mrca
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2018
- Messages
- 872
- Reaction score
- 280
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Smoke, I have a mastin preset, close but no cigar. Even with the great dynamic range of a d850, it doesn't capture the detail in the sky that I get with portra. The guys on a youtube channel F stopppers sponsored by a plug in company ridiculed a lady for shooting 25 grand worth of film for weddings the year before. So they set out to prove it could be done with digital. After an hour, they gave up. They just couldn't match the skin tones nor the grain structure. I just watched Once upon a time in Hollywood and forgot Tarantino shoots all his movies on film. At one point I stopped the movie and had to get up and look at the skin tones ln tates leg, that wasn't makeup. Then I remembered doing the same thing with girl with a pearl earring 10 years ago. They both used the same kodak movie film stock which is now available in 35 mm film cassettes. Will require one additional step to remove an extra layer on the non emulsion side when I develop, but the skin tones, incredible. Different than portra, but omg. Acutually, 45 mp matches medium format. 4x5 dusts 35 mm digital not only in resolution, but both mf and 4x5 has a huge negative compared to 35mm with skin tones over a much larger area. 35 mm is 864 square mm. 67 is 4,200. Now, I don't shoot mf for resolution but do like making large enlargements, I shoot is also for the grain in proportion to the negative size. The grain is random sizes and is more obvious in light tones and graduates into shadows and highlights. When grain is applied digitally it is an even size of grains and even over the entire image. It might be natural to think film for street where there is no time to adjust exposure would not work. Actually, hp5 had 5 stops of over exposure that will give a near identical exposure to one at proper exposure. Try over exposing even a d850 5 stops, I did, you get a near pure white image. Film is actually easier. But it is an expense, sending to my lab, total per roll $30 and on a 10 shot 67 roll that' 3 bucks a click. Developing my self, 80 cents a click but 35 mm is only 20 per click. I guess it's like folks who like vinyl records, they embrace the imperfections. I am bored with sterile, ultra sharp digital image. It looks...digital. But I shot film for over 40 years. Now most folks on the street wont be able to tell the difference and it's up to a photographer to educate their clients if they dont know the difference. But now, with all the 20/30 something jumping into film, my lab turnaround went from one week to 3 weeks and I am waiting for some film to get off of backorder.@mrca I'll admit I've thought seriously about 4x5, but the truth is I have several rolls of 35mm film in the fridge that have been there several years. The convience of digital just outweighs the extra effort. Plus I've read several articles comparing resolution of digital vs 4x5 which pretty much puts the two on equal footing once you pass 30MP on printing large prints. With Luts, Presets and Profiles in LR and PS it's relativrly easy to replicate a "film look", that only the most careful observation might discover. Considering the fact that printing a film negative by a commercial lab requires digitizing and is then printed in the same manner as a digital image, I just don't see the advantage of film. Now if you print your own on an enlarger then yes.