Thinking About Film Again

[Vtec44]

I shoot medium format film about 15-20 rolls per week, and some 35mm too. I shoot mainly Kodak Portra 160, 400, and some 800 with my Pentax 645nii's along side with my Nikon F100. For digital, I shoot with my Nikon D800, D750, and D600.

There are pros and cons for each medium and you just need to understand the strength and weaknesses of each. I'm not an expert in all things film, or all things digital, but I use both mediums for a specific purpose on a regular basis.

For me, pros for digital are low light autofocus and high ISO. Anything that has to do with shooting in the dark then it's hard to beat digital. Pros for film are highlights retention and consistent skin tone colors. You can shoot in the middle of the day, over expose like 2-4 stops and still get retain the details in both shadows and highlights. Skin tone is more personal opinion but I prefer the tone I get from film. Some film has more latitude as far as retaining colors and details when over exposing. I heard you can over expose 8+ stops with fujifim 400h and still retain colors and details. I haven't tried that myself. When I shoot Fujifilm 400h, I tend to over expose about 2-3 stops. When I shoot Portra 400, I shoot almost at box speed with bias to over exposure. When I shoot Portra 160, I tend to push it about 1 stop. I do this mainly to get a certain color tone.

Metering for film is different compare to digital. For digital, you meter for highlights because you can then recover shadows in post process. For film, you meter for the shadows because film can retain highlights details better. Color film stock generally prefer to over expose about 1-2 stops to get a certain color pallet.

Not sure what else I can say other than just have fun!!

 

[jcdeboever]

And a question for all who've posted ----Where do you get your film????? I searched every store in town -Zilch, Nada. Non existent anymore, so I'm assuming online is the only source now?

CVS, Walgreens always have Fujifilm 24 exposure 135 color, or at least in Michigan. I buy mine from B&H normally.

 

[webestang64]

Lucky for me I work in a brick/mortar camera store here in St. Louis. We do offer shipping and have a good variety of films available.
And my Walmart's carry Fuji color film as well.

 

[smoke665]

Lucky for me I work in a brick/mortar camera store

Lucky indeed. Just last year Ritz the closest brick & motor store (50 miles one way) expanded so despite the distance I was trying to patronize them. Then a couple months ago without warning they closed. Now I think there is another privately owned store 75 miles one way, but I don't know how big it is. Otherwise it's a 120 mile one way trip to Atlanta. Sad really, because I can remember the quientessential local camera store in most every town of any size. We had one here that had been in business for two generations. Not only a source for equipment and supplies but a never ending source of information on all things photography.

 

[cgw]

If there's an upside to the mass extinction of mini-labs, it's the uptick in quality among surviving labs. Higher volume pays for more rigorous attention to chemistry monitoring/replenishment common among pro labs of yore. The downside, for me, is nothing local, an hour's drive, and a 5 day wait for C-41+b&w, 135+120. But prices aren't totally extortionate and process/scan quality is nice. It's the new reality and it's not altogether uncomfortable.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

I get my film locally (three shops in town sell) or B&H online. Depending on what Im looking for, maybe ebay.

Any difference in exposing for digital vs film?

Hmmmm, generally no as digital cameras are largely made to reproduce the feel and function of older film cameras. Film tends to have more exposure latitude so over exposed bits wont get as blown out as they do on digital. I consider this an across the board advantage. The problems tend to lie in processing and not shooting often. Find a good lab that knows what they are doing or consider processing at home (its actually quite easy).

Dave

Don't want to derail this thread too much but this really needs correction. The idea that film has more exposure latitude than digital is left over from decades ago when film was compared with primitive digital camera JPEGs. Times have changed and the fact is digital has much more -- very very much more -- exposure latitude than film. Silly to even try and compare. For example.

1/60th sec. f/11 (ISO 200):

View attachment 141375

1/4000th sec. f/11 (ISO 200):

View attachment 141376

That's an exposure variance of 6 stops. And obviously from an examination of the images I could have gone further. Also note the above is an APS class sensor and not FX which would be even better still.

Load up your favorite color film stock and let's see a 7 stop (if film is better) exposure variance looking as good as the above. Make sure and duplicate the above conditions -- full sun with some shadows you can open up like the flag and porch on left.

Joe

P.S. Film is great. People who want to shoot film should and they should enjoy it. I made a whole career out of film and I'll be scanning my film till the day I die and won't finish. Just want to keep the facts straight.

https://petapixel.com/2015/08/10/how-much-can-you-overexpose-negative-film-have-a-look/

 

[Dave Colangelo]

https://petapixel.com/2015/08/10/how-much-can-you-overexpose-negative-film-have-a-look/

Existential crisis: do settings even matter

 

[SoulfulRecover]

https://petapixel.com/2015/08/10/how-much-can-you-overexpose-negative-film-have-a-look/

Existential crisis: do settings even matter

I guess if you have a nice enough scanner and software, maybe not? haha.

 

[Ysarex]

I get my film locally (three shops in town sell) or B&H online. Depending on what Im looking for, maybe ebay.

Any difference in exposing for digital vs film?

Hmmmm, generally no as digital cameras are largely made to reproduce the feel and function of older film cameras. Film tends to have more exposure latitude so over exposed bits wont get as blown out as they do on digital. I consider this an across the board advantage. The problems tend to lie in processing and not shooting often. Find a good lab that knows what they are doing or consider processing at home (its actually quite easy).

Dave

Don't want to derail this thread too much but this really needs correction. The idea that film has more exposure latitude than digital is left over from decades ago when film was compared with primitive digital camera JPEGs. Times have changed and the fact is digital has much more -- very very much more -- exposure latitude than film. Silly to even try and compare. For example.

1/60th sec. f/11 (ISO 200):

View attachment 141375

1/4000th sec. f/11 (ISO 200):

View attachment 141376

That's an exposure variance of 6 stops. And obviously from an examination of the images I could have gone further. Also note the above is an APS class sensor and not FX which would be even better still.

Load up your favorite color film stock and let's see a 7 stop (if film is better) exposure variance looking as good as the above. Make sure and duplicate the above conditions -- full sun with some shadows you can open up like the flag and porch on left.

Joe

P.S. Film is great. People who want to shoot film should and they should enjoy it. I made a whole career out of film and I'll be scanning my film till the day I die and won't finish. Just want to keep the facts straight.

https://petapixel.com/2015/08/10/how-much-can-you-overexpose-negative-film-have-a-look/

Now try the test the way I did it -- full high contrast sun with dark shadows.

I can do a flatly lit low contrast subject too like they did in that article. Here's 9 stops in flat light:

So yes I'm starting to hurt there, but not nearly as bad as they are in that article (9 stops). And again this is an APS class sensor and not FX which would be better still. Film does not have more exposure latitude than digital. It's no longer the 1990's.

Joe

 

[SoulfulRecover]

So yes I'm starting to hurt there, but not nearly as bad they are in that article (9 stops). And again this is an APS class sensor and not FX which would be better still. Film does not have more exposure latitude than digital. It's no longer the 1990's.

Joe

I never said it has more latitude at all. Just pointing out that someone had done a test similar to the one you did but with film

 

[Ysarex]

So yes I'm starting to hurt there, but not nearly as bad they are in that article (9 stops). And again this is an APS class sensor and not FX which would be better still. Film does not have more exposure latitude than digital. It's no longer the 1990's.

Joe

I never said it has more latitude at all. Just pointing out that someone had done a test similar to the one you did but with film

Apologies -- I had first responded to the earlier post that did make that claim.

Joe

 

[SoulfulRecover]

So yes I'm starting to hurt there, but not nearly as bad they are in that article (9 stops). And again this is an APS class sensor and not FX which would be better still. Film does not have more exposure latitude than digital. It's no longer the 1990's.

Joe

I never said it has more latitude at all. Just pointing out that someone had done a test similar to the one you did but with film

Apologies -- I had first responded to the earlier post that did make that claim.

Joe

No problem. Id love to see someone mimic your test and see how well the film holds up. Im curious if its based on the scanners abilities or the films.

I can easily say that my little canoscan scanner sucks and anything that is even close to being over exposed is gone. Zero shadow recovery as well.

 

[Ysarex]

So yes I'm starting to hurt there, but not nearly as bad they are in that article (9 stops). And again this is an APS class sensor and not FX which would be better still. Film does not have more exposure latitude than digital. It's no longer the 1990's.

Joe

I never said it has more latitude at all. Just pointing out that someone had done a test similar to the one you did but with film

Apologies -- I had first responded to the earlier post that did make that claim.

Joe

No problem. Id love to see someone mimic your test and see how well the film holds up. Im curious if its based on the scanners abilities or the films.

I can easily say that my little canoscan scanner sucks and anything that is even close to being over exposed is gone. Zero shadow recovery as well.

The scanner has a whole lot to do with it -- huge. And that also begs the question what if you're really back in a darkroom making projection prints. Can you squeeze the same amount of detail from a negative loaded into an enlarger?

The day I got my hands on a serious scanner for the first time is a day I'll long remember. It was 1993 and I wrangled some grant money to purchase a Leaf scanner -- don't remember anymore but the thing cost many thousands of dollars. So I'm learning to use it and playing around with it and I finally realize, Oh Sh*t!! I can pull a lot more tonal data from a neg with this thing than I could possibly projection print with conventional burning and dodging techniques -- one of those eureka moments. I was like a kid in a candy store digging through boxes of old negs that I had long given up on. This image for example I was never able to projection print successfully.

So film takes on a new life in a hybrid environment when the film image is scanned and processed digitally.

Joe

 

[Vtec44]

In harsh daylight where you have mixed of bright and dark areas, film does a better job with transitioning between light and dark areas IMHO (at least on 35mm and 120mm). The transition doesn't look as abrupt.

 

[Ysarex]

In harsh daylight where you have mixed of bright and dark areas, film does a better job with transitioning between light and dark areas IMHO (at least on 35mm and 120mm). The transition doesn't look as abrupt.

That's just a function of the skill of the photographer. A modern digital sensor records more usable data than film. In the hands of someone who knows what they're doing more is better than less.

Joe