Film beginner's questions

[ryunin]

Hi everyone, I am completely new here and would like to ask some questions about film photography and photograpy in general. I am very confused about several things, although I have been looking for replies and answers to my questions all over the world, I mean books, forums, articles.

After one year of shooting digital I could not resist to try film. Then I also read about all those advantages and disadvantages of film, I don't want to discuss that here, I think that's solved for me and I still want to shoot digital in situations I cannot handle with film.

I had questions about film and entered one special darkroom forum and after a few posts I was more or less kicked out. My questions provoked the members and some even thought I was making fun of them. It's difficult for me to ask "proper" questions. So here I hope I find someone patient to help me in my confusion.

I'd like to organize my priorities when learning to become a decent film photographer. I have read several books about photography and how to shoot this and that and at least with digital, using RAW I think I can handle most common exposure situations and set my digital camera properly. Of course, exposure in film is to me, a different story. I think I have covered the very basic about photography in general. Now I don't know what the next step would be and here I feel I am at an intersection. If you look at my website, you will better understand what stage I have reached and maybe suggest how to proceed further on. But I'd like to ask some very naive and maybe silly questions, I just can't answer them myself. Thank you very much.

 

[Josh66]

As far as exposure goes, film and digital should be more or less the same. The same techniques and rules apply. What exactly are you having trouble with?

If you look at my website, you will better understand what stage I have reached and maybe suggest how to proceed further on.

You did not provide a link to your website...

 

[ryunin]

As far as exposure goes, film and digital should be more or less the same. The same techniques and rules apply. What exactly are you having trouble with?

If you look at my website, you will better understand what stage I have reached and maybe suggest how to proceed further on.

You did not provide a link to your website...

The link is Roman Valek Photography

I filled it in my profile, but probably is not shown publicly.


I understand the rules for exposures are about the same for film and digital. When shooting digital, I use RAW and hence I can easily check if I under or overexpose. I usually underexpose a bit and work with that in Camera Raw and it works out fine. In most situation such procedure is simple, in complicated light situations I use spot metering, when for example shooting against the light or when the subject I want to define in details must not be overexposed.

I tried the same technique with film. I rely on the meter of F75 and outdoors it works fine in 95 % cases. Indoors usually not. There is no histogram check so obviously, this is a guess game. I found out asking photographers that my problem is that I have no control over developing the negative, which, in case of difficult light conditions, has to be developed very specifically to achieve the desired results. The conclusion for me was - I have to develop myself to have control over the final negative look or to have the right exposure on it. This far I understand.

But here is where my confusion begins:

When asking about problems with indoor exposure and developing negatives in a forum, I got tons of advice such as:

Why are you shooting film at all? Go back to digital, you just waste precious films. You don't deserve them.

Don't develop negatives, learn the laws of exposure first, buy a hand held light meter and walk around the world with it, learn what it tells you.

Don't mess up with light meters, just use matrix, it is reliable.

Go and develop films yourself, it is cheap and easy.

To me, they sound like very confusing answers going to all directions and pretty contradicting one another.

I understand that different photographers will advise different things, but can we find some kind of sensible attitude that would make sense for me, as a semi-beginner whose main concern is to produce a nice photography hung on the wall that could please both a lay person and a pro? I am not sure how detailed the technical education of a photographer should be.

Do all serious photographers need to learn all about exposure laws to make quality photos or can we rely on things like matrix metering? Should we all know about Zone System or can we rely on curves in photoshop, that according to one book I read, far exceeds the options Zone System offers? Should we learn to use manual rather than AUTO when we choose exposure and leave the camera decide the shutter speed?

I am willing to learn any way, any direction, if it makes some sense to me.
I have a hard time accepting things that make no sense, although sometimes it is necessary to trust a teacher, even if we don't understand.

One thing I am sure. I am not interested in making perfectly realistic Velvia color landscape photography / I adore the photographers who can do that and am sure my skills are almost nothing compared to those guys. I am into rather harsh looking, grainy black and white photographs of people, streets and landscapes. If I want to make a smooth photo of a landscape or a person, I will choose digital for now, as I see no reason to use films for that kind of photography - yet.

 

[Josh66]

Wow, I hope that wasn't here.

To answer a few of your questions:

Yes, the Zone system is still good to know, and you should learn it. Even if you only shoot digital, you need to know this stuff.

The meter in your camera wants to put everything in Zone V. If the object you are metering really is in zone V, all is good and you don't have to do anything. BUT - If it's in Zone II - a rock face in shadow, for example - your meter will be wrong. You will have to underexpose by 3 stops to get that shadow where it belongs.

Curves can help - but they help a lot more when you start off close to where you want to be.

"Just use matrix"... That just sounds like the guy who said that didn't want to take the 5 minutes it would have taken to explain this stuff to you.

Matrix is good if the scene is relatively evenly lit. If you have bright highlights and dark shadows though... Your meter will be fooled. Spot metering is useful here.

Keep in mind that your camera puts everything in Zone V. When you meter the shadow, what does it tell you? When you meter the highlight, what does it tell you? This is the dynamic range of the scene, and in most cases you'll probably want to expose somewhere between those extremes.

 

[dxqcanada]

The thing with film is that you have four tools to manipulate ...

Exposure of the film
Development of the film (if possible)
... if you are shooting print film:
Exposure of the print
Development of the print

With digital you have the exposure of the sensor
Manipulation of the digital file
Digital offers a level of control that is really not possible with film (or is too complex).

If you are shooting Colour or E-6 slide film ... you do not have much control over the printing or development of the film unless you are that adventurous to do your own developing, which many do not.
It is critical to get the exposure right during shooting.

B+W film is another story. I was only satisfied with my B+W photography when I developed my own film and built a darkroom to print.

I think Film shooters are overly critical of Digital shooters.
We have this attitude that if you did not learn with a camera that did nothing else controlled shutter speed and aperture to expose the medium ... you do not know anything about photography (I am somewhat included in this category).
Learning how to expose a specific film (as exposure latitude an sensitivity changed with different films) was something a good film photographer tried to master.

 

[ryunin]

Wow, I hope that wasn't here.

To answer a few of your questions:

Yes, the Zone system is still good to know, and you should learn it. Even if you only shoot digital, you need to know this stuff.

The meter in your camera wants to put everything in Zone V. If the object you are metering really is in zone V, all is good and you don't have to do anything. BUT - If it's in Zone II - a rock face in shadow, for example - your meter will be wrong. You will have to underexpose by 3 stops to get that shadow where it belongs.

Curves can help - but they help a lot more when you start off close to where you want to be.

"Just use matrix"... That just sounds like the guy who said that didn't want to take the 5 minutes it would have taken to explain this stuff to you.

Matrix is good if the scene is relatively evenly lit. If you have bright highlights and dark shadows though... Your meter will be fooled. Spot metering is useful here.

Keep in mind that your camera puts everything in Zone V. When you meter the shadow, what does it tell you? When you meter the highlight, what does it tell you? This is the dynamic range of the scene, and in most cases you'll probably want to expose somewhere between those extremes.

Thank you!

Can I now continue with a string of questions? I dont expect them to be answered all or soon, just whoever wants to answer, thanks a million.

Zone system. I have read articles about it, but no books about it. How deep should we go to learn it? On the level of an entire book, or on the level like books that make it simple on 60 pages or Zone System Simplified or something or is one article enough?

What confuses me too, before I even start to learn Zone system is the easiness of exposure film outdoors. I cannot understand how that Zone system can help when I am standing in a street, want to make sure the sky is not overexposed. What I do is just point the camera at the lightest spot on the sky, meter, lock it, change the composition and shoot. Then I end up with a picture I can work with - adjust contrast, curves. The exposure and negative look just spot on whenever I use this technique . I don't lose any detail in shades and can go all contrasty or not. Is Zone system unnecessary in this situation? I read an article about Spot metering that says it works just like I have just described it.

And one more question that is directly linked with the one above. If the books say that with film you have to meter the shadows, not lights, how do I know if I overexpose sky or face? Say I want to shoot a portrait indoors. Film, I meter the darkest part of the jacket, shirt, whatever, lock exposure, change the composition, shoot. I end up with ugly overexposed face. Or not? If the light is pretty harsh, I cannot imagine how I could avoid overexposing the face, unless we talk about developing that film in a way that would shrink the dynamic range as to get well exposed lights.

 

[ryunin]

The thing with film is that you have four tools to manipulate ...

Exposure of the film
Development of the film (if possible)
... if you are shooting print film:
Exposure of the print
Development of the print

With digital you have the exposure of the sensor
Manipulation of the digital file
Digital offers a level of control that is really not possible with film (or is too complex).

If you are shooting Colour or E-6 slide film ... you do not have much control over the printing or development of the film unless you are that adventurous to do your own developing, which many do not.
It is critical to get the exposure right during shooting.

B+W film is another story. I was only satisfied with my B+W photography when I developed my own film and built a darkroom to print.

I think Film shooters are overly critical of Digital shooters.
We have this attitude that if you did not learn with a camera that did nothing else controlled shutter speed and aperture to expose the medium ... you do not know anything about photography (I am somewhat included in this category).
Learning how to expose a specific film (as exposure latitude an sensitivity changed with different films) was something a good film photographer tried to master.

I agree, I want to try to master it. I doubt there were any great photographers in the history who didn't master the technique. On the other hand when I look at anton corbijn, it seems like a technique very easily achieved without knowing much theory. I am sure he knows his job very well, he is a pro film guy, but it seems, just seems so easy to make contrasty BW pictures. Plus I see such pictures everywhere. That confuses me a lot. So much contrast and you have to know the details about exposure? Isn't it a bit as if a punk rock guitarist wanted to master Bach?
I am not saying I want to make just and only such contrasty looking pictures with a lot of grain and black. But wouldn't it be easy?

 

[dxqcanada]

I will say that the Zone System is a great tool for those shooting/developing/printing large format.
The key to using the Zone System is manipulating the film exposure, coupled with a development change to that frame, and finally the manipulation of the print exposure.

You really cannot do that with roll film as you really cannot develop individual frames (as you can do with large format sheet film).

I learned the Zone System with Large Format (4x5).
Meter the scene.
Visualize how different parts of the scene will appear in the final print.
Expose the film
Mark the that frame for the required development change
Develop the film
Print the film

I carried what I learned to roll film ... which really is only learning to read/meter light (as zones) and understand exposure latitude of film.

If you really want to know the Zone System then you need all three of Ansel Adam's books ... the Camera, the Negative, and the Print.

 

[ryunin]

I will say that the Zone System is a great tool for those shooting/developing/printing large format.
The key to using the Zone System is manipulating the film exposure, coupled with a development change to that frame, and finally the manipulation of the print exposure.

You really cannot do that with roll film as you really cannot develop individual frames (as you can do with large format sheet film).

I learned the Zone System with Large Format (4x5).
Meter the scene.
Visualize how different parts of the scene will appear in the final print.
Expose the film
Mark the that frame for the required development change
Develop the film
Print the film

I carried what I learned to roll film ... which really is only learning to read/meter light (as zones) and understand exposure latitude of film.

If you really want to know the Zone System then you need all three of Ansel Adam's books ... the Camera, the Negative, and the Print.

From what you write it seems the Zone system is hardly applicable for 35mm photography.

Hmmm. I will leave it now and see if there are any other comments tomorrow. Thanks for now.

 

[ryunin]

Or not. Here is what I found and it seems in accord with all you have written so far.

The Zone System for 35MM Photographers: A Basic Guide to Exposure Control (Paperback)


The reviews say that it is a book that won't overwhelm the reader with too much scientific analysis and can be understood by common people like I am. It's basically supposed to be for people who take photography seriously but don't have the scientific backrgound to understand Adams' books on the zone system.

One reader said it helped him to improve his ability to control exposure a lot.

 

[Actor]

Digital offers a level of control that is really not possible with film

Not true. There's nothing that digital offers that cannot be done with film, nor does digital offer more control. Prior to processing there are only three things to control: shutter speed, aperture and ISO. In manual mode the photographer has control over shutter speed and aperture with both digital and film. With digital you can change ISO by pushing a button while with film you have to change backs or bodies, but that's convenience, not control.

(or is too complex).

Meaning that digital has a computer in it and you can give control to it. Taken to an extreme this line of reasoning is an excuse to buy a P&S and give up all control. -- In any case the point is not valid. My PS-20 (a film camera) has a computer in it that is just as powerful as any you'll find in a digital camera, bells and whistles excluded.

 

[djacobox372]

It's as complicated or simple as you make it. Digital systems have been designed to mimic film standards, so they really aren't all that different.

A couple things:

1) You shouldn't underexpose negative film like you have been digital, negative film doesn't clip out the highlights like digital can--if you shoot positive slide film, then slight underexposure is a good idea.

2) If you're coming from a digital world, consider medium or larger format film--they compliment small format digital rather well. 35mm film is more of an alternative to digital, not a compliment.

 

[ryunin]

I think my confusion is beginning to fade. I started to read terri's BW beginner's primer and it explains a lot I could not understand. Why learning exposure in detail, why zone system, why developing matters etc etc.

My main problem was that as in other art forms, I never relied on mastering a craft. My favorite painters either did not know how to draw (the craft) or didn't use that in their art. Most painters who did know the craft to me were boring. One of my favorite classical music composer never studied composition and still composed symphonic works. One of the best photographs I've ever seen were taken with point and shoot camera and the photographer knew basically nothing about photography. My favorite jazz trumpet players like Miles Davis were never famous for technique, rather criticized. To me, feeling things, doing
things according to intuition, emotion, passion led to great results, of course, a lot of work was necessary, lots of years of dedication, too.

So when I started to read about the zone system and calculating exposure values etc etc I thought - it is like people who buy vinyl records because they sound better, they buy high end record players and high end speakers
and they think mp3 is trash. I also have high end speakers at home but when I listen to Shostakovitch or Miles Davis , mp3 is good enough. Most professioanal musicians I know have awful stereos .Some of them just have portable CD players and listen to their recordings of Beethoven on that.

But it doesn't work like that in photography. I can limit myself to point and shoot pictures in certain light condition and make it my style. But to explore photography without being limited by some kind of lab developing, some kind of exposure mistakes etc... requires to study the laws step by step. I thought what Corbijn does is maybe a punk style photography where you only need to know three chords, no schools necessary. But I was probably wrong and his works are based, although it is not seen clearly, on knowing how to expose, develop and enlarge. It is only easy to imitate with curves. I think he has things under control, while I only work with coincidence. I can use one of 20 exposures and maybe make it a nice photograph. A real photographer will probably ruin only one or two exposures out 36 so they can choose from plenty.

Sorry if I am too long, but I just wanted to explain my confusion and that I might begin to understand what the bottom line is.

 

[Mike_E]

Miles spent more time with his trumpet than most photographers will ever spend with a camera. It does take practice.

For specializing in B&W I would suggest that you get a grey card and practice with your spot meter. Most of the grain you are looking for is done with the film type but the mood is done with exposure.

If you can use the spot meter to get the overall exposure correct then you can compensate to bring your subject's exposure value up or down to suit your mood. This is where the Zone System is helpful because after you've learned it you will have a good idea just how much to raise or lower your settings.





Be aware though, if you lower or raise the exposure for mood and then show your photos on an internet forum you are going to get the it's too dark/ too light comments from the snapshooters.

 

[dxqcanada]

You do not need to master all the technical aspects of photography to produce stunning images.

Compare Ansel Adams to Edward Weston ... they both stunning B+W images, they were friends ... but Ansel wanted to understand and control every aspect of the processes ... while Edward did not.
Beyond the technical aspects ... they both had the ability to see the image and reproduce it.

Most film photographers understood what the tools and material can do to the end result. This would be the same with our current Digital photographic tools.
You don't need to master everything ... but you should understand what your tools/material can do for you.