Thinking About Film Again

[Vtec44]

That's just a function of the skill of the photographer.

In that case, I am an AMAZING photographer with my medium format film camera!!

 

[smoke665]

Load up your favorite color film stock

You specifically referred to color in your exposure latitude comparison. Would the same apply to B&W film?

I shoot medium format film

Could the advantages you see in film over digital have something to do with the medium format? I have to wonder if you were to compare the 645Z to your film 645nii, if you would notice as much difference in the transition areas?

 

[Ysarex]

Load up your favorite color film stock

You specifically referred to color in your exposure latitude comparison. Would the same apply to B&W film?

Pretty much, but b&w is more accessible to processing manipulation than color -- we can get a little more. The long accepted king of all film when it comes to taking the biggest bite out of a range of tonal information is Tri-X. A modern color neg stock will come in a close second. There's a lot of variability in the claims made because it's so hard to nail down the parameters and so often the testers are biased and their thumbs are all over the scales. One of the biggest problems hashing all this out is with the concept of measurable versus usable. In the digital realm for example you can take the figures from DX0 labs of sensor tests and OMG! we live in the age of miracles where digital cameras can record 15 and even 16 stops. DX0 rates the Nikon D810 sensor at 14.8 stops. Those are ridiculous figures that have no place in the world of usable. Bill Claff rates the D810 at 11.6 stops of usable data (Hasselblad X1D on top at 12). Bill Claff's site Photons to Photos is where photographers need to look for good data. Bill rates my Fuji X-T2 used in the above example at 10 stops. At 9 stops in the example above I'm clearly scrapping the barrel bottom.

Coming up with a usability rating for film is a lot trickier. As noted above there's the projection versus scan issue. Projection printing a neg gives you a lot less data to work with than what you can get from a scan. If you're using a scan then you really are working a hybrid process. And as noted above the scanner will play a huge role. Are you using a 6 figure drum scanner that's shining lasers through the film or are you using Soulful's Canonscan 9000 -- where do we set reasonable parameters for usable? That said, I've seen folks in labs with 6 figure hardware claim Tri-X will bite off 17 stops. That's just as ridiculous as the DX0 figures for sensors. As photographers taking photos we need usability figures not lab tests. The most reasonable figure I've seen reported and that rings true with my experience is that Tri-X exposed at a reduced EI and scanned with a very capable ($$$$) scanner can deliver 11 usable stops. Color neg stocks are going to range in about 3 stops below that with that very capable ($$$$) scanner -- usable.

Bump the scanner down a notch and what most of us have access to commercially is a usable tonal range from color neg scans around 6 to 7 stops. Which is what prompted my original entry into this thread. Those of us using an above average lab and getting custom scans done by a technician willing to work with us can do better but that's not your $1.00 scan.

My access to scanners over the years has been variable ranging from a $20,000.00 Flextight to consumer market desktop scanners (depends on what access I have to what campus at the time). Since Soulful mentioned the Canonscan: I've managed to do pretty well with hardware of that caliber by running multiple scans and then combining them in PS. There's no way a scanner like our average desktop models is going to grab the kind of tonal range that's potentially recorded in a color or b&w neg in a single pass. But a scan for the shadows and a 2nd scan for the highlights combined in PS will often do the trick.

Joe

 

[Vtec44]

Could the advantages you see in film over digital have something to do with the medium format? I have to wonder if you were to compare the 645Z to your film 645nii, if you would notice as much difference in the transition areas?

Probably. Most color films have about 13 stops of DR, my D800 has about 14 stops. From what I read, it depends on the manufacturing method, sensor and film size, etc. I'm not really a technical person and shoot film mostly because of the skin tone color rendition on film. I just prefer film over digital in that area.

 

[Ysarex]

Could the advantages you see in film over digital have something to do with the medium format? I have to wonder if you were to compare the 645Z to your film 645nii, if you would notice as much difference in the transition areas?

Probably. Most color films have about 13 stops of DR, my D800 has about 14 stops. From what I read, it depends on the manufacturing method, sensor and film size, etc. I'm not really a technical person and shoot film mostly because of the skin tone color rendition on film. I just prefer film over digital in that area.

Those DR figures are engineer/machine test figures. They in no way correlate with the day to day activity of photographers using cameras to take photos. Eg. Bill Claff lists the DR capacity of the D800 at 11.4 stops: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting You can go on the Internet and find any crazy thing. Reliable DR capacity info is here: Photons to Photos

Joe

 

[bhop]

LOL I used to buy Tri-x 400 in the 100' rolls.

You still can I've got a roll in my fridge right now, actually. It will just cost you a lot more these days. When the 100' rolls went up to $100, I switched to shooting primarily HP5 for half the price of TriX.

You keep mentioning how HP5 is cheaper than Tri-X, which.. isn't the case.. It's at least a dollar MORE per roll, on every photo site, (or around the same price) Do you get some kinda hookup or something?

Personally, i'm a Tri-X fan. I prefer the contrast over HP5 and feel it scans better, especially in the shadows.

 

[limr]

LOL I used to buy Tri-x 400 in the 100' rolls.

You still can I've got a roll in my fridge right now, actually. It will just cost you a lot more these days. When the 100' rolls went up to $100, I switched to shooting primarily HP5 for half the price of TriX.

You keep mentioning how HP5 is cheaper than Tri-X, which.. isn't the case.. It's at least a dollar MORE per roll, on every photo site, (or around the same price) Do you get some kinda hookup or something?

Personally, i'm a Tri-X fan. I prefer the contrast over HP5 and feel it scans better, especially in the shadows.

This is just B&H: Roll Film | B&H Photo Video

HP5 is $58.95 for 100' and TriX is $119.95 for expiration date of July 2017, and $128.77 for fresh. For a single roll, HP5 is more expensive but not by a dollar. It's $5.19 and TriX is $4.95.

 

[webestang64]

For a single roll, HP5 is more expensive but not by a dollar. It's $5.19 and TriX is $4.95.

Compare to us here in St. Louis, smaller store less volume. HP5 $6.86, Tri-X $6.62.

 

[bhop]

This is just B&H: Roll Film | B&H Photo Video

HP5 is $58.95 for 100' and TriX is $119.95 for expiration date of July 2017, and $128.77 for fresh. For a single roll, HP5 is more expensive but not by a dollar. It's $5.19 and TriX is $4.95.

... well, I did say (or around the same price) as a disclaimer, as opposed to 'half the cost' as you'd mentioned, however I didn't realize you were talking 'by the feet', in which case that does seem way cheaper.

 

[sniper x]

I love Tri X and am going to try Ilford HP4 as well. I also am getting back into shooting film again because I just found my like new Canon A1 and got the Bronica ETRS back out of the closet since I have four backs, and four nice lenses. I wish now I still had my old Canon F1HP and the plethora of fine old FD primes I use to have for it and my A1.

 

[Cork]

Interesting the earlier discussion of DR for film and digital, but I really could not care less whether digital is "superior" in any way to film. I have a fine digital camera and I do use it, but for me the real thrill of photography comes when I am using my old XD-11 with my wonderful old Rokkor lenses. I'm sick of screwing around with computers for my photography.

I used to be a Tmax fan years ago, but now I like the look of Tri X. Based on this thread I'll be checking out the Ilfords...

 

[sniper x]

Cork, I just got a ten pack of Tri X today and also used to shoot almost nothing but TMax. I really love the look of Tri X for street photography. And in medium format I like to use it for the Ghost town trips here in New Mexico.

 

[Cork]

Cork, I just got a ten pack of Tri X today and also used to shoot almost nothing but TMax. I really love the look of Tri X for street photography. And in medium format I like to use it for the Ghost town trips here in New Mexico.

I may begin carrying two bodies again so I can have both color and B&W loaded.

I took some chromogenic Ilford on a street photo shoot in south Dallas a couple of months ago; I liked the "sepia" rendition (which can be corrected if I want) but the low contrast was not what I sought... Tri X sounds like a much better fit. Classic film.

 

[sniper x]

I also found one of my old 35mm film EOS bodies and will also carry it when I break out the A1 or Bronica using Tri X and have it loaded with either Velvia or Fujichrome. Still have a bunch of both in 35mm and 120 in the cooler! For some odd reason the A2e shoots Velvia so well! I'd like to take both bodies out on street shoots.