This afternoon I uploaded an image to Flickr, something I’ve not done since before Christmas. Now the image in question was a scan from a roll of Ilford FP4 Plus 125 film, I’ve not used this film before but I was really impressed with the blacks I was able to achieve with it, they are in many ways similar to the MM files I’ve been producing.
The image prompted a comment that alluded to me “messing” too much with my film shots in B&W processing software. I fully understand that some people are absolute purists when it comes to this type of thing however I really believe that if I can enhance the shot further in post processing then it’s not a crime…..so “How much is too much” when it comes to post processing our film?
Here is the initial image I uploaded -
Stumped – Leica M3 with 50mm Summilux f/1.4 Asph FLE, metering with a Gossen Pilot
and here is the file, straight off the Canon Canoscan 9000f -
To me the differences are subtle but worthwhile, a personal touch to my image. I certainly don’t feel like I’ve compromised the look of the film but maybe the image should be left exactly as it came off the scanner??? Either way I’m loving the Ilford FP4 Plus 125 film and I’ve already ordered more in 120 format to use on my Contax 645 and Hasselblad 500c.
One thing is for sure, we won’t all have the same view.
Cheers, Jason.
you could (and would) achieve the same level of enhancement in a dark room when wet printing so not sure why anyone would object to the post processing you did. the image looks realistic, film-like and pleasing to the eye.
so I say ignore that bit of feedback and carry on shooting film!
all the best
F
Thanks Fabio, clearly you and I are on the same page.
All the best, Jason.
I haven’t used this film to date, but have been very pleased with the results I’ve gotten with Ilford’s films in the past. Playing around with Nik Software’s Silver EFEX Pro 2.0 a lot I often toggle between film emulation settings, and this stock seems to be Ilford’s answer to Kodak’s Plus-X film, also rated at 125 ASA.
I’d shoot exclusively on Ilford film if it were readily available and reasonably priced, but here in Taiwan it’s hard to find and hideously expensive. Nevertheless, I have a roll of Delta 3200 in my Olympus Mju-ii almost ready to process.
Hi, I agree, I’ve always been very satisfied with the Ilford films, I’m going on a journey of film exploration at the moment, by that I mean trying many films I’ve never used before. If I’d had to guess I would have said film would have been less expensive in Taiwan so that’s really surprised me, pleased to see it’s not holding you back though
Cheers, Jason.
Post processing is used with such negative connotations and darkroom printing is considered holy. Yet the darkroom experts knew how to transform a mediocre negative into spectacular prints by using specialized techniques not often different from those used in “post processing”. If you see some of Robert Franks negatives and final prints in the amazing book “Looking In” you will see what I mean. So jason do what you have to do to make your final prints sing. As long as there is no image altering manipulation of course:)
Hi Kaushal, I agree 100%.
Thanks, Jason.
Must of been a troll upset with your style of cool photography. The thing with you Jason you focus on doing some pretty darn good work so I wouldn’t let someone try bait you with the over processing comment. in this case I see barely any re-touch work just finessing. Keep the photos coming. Good stuff.
Hi Paris, thanks for the kind words. I think its just something people have strong views on, especially if you worked on film in the early days…..
Cheers, Jason.
P.S Ill have to stop over and borrow that Monochrom
If you get here you’re more than welcome!
I have to concur what others have already said here. It’s your photo! Whether in the chemical dark room performing such daring acts of dodge and burn or in the digital magic box they’re one in the same.
What comes out is up to you and what you want the final image to look like!
Hey Duane. Agree, I don’t condone huge changes but I don’t consider these to be such. Having elaborated further with the Flickr member that passed comment it would seem my original scan is somewhat different to his scans of the same film, that is where the difference arises. In fairness I am doing some additional scanning of the same file as an experiment. Although it has to be said I do like the blacks in the current scan.
Cheers, Jason.
I think I’d get rid of the fake vignetting, but other than that it looks just fine in it’s modified form….
Hi Stephen,
Vignetting seems to be one of those processes that people either love or hate, I admit to liking this but accept that its very subjective.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, it’s appreciated.
Cheers, Jason.
The easiest way to resolve this discussion, and indeed prevent it from having arisen in the first place, would be if all photographers were simply to adhere to the clear and concise rules by which photographic images are to be captured and presented. All too often people are making their own decisions about the images they create, focusing far too strongly on what they believe the image should look like, and engaging in willful experimentation. If this keeps up I am sure that many photographers will be branded as having participated in the creation of art instead of maintaining the appropriate level of respect for the techniques and tools of photography.
Seriously though, “how much is too much?” … I read this as ‘how much post-processing of scanned film images is too much in the creation of an image?’. This is still relatively open-ended to my mind; for example, there is no constraint to say that you are portraying a ‘real’ depiction of an event for the purposes of informing a wider audience and documenting history, such as a newspaper photographer is often charged to do. And without constraints, in my opinion, I don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘too much’ … but this is just my opinion, there are actually no rules
Hi Paul
Thanks for your view, indeed you read it correctly. I totally agree with you in terms of the post processing of images, we each work within the realms of our personal taste and ability. If as you say I was documenting a newsworthy event or such like then I am inclined to be of the opinion that no editing beyond the most basic of adjustments should be done. In actual fact I believe the comment that started this debate was made in relation to the other parties view of how this particular film should look, quite different to my scan by all accounts.
Cheers, Jason.
I think what you’ve done is perfectly ok. Not altering the picture after scanning it would be like asking somebody to only do contact prints from their negatives in the darkroom.
After all, it is your picture, your vision, so you’re free to do whatever you want wit it.
Hi Phil, I welcome your thoughts on this. There certainly seems to be a consensus on here at least that my minor tweaks were not that offensive.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Cheers, Jason.
The image you choose to post, print, etc is your artistic interpretation of the scene. What looks good to you is the correct choice. Someone might do it differently and you say “humm, I like yours better”. All part of the learning process. It’s all good.
Hi there John, I appreciate what your saying, certainly we make choices as individuals and ultimately one could take the view that the image has a look I like therefore I can’t possibly be wrong…:-)
Cheers, Jason.
I am amazed someone mentioned you’d “over processed” this!!!
I like the Ilfords for there dreamy tones and how they flow into each other. Equally like the Tmax 400 for its contrast.
Hi Andrew,
I’ve had much more positive reaction to the processing than negative! I’m not sure the comment was so much about the processing, more that I’d lost the look of the Ilford FP4 Plus in their opinion.
Ultimately I still like the processing and it seems I’m not alone as you say.
Thanks for taking the time to comment here, all the best, Jason.
Hi Jason.
Hard to believe someone has rated your picture as over processed — it’s not, even if one doesn’t see the original from scanner.
Probably people are getting too serious (or anything like that)…
Best,
Hi Luiz
Thanks, your not kidding! I have been fooling around with the same negative and Vuescan, I’m still getting very similar results.
Cheers, Jason.
I’d agree with the consensus here, that what you’ve achieved is an enhancement of the original that faithfully retains the character of the film.
I went to an exhibition of Ansel Adams’ wonderful landscape photography at Greenwich Maritime Museum recently (a must if you’re in London in the coming months!) and there was a great deal of information on just how much time he dedicated to crafting his images in the darkroom. His oft quoted opinion that you don’t ‘take a picture’, you rather ‘make a photograph’ sums this up well, and I’m sure that the resulting images were all the better for his mastery of this.
Certainly I think we’ve all seen examples of what we see as images pushed too far – personally I’m in most cases not a fan of contrast pushed so far that shadow and highlight details are lost, or the misuse of HDRI – but these are personal preferences and I think it’s important to make the image personal, with your own stamp.
If you’ve not yet used it, I’d highly recommend Ilford HP5+ 400 as well, it’s a firm favorite with a wonderful tonal range. Likewise Kodak Portra 400 colour film is gorgeous! The guys over at the Film Photography Project / Podcast site have a wealth of info, I’d check that out too.
Keep up the good work! Still looking forward to the sonnar / jupiter comparisons!
Best Regards,
James
Hey James,
Thank you, I see that as a very good example although I strongly suspect the dissenter would not have taken issue had I done the post processing in the darkroom.
We are in London in July, I suspect the exhibition may have ended by then, I will check on that, thanks for the heads up.
The HP5+400 is the film I have shot most, I have about 20 rolls of Portra 400 in the fridge for a particular project so I will soon see that gorgeousness for myself. Your the second person to mention the Film Photography Project/Podcast in the last week so I will be sure to check that out.
So much to do, so little time….:-)
Hope things are working out in Vancouver.
Cheers, Jason.
It’s a funny thing isn’t it. There’s an almost fanatical dislike of the ‘digital darkroom’ from some quarters! I think it’s a very safe bet that if many of the great historic photographers were around today they’d be embracing and using the tools that gave them the greatest degree of predictable control.
And this is certainly to take nothing away from those who’ve finely honed their traditional darkroom skills – I firmly believe that the two are not mutually exclusive, quite the contrary! I’m certainly no expert, just an enthusiast, but I’ve found that in studying processing techniques and re-visiting darkroom basics like simple dodging and burning, my results have improved no end.
I took a look around your site properly after writing my first reply and see that you’ve used a great many films and have a wealth of experience! I’m relatively new to all this but have loved experimenting with different films. It’s only slide film that I’d yet to have full confidence in – I have some velvia 50 which I’ll shoot soon and I’m really looking forward to seeing the results.
FPP is great, really interesting show and community with fun items on all sorts of formats. This article on Portra by Mat Marrash really sold me, and showcased its versatility. I’ve yet to shoot it at 3200 but will certainly try – it looks amazing!
http://filmphotographyproject.com/content/features/2011/08/mat-marrash-pushing-kodak-portra
Absolutely, their objective would be to achieve the best possible end result, of that I have little doubt.
I think what we’re really looking at in this case is someone being protective of the art & craft of the darkroom albeit in a slightly overzealous way. Surely the more people that get in to film the better in terms of its future survival, if some choose to mesh analogue and digital processing it’s no big deal to my mind.
My experience with film is certainly growing, it can be frustrating and rewarding in equal measure, I’m committed to exploring it thoroughly over the course of this year, already I’m leaning more towards MF. I shot a couple of rolls of Velvia 50 a fortnight ago although I’m not expecting anything great from them as they were really just about finding my feet with the film.
I’ve spent a large part of last week exploring different scanning workflows for B&W and Colour Negs which was fairly successful, certainly I’m at a point where I don’t think I can achieve better results with the scanner I have. I will hopefully get some time over the weekend to look at the FPP link.
Cheers, Jason.