FA+
Shop
People worry too much about film stocks
a year ago
Hey; this one's kind of a rant, but, it came to mind during a discussion I had at TFF.
Many people lament the popular fixation of gear, and I agree with them. I have seen stellar photos shot on early 2000s digital cameras, on inexpensive prime lenses, and on otherwise-simple SLR bodies. Gear is not irrelevant, as there are many things I cannot do on my Rittreck II-A that I would be able to do on a GX680, but as long as a camera or lens has the capabilities that you strictly need, it will be good enough.
Similar to this, which nobody seems to have a gripe with, is the fixation on film stocks. I understand the fascination, being in this niche myself; I still get caught up wanting to use certain stocks because they intrigue or inspire me. However, I don't mean that people are "too inspired" or "too curious," but instead that I see many people try to over-optimize their choice of stock, and try to dichotomize them too heavily.
I have heard many, many claims about different film stocks. I have heard a ton about "Fuji greens," shooting Fujifilm CN stocks under fluorescent lights, overexposing Portra for "pastel colours," de-rating this, pushing that, contrast this, lpmm that, grain this, reds that, all this stuff that, frankly, is either bunk or doesn't matter for the vast majority of situations. It doesn't matter that some esoteric black and white stock can resolve some silly number of line pairs per unit area - it's cool, but, how often are you going to be printing or displaying something that needs that? Tri-X may have more apparent contrast in the negative than HP5, but, if you're shooting the same scene and printing to the same contrast, how much does that actually matter? Will the finer grain of Ektachrome over Portra ever matter enough to warrant using it on that merit alone?
More than all of this is precisely pushing or pulling black and white stocks to control contrast. This can be done effectively, it has been done effectively many times. But, more often than not, when I see people talking about pushing film for reasons besides speed, it's for the nebulous idea that it will increase contrast... But to what end? How often are you unable to get the contrast you want when printing the negative or processing a scan?
If something inspires you, don't dismiss it; and if you've found a tool, technique, or workflow that allows you to obtain a specific look, then continue working with it! However, if you feel compelled to choose a particular stock, or manipulate a stock in a particular way to the ends of achieving some vague effect, make sure you know what your stock or workflow is actually doing, and be certain you are not merely performing a ritual. Your composition, your lighting the scene or use of the light within that scene, your exposure, filtration, and printing provide incredible control of the results. I have found vanishingly few effects that cannot be achieved using Portra 160 rated exactly the same each time.
Many people lament the popular fixation of gear, and I agree with them. I have seen stellar photos shot on early 2000s digital cameras, on inexpensive prime lenses, and on otherwise-simple SLR bodies. Gear is not irrelevant, as there are many things I cannot do on my Rittreck II-A that I would be able to do on a GX680, but as long as a camera or lens has the capabilities that you strictly need, it will be good enough.
Similar to this, which nobody seems to have a gripe with, is the fixation on film stocks. I understand the fascination, being in this niche myself; I still get caught up wanting to use certain stocks because they intrigue or inspire me. However, I don't mean that people are "too inspired" or "too curious," but instead that I see many people try to over-optimize their choice of stock, and try to dichotomize them too heavily.
I have heard many, many claims about different film stocks. I have heard a ton about "Fuji greens," shooting Fujifilm CN stocks under fluorescent lights, overexposing Portra for "pastel colours," de-rating this, pushing that, contrast this, lpmm that, grain this, reds that, all this stuff that, frankly, is either bunk or doesn't matter for the vast majority of situations. It doesn't matter that some esoteric black and white stock can resolve some silly number of line pairs per unit area - it's cool, but, how often are you going to be printing or displaying something that needs that? Tri-X may have more apparent contrast in the negative than HP5, but, if you're shooting the same scene and printing to the same contrast, how much does that actually matter? Will the finer grain of Ektachrome over Portra ever matter enough to warrant using it on that merit alone?
More than all of this is precisely pushing or pulling black and white stocks to control contrast. This can be done effectively, it has been done effectively many times. But, more often than not, when I see people talking about pushing film for reasons besides speed, it's for the nebulous idea that it will increase contrast... But to what end? How often are you unable to get the contrast you want when printing the negative or processing a scan?
If something inspires you, don't dismiss it; and if you've found a tool, technique, or workflow that allows you to obtain a specific look, then continue working with it! However, if you feel compelled to choose a particular stock, or manipulate a stock in a particular way to the ends of achieving some vague effect, make sure you know what your stock or workflow is actually doing, and be certain you are not merely performing a ritual. Your composition, your lighting the scene or use of the light within that scene, your exposure, filtration, and printing provide incredible control of the results. I have found vanishingly few effects that cannot be achieved using Portra 160 rated exactly the same each time.
spunky_h0rn
~spunkyh0rn
OP
This may be a bit rich coming from me, seeing how nutty I was about Ektar a while back... 🥴
