told we should revere the photographer because of his vast knowledge and experience. But now, as I've gotten some experience separating fact from optimistic memory, my sole filter; my diviner of truth versus rosy fiction, is the final image. The final result. Is the lens really great? Show me! Are you an incredible lighting designer? Show me! Did you actually achieve much in the darkrooms you've waxed nostalgic about? Show me the prints! Did you leverage the access you've bragged about in the big leagues? Show me. Show me what you did with it.
I photographed the image above in September of 1995 with a Contax RTSIII camera. How do I know? Because that camera printed the date set on the camera in between the frames. You can see it on the top and bottom of the image. I also know that this image was photographed with a Contax/Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Planar lens because it was nearly impossible to use any third party lenses on those old SLR cameras. And that was the long lens I used for making portraits. How do I know that I shot the image on 35mm Tri-X? Because it's on the edge print of the film I stuck into the film holder in order to make a current day scan.
When I write about stuff from "the good old days" I like to back up my stories with actual images that I made in that time period. I think providing proof of the process adds credibility to the information.
I wish that everyone who wrote about, or made videos about, their techniques or their gear or even their creative vision would append an actual image, or a set of images, made using that gear or that technique so we could see for ourselves if it was really all that.
When I look at the image I scanned (above) I am a bit amazed at just how good the tones and sharpness of an image can be when the original negative is "scanned" through a modern, high-res camera and lens. Especially if you take the time to make a 170+ megapixel raw file via a multi-shot/high res feature. And it helps if you have the fundamentals of post processing at your disposal to work with the resulting files.
I'm also amazed at the image because the negative has been sitting, largely unprotected, on my physical desktop for the better part of a decade and accidentally got dropped, naked, onto the concrete floor of my office a couple of times. I brushed the dust off and was surprised at just how resilient film can be.
I'm happy to see that even 28+ years ago I was able to properly focus and expose film. Also happy to see that my film developing techniques were at least adequate and that my film washing regimen helped the image withstand the chemical ravages of time. All without voodoo film developers and weird rituals.
But mostly I am happy to see that the image holds up well stylistically and that "scanning" really does work well with black and white negatives.
So, when someone tells you that "shooting duplicates of your film" isn't nearly as good as using a dedicated film scanner and that the images resulting from scans of old, 35mm film can't compare with the results of a modern digital camera file you might want to take a step back and ask them for some sort of proof of their expertise. Maybe they can provide a nice image that directly illustrates their point. And when they rave about a certain lens from the film days well, let's see the results. That could be a new goal for photographers, bloggers and vloggers for 2024.
And when we talk about images from our film past perhaps we can provide the "reference material" to bolster our recollections. It would be comforting for most readers...
Don't tell me how smart you think you are. Show me.
6 comments:
A voice from the educationally deprived here: When you talk about getting color close to your original vision (a couple of posts down), does this suggest something other than what you see? Do you tweak color to make it nicer in a photo, if not particularly representative of what you saw with the naked eye? To make it better, say, for reproduction? Or to make a sallow face somewhat rosy? Or do you tweak it to get it as close to the naked eye as you possibly can, in whatever light you were using? It seems to me that once I start tweaking, it's hard to get something that really looks natural. And of course the same shot which slightly different camera parameters look somewhat different. I would like to find something that brought out all the colors of a face, even to a somewhat unnatural degree, but only if some hint of that color was there in nature.
JC, with the exception of stuff we do for clients I don't particularly care if the color is "accurate", I'd much rather have color that is pleasing to me. All the cameras on the market add or subtract from reality in some way. If I were a journalist I might have to tread carefully so that my tweaks don't misrepresent reality. The beauty of shooting portraits for yourself means that you get to decide how you photo is going to look. We can shoot color targets and get super close if we have to but we don't always have to.
You wrote:
"The final result. Is the lens really great? Show me! Are you an incredible lighting designer? Show me! Did you actually achieve much in the darkrooms you've waxed nostalgic about? Show me the prints! Did you leverage the access you've bragged about in the big leagues? Show me. Show me what you did with it."
Daily photographing a traveling amusement company for over 2 years, what I often heard was
SHOW ME THE MONEY.
In photography what I value is the final result - a print. Now at 90 I seem to be a tad behind the digital types around me.
Less talk more Show Me. Right on Swimmer
fotorr
The photo is dated 1995. Funny how history used to be really old but now it's within my lifetime.
Totally agree. YouTube is the worst of all, full of self appointed photography experts, many of whom I suspect make most of their income from talking about, rather than doing.
Most are living examples of the Dunning Kruger effect!
My motto when reading, watching videos and just listening to someone about a topic. Show me what you do not what you believe. It takes all the guess work out of the conversation.
Post a Comment