This may seem like a strange way to begin a post about film photography, but I must admit that I often feel a twinge of dissapointment when I first get my film back from the lab. Sometimes, this is because of a technical issue (missed focus, light leaks, camera shake, and so on...), but usually this is because film doesn't have the same bling factor that digital does. Of course, this varies quite a bit from film to film, but on the whole, digital just has more... more resolution, more saturation, more contrast, etc. Fortunately for me, my days of wearing a lab coat are over, and I don't need to pick a camera based on numbers, statistics, and histograms. I can choose my medium based on more subjective criteria, and I choose to shoot film because, despite all of its flaws, it has character and it has feeling - it manages to capture the subject in a truly evocative way.
Here are a few of my recent shots that have reminded me of why I love shooting film (and also, at times, why I hate it too)...
First up are two shots from the Wash DC metro. The metro is full of photo opportunities - the people, the architecture, the constant motion of trains and crowds... I could spend a whole day just taking pictures of the metro.
One obvious drawback to medium format photography is the lack of fast aperture lenses. In theory, an F/1.4 lens could be made for medium format, but it would be very big and very heavy. Besides that, most medium format photography is done in a studio, where the photographer has total control over the quantity and quality of the light. When shooting medium format on location, the lack of fast lenses means that hand-held exposures indoors or at night will be difficult or impossible. For these two metro shots, there wasn't quite enough light to get a hand-held exposure (at 80mm, ISO400, F/2.8, and 1/30 seconds), but since Kodak Portra has a very broad exposure latitude (it handles under exposure and overexposure very well), I went ahead snapped the pics anyway. Since the pics were underexposed, the brightness was boosted during scanning, which brought out more of the film grain. Alternatively, it's possible to push the film one stop during developement. With either strategy, there is some loss of image quality (more grain, less shadow detail, and other issues), but the picture itself can still be very good, possibly even better. It's not uncommon for a photographer to "push" film simply because it creates a unique look.
These next two shots were taken in the "Bishop's Garden" at the National Cathedral in Woodley Park, Wash DC. With the first shot, I missed the focus by a bit, but it's still a very usable photo (serves me right for leaving the 'blad on the shelf these past few months... I'm out of practice with manual focus). Since I meter my exposures using a Nikon D90, I always have a digital backup in case the film shots don't work out. Once in a while I like to compare my digital and my film shots, and every time the film shot just has something extra, something that animates the photo. Digital shots are a bit bland by comparison.
It's difficult to shoot true 1:1 macro with a Hasselblad, but as with the metro shots above, the limitations of medium format can be a healthy challenge. I generally prefer tight compositions - the closer the better - but when I shoot the Hassie, for which the minimum focus distance is ~3 feet, it forces me to step back and compose using the entire scene. But nature is short on straight lines and well defined boundaries - it's tough to make a clean composition without the ability to zoom in (or zoom way out using an ultra-wide lens). That being said, many of the most famous photographs have been made using even more limited equipment, so think deeply and then take some shots... you might just get a keeper or two.
Stone statues and monuments look great on film - the grain really complements the natural texture of stone. That's not to say that post-processing isn't needed with film. Adding a touch of contrast, or sharpness, or saturation, or even altering the white blance, will all improve the photo (if done in a tasteful way). These are all minor tweaks - they won't fundamentally change the way that film renders a scene, which is the real reason to shoot film. All of the pictures in this post were processed to some degree. I prefer apple's Snapseed, although if I were a professional photog, I'd probably grit my teeth and learn Photoshop or Lightroom.
For the following two pictures, one was given a mild "vintage" treatment and the other was converted to a high contrast black and white, both in Snapseed.
That's it for now. Thanks for looking, and kudos if you took the time to read my photographic ramblings :) Looking at these pics after shooting exclusively digital for the last few months has really gotten me back into film... hopefully they'll have the same effect on you.
No comments:
Post a Comment