Commentary on Films
Film for a photographer provides his palette. Just as a painter uses different media to produce different effects in his work, so a photographer uses different films to match conditions and to achieve different results. No one film provides all of the working professionals needs. In my case I use neutral films which will give me a very predictable image that I choose. Color films are quite good today. Usually the resolution and grain in films 35mm 200asa and under are superb and can result in enlargements of very great size without compromising the image, if the technical work by the photographer was good. Agfa, Kodak and Fuji films are the most popular today. The color films are usually grouped into neutral, enhancing and major enhancing films. Depending what your objective is each has its own market. For club contests where immediate impact is important, major enhancing films such as Velvia (Fuji) and the now defunct Lumiere (Kodak) are the norm. For editorial work in magazines and some inexpensive books one might use the modest enhancing films. For fine art work, excellent books, and archival records one might use the neutral films. Other then these factors, an enhancing film such as Lumiere or Elite (Kodak) might provide better color rendition on high white light days, eliminating the washed out effect that many neutral films render. In aerials the concentration of atmosphere, (white light) might need the concentration that an enhancing film could give it. So the fact is, that a photographer must look at the message that he or she wants to achieve and then choose a film that will accomplish that goal. Many times I will hear, while in the field, that a person swears that this film or the other is the best. They are right, but for the wrong reason. Rather they have limited themselves in their palette choices, and must by definition, limit the scope and impact of their images.
There arises the question of print (negative) versus slide (positive) film. The picture film industry is a very labor intensive industry. When I use print film, I must rely on the perfection of two steps, developing and printing to determine the quality of the image. In slides, I rely on one step prior to becoming part of the solution. My editing procedure is quite elaborate so as to determine the quality, technically and esthetically, of the image. I want to see it as close to the source as possible. When I enlarge, I print directly to the final product, to again shorten the steps to a final image (Ilfochrome or Kodak's R Process). What this gives me, is a lesser chance of error which improves the percentage of final product acceptance. Fine art prints are a continual process of seeking to reduce error in the final labor intensive product.
I think that our senses have a tendency to compartmentalize and separate those images that are not real, out of the subconscious. I tend to do this and have a difficult time to recall images that are enhanced or not quite real. I notice this in polarized images, artificial fill-in light where the light is not naturally possible, and color representation that is exaggerated. I feel that because of the film used and the changing of natural light, most color images are not recallable, creating a problem in the collecting of art. Therefore I take great pains to insure that my images are believable and recallable. I use Agfachrome 100 as my primary film, noting that the edge between colors is not so greatly defined, while the resolution is excellent. Natures colors tend to be accurately suited to my eye. In addition it is a very neutral film. I use Kodachrome 200asa for animal and nature shots. The extra speed allows me to use my shoulder mount and when I push the film, it increases the contrast when light is lower. I use Kodachrome 64asa sometimes for its neutrality. Finally I use the new Ektachrome 100S and 200 for those rare times that I need to enhance the colors due to a high level of white light, atmosphere or low light. I do not use filters or fill in flash. I find that the Fuji films tend to distort the greens and reds, though the new films (Provia) are significantly better then they were (Velvia). I find that my customers tend to remember the (real) more neutral images better. This also has the tendency of making me honest in my image making where I have to work for the good image rather then the palette, polorizer or fill-in flash to improve the photo. I also find that the slow films of all manufacturers have a tendency to enhance more then what I would wish. There is a thought that the slower better resolution films produce better prints. The slower films do produce a finer grain and are better in the lab tests. Pictures are not taken in a lab. Good nature images have as a major deterrent, camera shake. Thus it would be wiser to use a high speed film with acceptable resolution to stop the animal so that an acceptable image may be obtained. The loss in print quality is minute while the photographer might have an award winning image. When I changed my nature work to Kodachrome 200 from 64asa, my "keep" rate went from 35% to 80%. That is significant both in terms of time and of film.
The summary of the discussion revolves around how the maker determines that his needs are being met. For sure all films are his or her palette. The question is " what is your reason for capturing the image and how do you plan to accomplish it most efficiently and accurately". Then the question must be "What are the conditions under which I will photograph". Then a following question must be, "What tools must I take and be prepared to use to obtain the results that I wish for". All of these questions should be answered prior to the shoot so as to not impede the session. Thus the choice of film is an important variable in the successful photographers equation.
Workboat on the Chesapeake at Eastern Neck NWR
Back to Photography Commentary
Back to LNS Art Main Page
For problems or questions regarding this web contact lucian@lnsart.com
Last updated: January 10, 2008.