Dust, Speckles, Fibres and crap on your film negs

mustanir said:
I have been to many photography exhibitions and despite varying subject matters, styles and approaches, one thing is true: The images are almost always of high quality and I never see dust and hairs.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100% - though I'll freely admit I don't go to end of term art-school student shows :lol:
 
TheBigYin said:
Agreed 100% - though I'll freely admit I don't go to end of term art-school student shows :lol:
Click to expand...

The end of year art show at my university is pretty fantastic in that respect. Big prints from film, digital, Some heavily manipulated while some pretty untouched, not to mention all the other stuff in various other media. While I may not like it all, and ignoring the usual pretentiousness your fair share of art students manage to transfer into their work, the quality of the stuff is always pretty high. If anything, it makes me realize the difference between the two art worlds - the one on the Internet and the one which exists in the real world - the former being comprised of individual works mostly standing on their own aesthetic merits and the latter comprising of bodies of work exploring themes and ideas. I must admit, I struggle to shoot outside of a chronological framework and I aspire to be like and admire the "artists" who can stick to a theme and an idea and explore it. In either case, technical ability precedes vision, for without the former, realisation of the latter is a process left to luck...

This also leads me on to another gripe I have with film photographers - the attitude that shooting film is fun because you don't have control over how the image looks, I.e. It is left to luck. I choose my film, developer, lens and camera precisely because of the look I know it will get me. I suppose lack of experience is partly to blame for this odd logic from many (amateur) film photographers, another source of derision from the wider mainstream of digital-only users.
 
mustanir said:
This also leads me on to another gripe I have with film photographers - the attitude that shooting film is fun because you don't have control over how the image looks, I.e. It is left to luck. I choose my film, developer, lens and camera precisely because of the look I know it will get me. I suppose lack of experience is partly to blame for this odd logic from many (amateur) film photographers, another source of derision from the wider mainstream of digital-only users.
Click to expand...

I fully expect there are some film photographers who rely on "luck" as to how their shots come out, not unlike many a digital shooter who snaps away, immediatley checking the lcd screen to see if it's good or not only to try again....Is the digital photographer not relying on "luck" in this situation and hoping the shot will come out ok??
I know from experience that if the shot is possibly "difficult" due to whatever circustances ( ie light levels etc etc) then I definetly get more enjoyment ( therefore fun!) from not knowing immediatley exactly how the shot will look on film until it goes through the dev process.
 
mustanir said:
This also leads me on to another gripe I have with film photographers - the attitude that shooting film is fun because you don't have control over how the image looks, I.e. It is left to luck. I choose my film, developer, lens and camera precisely because of the look I know it will get me. I suppose lack of experience is partly to blame for this odd logic from many (amateur) film photographers, another source of derision from the wider mainstream of digital-only users.
Click to expand...


That's it exactly - I had to explain it to a digital only shooter once - he seemed to think it was all down to luck. Then I got out my big box of film, and went through all the different characteristics of each one... In the end he finally sussed that in effect it was probably MORE considered than his approach of shoot it in raw and choose the look at home in front of the PC. In effect we're picking the actual sensor, and all its attendant characteristics before we even go through the door (or in the case of us with a freezer full of film - 5 days before we get to go out the door!!)
 
Agree with you all. I have settled on HP5+ and acros because I know how they behave. I have also settled on rodinal for slower film as I also know what it will do. I do need to replace ilfosol 3 though, it was good to start with but I need something better for faster, pushed films!

I find digital more random personally, especially as I don't entirely trust the meter on my 7D! ;)
 
Asha said:
I fully expect there are some film photographers who rely on "luck" as to how their shots come out, not unlike many a digital shooter who snaps away, immediatley checking the lcd screen to see if it's good or not only to try again....Is the digital photographer not relying on "luck" in this situation and hoping the shot will come out ok??
Click to expand...
No, the digital shooter is relying on their access to a much faster feedback system. Every engineer knows, introducing time delays into your feedback loop may result in instability :lol:

In this circumstance, the film photographer shoots, messes up and doesn't know it till later when the chance has passed. The digital photographer gets a second and third chance. This isn't luck. If anything, it just means the film photographer has to be better, a point mooted by this odd tendency for film shooters to settle for less.
There is a reason Nikon produced a film back for the F4 which allowed direct shooting of a bulk roll of film ;) Demands haven't changed, technology has. Since I don't want this thread to descend into a film vs. digital argument, I will end this with the simple phrase: "different strokes for different folks"

However, that still doesn't mean I think leaving dust and dirt on your photos adds much apart from dust and dirt.
 
mustanir said:
No, the digital shooter is relying on their access to a much faster feedback system. Every engineer knows, introducing time delays into your feedback loop may result in instability :lol:

In this circumstance, the film photographer shoots, messes up and doesn't know it till later when the chance has passed. The digital photographer gets a second and third chance. This isn't luck. If anything, it just means the film photographer has to be better, a point mooted by this odd tendency for film shooters to settle for less.
There is a reason Nikon produced a film back for the F4 which allowed direct shooting of a bulk roll of film ;) Demands haven't changed, technology has. Since I don't want this thread to descend into a film vs. digital argument, I will end this with the simple phrase: "different strokes for different folks"

However, that still doesn't mean I think leaving dust and dirt on your photos adds much apart from dust and dirt.
Click to expand...

Like yourself, I don't wish for this thread to vear any further off it's original track and become a film v digital so therefore I will refrain from responding to some of your comments......I think however we can agree that dust, scratches or whatever on our negs and ultimately our final images is simply a matter of personal preference.
I don't purposely mis handle my negs but should marks appear then so long as I am happy enough with the final result then that's what matters.
I look forward to viewing many more film and digital pristine/perfect and not so pristine/perfect shots on here including your own ....By the way i do like your B&W berlin images!
 
In photography, everything ultimately comes down to personal preference, which is why there are so many discussions like this one! At the end of the day, if you've made a good picture, it shouldn't really matter how you got there. It's the destination, not the journey!
 
mustanir said:
I have been to many photography exhibitions and despite varying subject matters, styles and approaches, one thing is true: The images are almost always of high quality and I never see dust and hairs.
Click to expand...

That depends on the exhibition.
I went to one called the Shadow Catchers late 2010 which was all about darkroom experiments & not one display would have satisfied a perfectionist. That was actually one of the best exhibitions I've ever visited.
 
Joenail said:
In photography, everything ultimately comes down to personal preference, which is why there are so many discussions like this one! At the end of the day, if you've made a good picture, it shouldn't really matter how you got there. It's the destination, not the journey!
Click to expand...

Fully agree!
 
Joenail said:
In photography, everything ultimately comes down to personal preference, which is why there are so many discussions like this one! At the end of the day, if you've made a good picture, it shouldn't really matter how you got there. It's the destination, not the journey!
Click to expand...

:plusone:
 
What a fantastic read this thread is and conducted in the most open minded of ways.

I did grow up on film from the late 60,s, and started digital photography when I purchased an Olympus C4000 zoom sometime in early 2002 and have progressed to a Nikon D200 together with all the paraphernalia involved.

I also have all my Nikon film camera,s and my set of Cosina,s with my lenses, more than I care to admit to.

I LOVE BOTH FORMS of photography, I really do. Having laid my foundation here is my view.

I have always felt that I personally lacked the artistic flair of other photographers and from the outset have always tried to be technically proficient and have always learnt as much as possible and tried to understand all aspects.

I will admit that I do take more attempts with digital than film, because I can, having said that I have put less than 1000 actuation's on more D200 in the last year, so about 28 rolls worth, my equivalent film rate over the same period is 14 rolls of film.

I do not develop myself and maybe if I did I would want to introduce dust and hair etc, but do, the pro or I do not mind or I quiet like that advocating this to adjust for their own developing short comings, I do not know, but please treat this as a rhetorical question.:)

All I would say is that I feel that I must strive for technically prefect photography first. I send my film away and pay my good hard earned money for the service I would be most disappointed to see my negs come back covered in foreign bodies, I would expect a refund and a replacement film.

That is my view a long may these wonderful debates continue, but lets us all try to be the best at what we do not just different.
 
Joenail said:
In photography, everything ultimately comes down to personal preference, which is why there are so many discussions like this one! At the end of the day, if you've made a good picture, it shouldn't really matter how you got there. It's the destination, not the journey!
Click to expand...

Exactly what I believe!
 
But that good picture would be even better without the dust and crap on it :p
 
Yes its a good subject this thread and leads into interesting discussion!
I've coming from a Art/documentary background, having several solo traveling exhibitions in Canada, all in B&W film and process prints in the darkroom. Just so you know what kind background I'm coming from and I agree with a lot of the stuff here.
I'm trying out digital photography more seriously now, I've done some size able investment the last few months or so with a D700 and just couple days ago Epson 3880 printer.

To me that dust/scratches....I know the old school, it can be perceive, simply put is a lack of caring and bad technique in your photography. I can somewhat agree with that statement. When I shoot film or digital, my mind processes the image and I can see it but when its not end result in the final print that kind of bothers me. When the technique get in the way of your end result, that is definitely not good. However I admit that there are surprises happens whenever you take pictures in film or digital, just with digital you can't see them right away. The trick is to recognize them and when they useful to meet your needs. I think with in all mediums of photography, you can achieve that unperfect image that is perfect. I guess the bottom line in is how you like to achieve that, to me I like to produce certain emotion and feel in my photography.....its just when the technique gets in the way or it is apart of what the artist is trying to achieve. Either digital or film, I think the more you can simply slow down and physically look a your prints to feel.....and that is the key for my photography.
 
Last edited:
mustanir said:
But that good picture would be even better without the dust and crap on it :p
Click to expand...

Indeed.... Do not spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar. :)


pentax35mm009.jpg


afterwashing024.jpg





 
depends what look you are going for, if it fits the image, like a moody portrait, then maybe it's good, but on a landscape then it's a no-no in my books :)
 
retrogamer1990 said:
depends what look you are going for, if it fits the image, like a moody portrait, then maybe it's good, but on a landscape then it's a no-no in my books :)
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top