💾 Archived View for nytpu.com › gemlog › 2024-08-28 captured on 2024-08-31 at 14:40:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

↩ go back to index

Objectivity in (Modern) Analog Photography

August 28, 2024

Something I find really irritating about the modern culture of film photography is that even though the final result is art, the process is pretty objectively a science—it's literally just a mix of chemistry, optics, sensitometry, and (in color film) colorimetry—and yet the vast majority of resources are very hand-wavy and heavily cargo culty about “a random photographer thought this this method might have some benefit 30 years ago so everyone still does it”. e.g. putting a piece of paper under the grain focuser when enlarging even though it empirically has no effect even at large print sizes; or how long to wash film (or especially fiber paper) before the hypo is completely gone, of which the Ilford Method is the only *specific* technique that's been empirically tested AFAIK.

I would love if people actually measured things like knowing approximately how much of developer gets exhausted with each roll of film; or how things like different washing strategies, hypo clear, and photo flo actually affect the chemical residue, etc. Also, nearly all of the indie films not only don't have useful datasheets but often just outright lie about things like the film speed. e.g. Rollei Retro 400S is sold at 400 speed even though it's actually Agfa Aviphot 200 with a box speed of ISO 200, and even then actually only gets an ISO ≤100 in non-specialty developers (and also ¾ of Rollei's films are all Aviphot 200 or Aviphot 80 XD).

Kodak and Ilford had to have done actual science at some point, it'd be nice if it was better-documented outside of older people who actually used the darkroom prior to digital photography and had to know the objective facts. And it'd be nice if anyone on the internet other than The Naked Photographer[1] actually used quantifiable measurements when comparing techniques, film stocks, chemistry, etc. instead of posting two example shots that aren't even of the same subject and then hand-waving opinions into existence.

Another one that gets me, people like the color reproduction of different films because of their aesthetic effect, naturally a subjective opinion. But it's very rare to find people talking about how films actually reproduce colors[2], usually it's just vague “I like this film more”—or, especially recently, just cargo-culting all the film photography youtubers exclusively using Portra without forming any personal opinions.

[1]: The Naked Photographer

[2]: how films actually reproduce colors

⁂

↩ go back to index

also available on the web

contact via email: alex [at] nytpu.com

or through anywhere else I'm at

backlinks