Ilford get sassy!

[jonbeeza]

The dumb blonde in our local Boots always calls it 'Iford' for some reason?

Annoys the hell out of me too.

I now web order it.

What order online, and miss out on face to face contact with a Blonde

 

[shreds]

Noooo, order online for shop pickup of course. Click and collect!

 

[jonbeeza]

I really would love to shoot more film, but it would only be for me. I really love the excitement of it all, and the feeling it gives. It's all about the look and feel. But family and friends have absolutely no interest in looking at photos, actual photographs you can hold in your hand, or look at in a photograph album. Not so long ago I took some film photos, and passed them around a family get together. They were not interested in looking at them, they wanted to know why I had not put them online so they could have a look, and comment on them. It obviously did not occur to them, they could view in the flesh and tell me to my face, what they thought.

Obviously its a little too primitive for some

 

[steveo_mcg]

Nothing gets more interest at a family gathering round mine than prints or a photo book film, digital my family don't care. Though my laddies favourite photo of his grandad he took with my RB67, it was about the same size as him at the time.

 

[joxby]

I hear you. Digital is easy. For me the joy is in what I shoot, as in the subject. There's no challenge in digital... just far too easy. My next project will be film based... I'm almost certain.

Digital is perfect for professional photography though, and if that's all you shoot, you're gonna have a hard time selling the virtues of film to somebody who measure everything by profit margin and required effort.

 

[SlimShaney]

I only use film cameras. I have nothing against digital. Had lots of Niton kit and MFT kit when I was shooting American Football, but just prefer the experience of using film and film cameras

 

[XA2inmypocket]

This thread doesn't really need to be another tired old Film V Digital, nor even a Defense of the Film thread. Done to death. The original question referred to digital photographers that use software to emulate what they perceive as a "film look". You could push that a bit further. As the original reference was to Ilford, and maybe to digital photographers that strip away the colour data from their binaries, to make b/w. If b/w film had never existed, would modern digital photographers be editing images this way? I'm sure that it would have been discovered as an effect, but would we see so much digital b/w? I have no issue with this practice, although in my opinion, it is often done badly and is presented even worse (such as next to a full colour alternative with the comment "which do you prefer? - usually by now, neither!). Some of my peers shoot b/w in film. Some do it in full digital. The best digital b/w photographers concentrate on it, shoot for it, and present it well. I don't care then if it started out on film or as as electrons. If I don't care about good b/w being shot on a sensor, then I don't care if some people go further and use software filters to emulate film further - except that it usually looks awful.

Culture plays a big part in it. That and marketing manipulation. Sure, Adobe-Canikon and their distributors want us to buy their upgrades, and will convince us that we cannot enjoy photography unless we spend more hard earned money. Alternatively Ilford (albeit a rather smaller company) would prefer it if we didn't. There are large numbers of young people shooting film and sharing it on social networking sites online. Sure you can slander them all as hipsters in a smug way. However, what in culture pushes up the sales of Ilford, Lomo, Holga, and the ilk? Why are digital photographers applying pp software filters to make their full digital images look like film? I'd argue that it is because film has become the alternative. A lot of people, including youngsters, are rebelling (or think that they are) against the same sharp, shiny, technically perfect digitally imagery that is forced upon us in an imperfect world. They want their images to stand out from the crowd, to be individuals in an increasingly crowded society. Even some full digital photographers then try to ape this look, but using pp software.

It is easy to put it all down. But all I know (not as a youngster), is that I like to make images, I like recycling older technologies that I never used in their day, I enjoy the chore and process (the more that you put into each image, the more that you treasure it), I like a pair of wet skinny things hanging over my bath drying, but above all, I like the final results of my home developed b/w film hybrids. They disobey the rules and I crave that. Long live wet things dripping over the bath!

 

[old bloke]

In common with many here I started using film many years before the advent of digital, I processed and contact printed my first film aged twelve ( I'm now sixty nine & three quarters) I made the move to digital about ten yeas ago
and was happy to do so because it was so easy, however more recently I found myself spending more and more time trying to make my images look like they were shot on film spending ages in front of the computer, so a thought struck me why not start using film again so I did
got a film camera, film, dev tank etc, did the business scanned the negs and was happy with the results, decided to take the next step and get some darkroom kit, when I turned the light on to look at that first 10x8 black & white print I just loved the look of it.
For colour I am very happy with digital but for black & white it's analogue all the way for me now, your opinion may differ of course.
Sorry for the ramble but I haven't taken my meds yet.

 

[Nod]

View attachment 45544

Not 100% sold on going back to film, although I do get occasional MF GAS. While I have fond memories of doing my own D&P (B&W only - didn't have the equipment for colour), I can also remember the stink and headaches of the chemicals which was only partly offset by the magic of seeing a print emerging from a sheet of blank paper under the safelight. My reason for quoting David's second image attachment is that I'm one of the few who still much prefers showing prints to digital files - a good A4 (or even better A3+) print has far more impact than a screened image; after all, if all you want is to show your shots on the web or screen, a very few MP will do just fine - no need for dozens of millions of pixels there!

As it happens, most of my printing is done using Ilford paper, although I have a feeling that Ilford's inkjet paper division is now unrelated to their film and silver printing paper arm.

Now, when can I get down to Mifsuds to see what they've got on the shelves...?!

 

[juggler]

If b/w film had never existed, would modern digital photographers be editing images this way? I'm sure that it would have been discovered as an effect, but would we see so much digital b/w?

Isn't that a bit like wondering why so many illustrators use black graphite when coloured pencils have been available for years?

 

[Steve Smith]

As it happens, most of my printing is done using Ilford paper, although I have a feeling that Ilford's inkjet paper division is now unrelated to their film and silver printing paper arm.

It is... but if I remember correctly from the time I did an Ilford factory tour, they were coating some of the inkjet paper for the other, not related any more Ilford.

Part of their strategy to stay in business was to look at other things their coating line could coat.


Steve.

 

[PMN]

I've never understood the point of film emulations. I've always thought precisely what the opening post says - if you want your photos to look like they were shot on film, just shoot them on film. The whole concept of film emulations kinda puzzles me when the real thing is so widely available.

 

[droj]

I really ought to fire up one of my 4 film SLRs once in a while.

A form of inverted boasting?

To be fair whose benefit is this for is it for the photographer, or for the owner of the photograph? Will the owner of the photograph notice any difference? If not, I suppose you could argue why bother with the effort of film, just simply shoot digital! Maybe it's for the benefit of the photographer, who enjoys using the film, and can see the difference

For whom do you take / make photographs?

Its a nostalgia thing ...

Not so. Pay attention to the medium. It has different qualities, some of which are superior. Mainly, it's to do with image texture and its rendition of edges ...

 

[Steve Smith]

I've never understood the point of film emulations. I've always thought precisely what the opening post says - if you want your photos to look like they were shot on film, just shoot them on film.

Around 2003 there was an article in Amateur Photographer (I forget the subject). The writer mentioned that he was at a trade show where someone at the Kodak stand asked about film emulation. A Kodak rep threw him a roll of Tri-X and asked "have you tried film?".


Steve.

 

[ianp5a]

I love the style of the ads.

View attachment 45501Why emulate film when you can shoot film? If that's how you want your images to look, why fake it?

Fujifilm are big into film simulation modes on their cameras. Maybe Ilford are having a dig at their old rival.

I personally never want to simulate film. Despite having used a lot of it.

It's sometimes too easy in the digital world to go snapping away and then think about converting the image to mono on the computer. If you have a mono film in the camera it makes you think more about the image making process.

True. It might help to switch your camera into Monochrome mode if you want the discipline.

I too have kept my film cameras, but the big barrier is not owning a scanner or developing gear. Plus scanning services near me are very expensive. Shame.

 

[Steve Smith]

Fujifilm are big into film simulation modes on their cameras. Maybe Ilford are having a dig at their old rival.

They are not really rivals as they have collaborated in the past.

I believe that their C41 black and white film was formulated with Fujifilm and their black and white process and print service uses a Fujifilm minilab machine which has been modified for black and white paper.


Steve.

 

[ianp5a]

Right. But I still think it's a good idea for Ilford to make fun of Fujifilm's film simulation modes.

 

[simon ess]

I too have kept my film cameras, but the big barrier is not owning a scanner or developing gear. And scanning services near me are very expensive. Shame.

If you fancy shooting a roll of B+W I'd be happy to dev and scan it for you. You might then decide the £150 quid or so for a decent enough scanner and dev. equipment might be worth it.

This is a purely selfish offer. The more people use film, the more likely it is to continue to be produced.

 

[ianp5a]

Thanks. Yes, I'm open to being tempted to get back into it. However I don't live in the UK. Where dev an scanning prices seem reasonable too.

 

[simon ess]

However I don't live in the UK

Ah, I didn't realise.

What would it cost to post a roll from where you are?

 

[ianp5a]

I'm going to look into it. But if I do post the the UK I'd rather not trouble you, but use one of the commercial offers. Then I can complain my heart out if it's not OK. I'm not saying I don't trust you to do a good job. I'd need to try out places anyway.

 

[odd jim]

The other thing to think of is digital isn't future proof. There was an interesting article in one of the mags this month regarding the longevity of digital files, how storage medium and software may change over the years to the point that renders the raw files of today useless. Whereas my box of negs could be printed from long after they scatter me around the hills.

There'll always be the requisite software to open and edit raw files, once the codec is out there, it's out there for good