How times have changed! ... or have they?

[ChrisLumix]

I'm still in the throes of scanning all my colour print photographs from way back. The one below was taken looking down the canyon of New Street, Birmingham at Christmas in the late 80s. It's past sunset, the usable daylight is gone, the Xmas lights are on, and ...

 

... if a modern camera reviewer saw this, they would say "..at 3200 ISO or above, the sensor delivers noisy images not worth using." Nevertheless, my current camera, a Lumix FZ, would deliver something like this at 1600 ISO which is as high as it goes. It all goes to show, we have got used to being able to shoot in low light, and tend to look down on any camera that can't make it. 

 

Back in the late 80s - when this was shot - most general photographers accepted that the highest ISO for colour print film was 400, and could not have managed these conditions at all without a tripod and a very slow shutter speed. Yet this was shot without a tripod, handheld at a reasonable shutter speed! How?

 

A new breed of very fast print films had arrived. This was a Konica film with an ISO of 3200!! The shot is very very noisy of course, but was taken handheld. The subject is nothing to write home about, I was probably just testing the film's capablities. But it's interesting that we have clean forgotten (or I have) how fast film technology was progressing. Are today's sensors really that much better? Open to debate, over to you..

 

[bugmeister]

That's an interesting shot. Yeah it's noisy, but nowhere near as much as I would have expected at 3200. The fastest I ever used routinely was 800 black and white and 400 colour. I didn't even realise this stuff existed (although in the mid 80s I had other things on my mind), could have been fun playing with it.

 

Are todays sensors better? yes, I'd say so. There's a picture on here somewhere that I took at 25600. That was rather extreme  and it was noisier than this one before I ran it through neat image, but not that much noisier.

 

3200 is reasonable for most things on the latest cameras, and I'm happy to use 1600 if i need to.

[Korky]

I know nowt about the technical aspects of sensors, but back in my Pentax K1000 days I would regularly use Kodak Tri-X pushed to 1600 ASA. In those days I wanted grainy, contrasty images, but now I'm not so sure.

 

Interesting to compare this Christmas street with Bill's image taken in Lincoln s few days ago. Perhaps in the 80s shopping wasn't quite so popular.

 

Korky 

[ChrisLumix]

Are todays sensors better? yes, I'd say so. There's a picture on here somewhere that I took at 25600. That was rather extreme  and it was noisier than this one before I ran it through neat image, but not that much noisier.

 

3200 is reasonable for most things on the latest cameras, and I'm happy to use 1600 if i need to.

 

 

Interesting to compare this Christmas street with Bill's image taken in Lincoln s few days ago. Perhaps in the 80s shopping wasn't quite so popular.

 

Korky 

 

Unfortunately Bugs, my camera will only go to 1600, and best avoided above 800 to be honest. The ASA (ISO) dial on my SLR - which though bought in the late 80s, was a 70s design - went up to 6400, so they must have anticipated people would either push that far, or that emulsions might actually go that far.

 

Korky - it's true. Shopping was very popular, but the spending on lights and stuff was pretty poor. Those Xmas lights are quite shabby for Britain's second city, and didn't get much better round the corner in Corporation St which was the main shopping area.

[David]

I think that's fascinating Chris, I didn't know colour film was available at that ISO, but I do think a good, modern sensor can have less noise at 3200. I agree with the point you make about requiring low light capabilities these days though, whether that's good or bad I think it's probably good especially when you have the best of both now with the ability to add noise for effect

[ChrisLumix]

I think that's fascinating Chris, I didn't know colour film was available at that ISO, but I do think a good, modern sensor can have less noise at 3200. I agree with the point you make about requiring low light capabilities these days though, whether that's good or bad I think it's probably good especially when you have the best of both now with the ability to add noise for effect

 

I was fairly surprised too - I'd always remembered it as 1200, but today out of curiosity I had a look at one of the negs and was gobsmacked to see it was 3200!

 

You're right about the modern 'best of both worlds' though; we can simulate film and grain to our hearts content in Photoshop etc, but also have clean images too. Sometimes, though, I do wonder if digital images are a little TOO clean, sharp and 'bright'? It's like CDs - to me they still sound brittle compared to vinyl and it's interesting that many younger people also find vinyl a warmer and more pleasant sound.

[NannyFerret]

I can only remember buying 100-200-and 400 iso films. I never knew that you could get films as high as this in those days.

It's very interesting.
 

[David]

I had heard that vinyl was officially a better and more true sound than digital recordings

 

But I think there is far too much emphasis on clean, sharp and bright images that are just a perfect copy of what is in front of the lens, not all subjects or circumstances warrant this, and I think a lot of atmosphere and even the magic of photography is sometimes lost as a result

[ChrisLumix]

A couple more shots from the same day, to show the capabilities of that film (noisy, yes - but perhaps acceptable 'grainy' noise?) :

 

In this, the daylight had got even dimmer, but the film seems to have rendered the urban atmosphere at twilight

 

 

In this one, it was totally dark, but nevertheless the film has coped well enough with a lit shop display

 

 

 

[David]

I think the noise is acceptable in both, however I think #2 works best, the noise compliments the image whereas in #1 it takes over the image. As always - purely subjective

[ChrisLumix]

I think the noise is acceptable in both, however I think #2 works best, the noise compliments the image whereas in #1 it takes over the image. As always - purely subjective

 

Yes, #2 was always intended as a photographic composition, where #1 was probably just testing the limits of what the film could do.

[David]

It worked then