Film vs. Digital

[Doylem]

One thing that has surprised me time and again with this thread is how many times people have mentioned the development process and the possibility of learning the ins and outs of a darkroom. I NEVER considered this; I thought I could (and would) hand over any negatives to the nearest processing company and get some well-processed pictures back. Mainly because I would trust them more than myself, being professionals and all.

And one final thing, B&W seems to have been mentioned a few times as being more likely to get decent results than colour, as there is less for the processing to screw up? I might start off with this then, I've never really shot any B&W with my dslr so maybe it would be a good first step in to the foray of film

If you want to be inspired, and see what is possible, check out the black & white prints (originals, if possible) by photographers such as Brett and Edward Weston, Minor White, Harry Callaghan, Aaron Siskind, and, of course, Ansel Adams. Their prints are beautiful artifacts in themselves: you don’t know what ‘black’ really means till you see a hand-printed image by one of these guys. So good... you could almost eat them...

 

[MacCruiskeen]

One thing that has surprised me time and again with this thread is how many times people have mentioned the development process and the possibility of learning the ins and outs of a darkroom. I NEVER considered this; I thought I could (and would) hand over any negatives to the nearest processing company and get some well-processed pictures back. Mainly because I would trust them more than myself, being professionals and all.

You can, but the number of good labs is shrinking. And here the cost difference is quite noticeable--processing b&w is much, much less expensive at home. A lab that can make a better print than you can at home is going to cost $$$.

Part of the difference between color and b&w processing is process control--the color process is much stricter (the toughest part is temp control), and now the chemistry is harder to get (I anticipate that color materials will be gone from the market long before b&w). And in printing, you have to worry about all the usual color issues--balancing and correcting, etc. Not to be too discouraging--the results can be great if you want to learn how to do it. But it is a steeper learning curve than b&w. Most people start with b&w. Being color blind myself, I rely on others for my color printing.

On the other hand there's only one basic process for color, but there's a thousand ways to process b&w.

I should mention that processing film only requires a dark bag and a tank, whereas printing requires a little more dedicated space for the enlarger and trays. Mine is a corner of my home office.

 

[leighonigar]

Photography is an art form. One artist might prefer marble to bronze, watercolour to oils, sable brushes to synthetic. You as the artist can experiment, play and explore tools and media and none is superior to any other.

I'd certainly say have a go with film while it's still cheap and available. As has already been said you can often pick up great cameras for a few pounds in charity shops. Poundland sells print film which is fine for a bit of testing (tends to be Agfa vista plus 200 - grainy and often giving weird skin tones), a local high-street store (Cromer, Norfolk, uk) processes my experiments for £1.50.

I'd have to shoot a lot of bad shots to meet the cost of doing so digitally.

 

[Jessica Lares]

You only got a few good shots? Hating it and notbeing able to do good work go together, one causes the other.

But obviously one can do good work with film. Go to any library and look at 1970s and 1980 vintage Sport Illustrated or National Geographic. All those images are film.

I managed to get thousands in decent images. I used to buy black and white film in 100 foot rolls and reload it onto casssets. I'd get 40 exposures on a roll for about $1 per roll. It might cost $2 now.

Of course.

I don't doubt film, it's great. It's just not for me.

 

[snberk103]

....
One thing that has surprised me time and again with this thread is how many times people have mentioned the development process and the possibility of learning the ins and outs of a darkroom. I NEVER considered this; I thought I could (and would) hand over any negatives to the nearest processing company and get some well-processed pictures back. Mainly because I would trust them more than myself, being professionals and all.
....
Alex

[Bolding Added] The issue with expecting a lab to print your stuff is that they weren't there when you pushed the shutter. For basic stuff the professionals will do a fine job. A simple portrait of someone with normal skin. A photo of a tree, perhaps. But for the majority of photos (for most people at least) there is no single 'correct' colour. The colour of the light during the day changes hourly, sometimes minute by minute, depending on the time of day and the weather. Your eyes and brain don't pay conscious attention to the colour - but this 'colour' influences how we perceive the scene. The lab, it wasn't there. They don't know why you wanted to photograph the scene, and what you are trying to say with the photo.

Most people can't even explain to a lab why the colour is wrong.... unless they have done post-processing themselves (digital or wet printing). My advice is to keep at the digital post-processing. There are ways to make it fast and efficient. You can easily be as good as a one-hour lab, though course it is more work to get better than that. If you want to shoot film, try slide film... it can be an eye-opening experience when you see the colours that were really there.

Luck

 

[Evil Spoonman]

Just as a counter viewpoint to all of these film nostalgists, whose opinions are totally legitimate and worth considering.

Film produces lower quality images. It is harder and more time consuming to work with at every stage of the workflow. It is difficult to get the results you want (especially in colour). I honestly can't think of a reason I'd ever want to think about film again.

Somebody in this thread said the right thing earlier. Being a good photographer is about controlling and determining the parameters in your brain, not letting the camera do it automatically.

Which means if you go digital, you need a camera that has access to all of the knobs and dials to directly and easily control those primary properties of composition. A lot of digital cameras have that. Most DLSRs, and some enthusiast mirrorless offerings too.

On my digital camera I can control all of these parameters with knobs and dials just like on a film camera. The results in my viewfinder and on my display are updated live. I can easily see underexposure and overexposure, and consciously ignore either one if it assists my composition. I tend to take few photos, I don't burst them out (although my camera can). I might take fewer with film, or more, I've never compared.

In a way I judge the quality of the photograph based on how much post-editing it needs. Generally speaking my best photographs require no editing. However, I've been able to salvage some great shots that were not perfect out of the camera. Everybody makes mistakes.

Digital is convenient, it is forgiving, it offers the photographer more control, and it is easier to learn photography with.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

What a terrific thread, full of information, advice, and lore.

To the OP, I still shoot with film. Four years ago, my Nikon F100 was stolen while I was en route to the Caucasus, and I debated whether to go digital as a replacement or go completely retro. One of the things that deterred me was the sheer size and weight of digital SLRs - they are absolute monsters, and weigh a lot, thus making classical 'street photography' a lot less comfortable.

So, instead, I went retro, and treated myself to a Leica R (used, the R7, a lovely camera and I take excellent pictures with it) which I found in a licensed Leica camera shop. For a few decades, I used to be a really keen photographer, taking my camera everywhere, and framing and thinking about shots.

Now, I have to remind myself sometimes to take it out with me and remember to use it. The Leica demands that you work for your finished picture - you have to think, plan, and decide how you wish to frame the image. I had become a little lazy with the Nikon F100, having graduated from the old (and excellent) Pentax's (ME Super, P30T) which helped you but left you in charge of what you were doing.

But being in charge does come at a cost, not necessarily financial. Having had to work (harder) at composing a picture, and having (a little embarrassingly) to relearn some skills I had more or less discarded, meant that some of my early pictures with the Leica are best forgotten. However, the ones which were good, were very, very good, and the quality of light in the best ones was (is) a source of sheer pleasure.

Much more recently, very recently, I invested in a Leica M6, along with a few lenses, and am really looking forward to using it and seeing what it can do. The key difference is that when using film you have to think about taking a picture before you do so; unless the camera is with you all the time (as does tend to happen when I'm abroad, travelling, holidaying, or, occasionally, working).

Re digital, I have never had a digital camera; the weight issues I mentioned earlier, (in the very good quality - ie DSLR - cameras), and the poor quality of the pictures taken by early digital cameras (compared to that of film cameras at the time) meant that I had no interest in converting to digital. The easy, point-and-shoot digital cameras never appealed to me, as I had been used to good quality film cameras. Moreover, when mobile phones began to come with cameras, I never much cared for that 'snap happy' culture either, and have never used them.

Now, I readily accept that a digital camera allows for a lot more spontaneity, and ease of use, but I am not usually looking for that when I use a camera; rather, I like to try to capture something.....worth noting.

Once again, great thread. Thanks for starting it, OP.

 

[Edge100]

Printing & processing B&W film yourself is a lot easier than colour film. The chemicals and processes required are more simple.

Perhaps with printing, this is true.

But developing colour film - especially colour negative film - is much simpler than B&W. All you need is to be able to maintain 102F for 3min 30s. That's it. The chemistry is widely available through the regular channels.

----------

I shoot about 98% film. I have almost no interest in digital photography, and only shoot my X-Pro1 for work where fast turnaround is essential. Given the option, I'd shoot film exclusively.

Why?

1. I like the look of the results I get on film.

2. I like using film cameras, especially given the current price of a top-end film kit.

Is film expensive? It depends how you look at it.

I shoot with a Leica M rangefinder. A current model M Typ 240 is $7000. An M6 is $1200. $5800 buys a lot of film.

----------

Film produces lower quality images. It is harder and more time consuming to work with at every stage of the workflow. It is difficult to get the results you want (especially in colour). I honestly can't think of a reason I'd ever want to think about film again.

'Film' is a broad term. A 4x5 or 8x10 chrome most certainly does not produce 'lower quality images' than a digital camera (of any ilk). My Mamiya 7 produces 6x7 negatives that rival any modern DSLR.

When it comes to 35mm film vs FF digital, you're right. But then again, I don't care.

Finally, in the event you DO care, 'image quality' is not simply defined by resolution. How good is the dynamic range on your DSLR? Assuming you own a D800E, you might eek out 14 stops, under ideal conditions.

Portra 400 gives me at least 17-18 stops, all day long.

Digital is convenient, it is forgiving, it offers the photographer more control, and it is easier to learn photography with.

It certainly is convenient. The rest, I'm not so sure.

 

[ChrisA]

..
And one final thing, B&W seems to have been mentioned a few times as being more likely to get decent results than colour, as there is less for the processing to screw up? I might start off with this then, I've never really shot any B&W with my dslr so maybe it would be a good first step in to the foray of film

Alex

It is more driven by artistic then technical.

I mean there is littel artistic reason to process your own color film because there is only "right way" any deviation is at best a special effect and usually just bad. So if you do process color (and I've done a lot of color transparency processing) you are just being a lab robot, not an artist. I did my own so I could see the results same day. (I used a Jobo machine.)

Black and White on the other hand, you have tons of way to go you can really change the look of the result. Tone distribution, grain, contrast and warm and cold tones are all under your control. So with black and white process there is room for creative controls

Shooting digital is very very much like shooting color slide film. The results and up almost the same. Or you can adjust the digal raw files to look like any film

This is not true of black and white film

Next with film you get to select the format. 35mm film is 24x25mm. 120 film can be either 4.5x6cm or up to 6x7cm and then there is 4x5 inch. The cost of the equipment can be very low, even for 4x5, cheaper then an entry level dSLR.

If I were wanting to start out with film, I'd go with 120 roll film. the cost can be very low and it is good in that there are fewer exposures per roll. You can change film type for each subject and the results are much better then 35mm. You dn't need to spend $$ on a Haselbland or Rollie system. Yashicamats (sp?) and Pentax and Mamiya cameras cost now only a couple hundred bucks.

 

[kingalexthe1st]

[Bolding Added] The issue with expecting a lab to print your stuff is that they weren't there when you pushed the shutter..... The colour of the light during the day changes hourly, sometimes minute by minute, depending on the time of day and the weather.

Now this is going to show just how much I don't know about film I thought film would have a particular white balance in which it would be best used. So the smart photographer would use film that was made to be used in the golden hour(s) at the golden hours, and the processing guy would take note of this and adjust his chemicals accordingly. Or am I just being really naive here?

Somebody in this thread said the right thing earlier. Being a good photographer is about controlling and determining the parameters in your brain, not letting the camera do it automatically.

I whole-heartedly agree. When I bought my camera I immediately set it on manual and have rarely changed it since because I wanted to learn how photography worked. Too often I see people with great equipment, but up pops the flash in the middle of the day, giving away their 'auto mode'. I think it's such a waste, but then again I'm a bit of a snob

Digital is convenient, it is forgiving, it offers the photographer more control, and it is easier to learn photography with.

Yep, yep, yep and yep. It certianly is easier to learn photography with, but I would counter and say it is also far easier to stay as a beginner due to all the safety nets that are in place with a digital. I think the fastest growth comes with making accountable mistakes. It's not the main reason I'd like to try film, but it's one of them.

Once again, great thread. Thanks for starting it, OP.

Naaaw, shucks. you're welcome

This thread has turned in to so much more than I thought it would. Think I might take a back seat for a while as the discussion has taken a few extra turns, which is great.

Thanks again, guys. I love this forum and how generous everyone is to give their experiences (good and bad) on the topic of film and digital!

Alex

 

[Evil Spoonman]

'Film' is a broad term. A 4x5 or 8x10 chrome most certainly does not produce 'lower quality images' than a digital camera (of any ilk). My Mamiya 7 produces 6x7 negatives that rival any modern DSLR.

To be fair, I was assuming we'd stay within the usual consumer/semi-pro bubble. I can't see a hobbyist going and buying a medium format digital camera, or a very large frame negative camera either.

Finally, in the event you DO care, 'image quality' is not simply defined by resolution. How good is the dynamic range on your DSLR? Assuming you own a D800E, you might eek out 14 stops, under ideal conditions.

Portra 400 gives me at least 17-18 stops, all day long.

The "film has more dynamic range" argument is trotted out often by film enthusiasts. Which isn't to say that it is incorrect. My digital camera has about 12.5 stops of dynamic range, and professional film can certainly have more.

Where the argument becomes more subtle is whether or not you can actually pull all that DR out of the film. Through careful exposure and expert processing (with a bit of luck) you can get some ridiculous DR out of film. Well in excess of 17-18 actually. However, the chances of being able to do that at home, or do it repeatedly, or get a lab to do it, is very slim. I expect most film users are going to have dynamic range very similar to digital camera users in practice. It is also worth noting that just as you can stretch a bit and get some great DR results out of film. You can also stretch a bit and pull a bit of extra out of RAW files (everybody shoots RAW, right?).


Anyways, there was never any intention of opening up that old debate. Although maybe this is the topic for it? I have every respect for the tradition and capabilities of film.

Yep, yep, yep and yep. It certianly is easier to learn photography with, but I would counter and say it is also far easier to stay as a beginner due to all the safety nets that are in place with a digital. I think the fastest growth comes with making accountable mistakes. It's not the main reason I'd like to try film, but it's one of them.

If accountable mistakes help you learn, then perhaps film will help you. That is not the way I learn. if my mistakes are punished harshly I don't feel like I have the flexibility to push boundaries as hard as I want to.

 

[Padaung]

Now this is going to show just how much I don't know about film I thought film would have a particular white balance in which it would be best used. So the smart photographer would use film that was made to be used in the golden hour(s) at the golden hours, and the processing guy would take note of this and adjust his chemicals accordingly. Or am I just being really naive here?
Alex

Yes and no. Colour film typically comes in daylight balanced and tungsten balanced variants. Tungsten balanced film might be very hard to find now. Frequently photographers would use filters (blue to counteract tungsten light, magenta to counteract fluorescent light colour casts) on the front of the lens and/or flash to white balance a scene. That was about it though, no custom white balance, or pre-sets for many common scenarios.

Each type of film had its own unique characteristics. This website should make an interesting read for you. Because images couldn't be modified in the same way as they can now with digital, you had to pre-visualise the style you were seeking to achieve and use the most appropriate film.

I've also just found this website, which may be of interest to you. B&w film can be bullied around quite a lot more than colour film. As someone else said, colour film is a lot more temperature sensitive than b&w, so gives far less leeway for useful experimentation. Click through to a film type to find out various ways people have tried to develop it - http://filmdev.org/film_brand/list

A problem you'll have now is that a lot of these films are simply not made any more. Kodak, Agfa, Konica - all gone. Ilford is in serious trouble. Fuji still makes film but the choice is now more limited than ever. That said, I've just found out the company that now owns Kodak is going to keep making film, which is good to hear.

A pro or high street lab would not modify their chemicals, they would work to recommended standards (chemical concentration and temperatures) so they can process other people's films too. Processing tanks are tens of litres in size (chemicals cost money), modifying that amount of chemicals for a roll or two of film would be financially crazy. Creative chemical and temperature mixing can be done at home as the volumes are much lower and the change doesn't affect other photographers.

Similar experimental fun can be had with the print processing chemicals, exposing the paper to light before the main negative exposure, toning (I once tried using tea for instance), etc. etc.

As I said earlier, I really found printing in the darkroom a lot of fun! All this chat is making me want to dig out my enlarger.

 

[Edge100]

To be fair, I was assuming we'd stay within the usual consumer/semi-pro bubble. I can't see a hobbyist going and buying a medium format digital camera, or a very large frame negative camera either.

Fair enough. Although, the almost-silly low cost of exquisite MF film gear (I just bought a full Hasselblad 500c/m kit, with lens, viewfinder, and two backs for less than $1000) makes larger film formats accessible to those that want them. Moreover, they've already depreciated, meaning the only cost to trying these cameras is the opportunity-cost; you can recoup almost all of your initial investment.

The "film has more dynamic range" argument is trotted out often by film enthusiasts. Which isn't to say that it is incorrect. My digital camera has about 12.5 stops of dynamic range, and professional film can certainly have more.

Where the argument becomes more subtle is whether or not you can actually pull all that DR out of the film. Through careful exposure and expert processing (with a bit of luck) you can get some ridiculous DR out of film. Well in excess of 17-18 actually. However, the chances of being able to do that at home, or do it repeatedly, or get a lab to do it, is very slim. I expect most film users are going to have dynamic range very similar to digital camera users in practice. It is also worth noting that just as you can stretch a bit and get some great DR results out of film. You can also stretch a bit and pull a bit of extra out of RAW files (everybody shoots RAW, right?).

I'm not sure I agree, but it's a moot point anyway. I'd happily shoot E6 film over digital, if it were in any way financially viable; and E6 has even less DR than digital does (often substantially less).

The point was simply that "image quality" is often assumed to be analogous with resolution.

Anyways, there was never any intention of opening up that old debate. Although maybe this is the topic for it? I have every respect for the tradition and capabilities of film.

If accountable mistakes help you learn, then perhaps film will help you. That is not the way I learn. if my mistakes are punished harshly I don't feel like I have the flexibility to push boundaries as hard as I want to.

But therein lies the beauty of film; it's REALLY hard to mess it up. You can overexpose Portra 400 (for example) by multiple stops, and still get good (or even preferred) results. Digital is far more punitive of errors, albeit those errors are discovered more quickly.

There are pros and cons of learning on either system. I would not have wanted to learn on film, but now that I'm able to shoot confidently in any situation, I greatly prefer the results I get (and especially the process) from film and film cameras.

 

[Policar]

I've been shooting all my stills on film lately (using the 5D Mark III for snapshots still, though, and taking pics for eBay) and I do think it's more fun. The image quality is probably a bit better, but I have trouble focusing and lose a lot of sharpness to diffraction, so it's not that much better.

Scanning quality seems to be the big issue. And focusing is way more difficult. It does slow you down a LOT.

 

[Edge100]

I've been shooting all my stills on film lately (using the 5D Mark III for snapshots still, though, and taking pics for eBay) and I do think it's more fun. The image quality is probably a bit better, but I have trouble focusing and lose a lot of sharpness to diffraction, so it's not that much better.

Scanning quality seems to be the big issue. And focusing is way more difficult. It does slow you down a LOT.

I'll agree with you that scanning is a limiting factor (ironically, this is especially true in larger formats...there are excellent quality 35mm scanners, but 120 scanning is either crappy or expensive).

However, how is focusing any different with film than digital?

 

[Policar]

I'll agree with you that scanning is a limiting factor (ironically, this is especially true in larger formats...there are excellent quality 35mm scanners, but 120 scanning is either crappy or expensive).

However, how is focusing any different with film than digital?

I've been shooting 6x12 on a view camera lately, and I try to focus without a loupe, but it's tricky. Making sure there's no variance in swing is harder than it seems, and Scheimpflug is a pain and I'm not sure where to set my sharpest focus or what stop to stop down to without losing to diffraction. I'm just not good at it yet. My sharpest shots are at f32-f45, which means my other shots must be misfocused.

I also find that my tripod might not be sturdy enough because I have to remove the graflok back to put the slide film holder on. And the locking mechanism on the rise/shift mechanisms doesn't seem that secure.

I'm just not consistently nailing focus at all, whereas with digital I could use liveview on tilt shift lenses or autofocus for others.

I agree entirely about scanners. Depending on what tests you look at 4x5 is better than a D800E or worse than a point and shoot and I think that boils down to ability to focus and scan quality.

 

[Edge100]

I've been shooting 6x12 on a view camera lately, and I try to focus without a loupe, but it's tricky. Making sure there's no variance in swing is harder than it seems, and Scheimpflug is a pain and I'm not sure where to set my sharpest focus or what stop to stop down to without losing to diffraction. I'm just not good at it yet. My sharpest shots are at f32-f45, which means my other shots must be misfocused.

I also find that my tripod might not be sturdy enough because I have to remove the graflok back to put the slide film holder on. And the locking mechanism on the rise/shift mechanisms doesn't seem that secure.

I'm just not consistently nailing focus at all, whereas with digital I could use liveview on tilt shift lenses or autofocus for others.

I agree entirely about scanners. Depending on what tests you look at 4x5 is better than a D800E or worse than a point and shoot and I think that boils down to ability to focus and scan quality.

Ahh, I see. Yes, view camera focusing without a loupe is going to be tough.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

To be fair, I was assuming we'd stay within the usual consumer/semi-pro bubble. I can't see a hobbyist going and buying a medium format digital camera, or a very large frame negative camera either.

Actually, these days, it's mostly hobbyists who are shooting the larger formats. Commercial photographers dumped their gear long ago, which is why we can get it so cheap these days. The RB67 kit that cost me a few hundred went for ten times as much new. For commercial studio photographers, who might go through 100 or more rolls in day, there's a big incentive. But for me, using one or maybe two rolls on a good day, big whoop.

Also, when you're out with a big camera, it's guaranteed to get attention. ("Is that a Hasselblad?" "Can you still get film for that?" "I've got an 8x10 in the closet at home...")

 

[snberk103]

Now this is going to show just how much I don't know about film I thought film would have a particular white balance in which it would be best used. So the smart photographer would use film that was made to be used in the golden hour(s) at the golden hours, and the processing guy would take note of this and adjust his chemicals accordingly. Or am I just being really naive here?....
Alex

Yes and no. Colour film typically comes in daylight balanced and tungsten balanced variants. Tungsten balanced film might be very hard to find now. Frequently photographers would use filters (blue to counteract tungsten light, magenta to counteract fluorescent light colour casts) on the front of the lens and/or flash to white balance a scene. That was about it though, no custom white balance, or pre-sets for many common scenarios.

....

Padaung's response is worth reading. I'm going to simply expand on some of what they have written. Everything we have written so far is assuming colour negative film. Black and White film can be tweaked for each roll, and for different conditions.. but you are paying someone technician rates for a couple of hours, plus materials. Much much cheaper to learn how to do it yourself.

Colour film comes, with the Tungsten exception, optimized for "white light" (each manufacturer tweaking their own optimization). Problem is... "white light" is the exception. Simplistically speaking "Daylight" is "white" at noon on a clear day. At all other times of the day, the light is changing colour. It is different at 8am, different again at 10am, 2pm, 4pm, etc. Changing where you are in the world changes the colour, even at noon on a clear day. The weather tomorrow will change the colour of the light today - especially at sunset and sunrise ... even on a clear-ish day.

All of this on a clear day. How often do you shoot on a totally clear day? Clouds turn the light blue, as do shadows. Standing near a large tree turns the light greenish. Etc etc etc

A photo lab does not tweak it's chemicals. They are kept at particular temperatures (within fractions of degree) and dilutions ... and everybody's film gets processed that way. How they colour correct is by changing the colour of the light that shines through the negative and exposes the paper. In the old days this was physically a coloured filter... now I think they change the colour of the bulb directly.

Colour negative film has a reddish base when processed. Each manufacturer's reddish base was a different shade of red. Even films by the same maker, but different families, would have a different colour base.

There were manuals (and later presets) so that the technician could tell the machine what the film was, and the appropriate filter was used to counteract the colour of the base when printing. If this was the only adjustment made then the prints would be made as if each and every exposure was made at noon on a clear day, with film that was about half-way to its expiry date. Or fresh film. Or old film. Oh.. did I mention that film changes its base colour as it ages? So, Kodak's consumer film would not be fully colour balanced until it was about a year or so old, since Kodak determined that the average consumer would leave their film in the camera for about a year or so. However, their professional grade films were colour correct the day after they were made since most professionals keep their film for a few weeks at most, and if they stocked up on film they tended to refrigerate or freeze their film to halt the aging process.

So, after the initial settings to (more or less) counteract the film base red the technician may or may not look at each image to see if further colour corrections needed to made. Most images of normal scenes are easy to colour correct... and in fact computers can analyze a scene and get it pretty close now-a-days. Well, at least 'pleasing'. A computer or a technician can recognize and colour correct a tree or a face to make it look natural. But if may not be correct. The face may not be skin coloured in reality for instance.

As humans, we don't see all of these colour shifts during the day. Well, actually, we do... but the brain filters itself to make us believe that all bright lights are "white". They ain't.

I think I said it in this thread. If you want to be surprised, shoot slide film, and project the slides in a proper viewing environment. Since you don't typically print from slides, it captures the colours that were really there. Shoot the same thing during a clear day every couple of hours from morning to night. Shoot some inside shots with the outside visible in the window during different times of the day. Do the same thing under different types of sky (hazy, cloudy, clear). It's important to shoot the same thing (or type of thing) under different conditions so you can compare them. Shoot something that is part in the sun and part in deep shadow. This exercise will teach you more than anyway can tell you. You have got to do (and see) this for yourself. Trust me... if you are going to get a film camera, do this exercise early on.

 

[kingalexthe1st]

That's a lot of knowledge

I think I said it in this thread. If you want to be surprised, shoot slide film, and project the slides in a proper viewing environment. Since you don't typically print from slides, it captures the colours that were really there. Shoot the same thing during a clear day every couple of hours from morning to night. Shoot some inside shots with the outside visible in the window during different times of the day. Do the same thing under different types of sky (hazy, cloudy, clear). It's important to shoot the same thing (or type of thing) under different conditions so you can compare them. Shoot something that is part in the sun and part in deep shadow. This exercise will teach you more than anyway can tell you. You have got to do (and see) this for yourself. Trust me... if you are going to get a film camera, do this exercise early on.

Will do! I'll put on my list. Love these kind of exercises. And thanks for the links, Padaung. The film one has been Evernote'd for when I get the Pentax.

Alex

 

[Evil Spoonman]

Actually, these days, it's mostly hobbyists who are shooting the larger formats. Commercial photographers dumped their gear long ago, which is why we can get it so cheap these days. The RB67 kit that cost me a few hundred went for ten times as much new. For commercial studio photographers, who might go through 100 or more rolls in day, there's a big incentive. But for me, using one or maybe two rolls on a good day, big whoop.

Also, when you're out with a big camera, it's guaranteed to get attention. ("Is that a Hasselblad?" "Can you still get film for that?" "I've got an 8x10 in the closet at home...")

My experience has been that high end print professionals will still shoot in very large format film because the resolution is actually a lot higher than anything you can get in digital these days. If you are going to produce a 60-foot tall building-draped advert with a photograph on it, you want that image to have insane amounts of resolution. This is to say nothing of the more subtle quality metrics such as dynamic range, tonal gradients, etc...

However, you are absolutely right. Film gear that was not accessible only a few years ago has become very accessible today secondhand. This opens up another theory of mine. Film enthusiasts often find their imagery is better because they can get significantly more expensive lenses/cameras than they would be able to for the same dollars in digital. No matter how good digital could be, if the digital camera has an f/4 85mm lens with average sharpness and CA control. Then the film camera has an older lens but is f/1.2 85mm, and tack sharp across the frame. Those film results are going to look sweet compared to the digital files for the same dollar value. So there is some logic to undercutting the gear cost by going film because your nice gear can be relatively inexpensive if you know where to look.

 

[Edge100]

Film enthusiasts often find their imagery is better because they can get significantly more expensive lenses/cameras than they would be able to for the same dollars in digital. No matter how good digital could be, if the digital camera has an f/4 85mm lens with average sharpness and CA control. Then the film camera has an older lens but is f/1.2 85mm, and tack sharp across the frame. Those film results are going to look sweet compared to the digital files for the same dollar value. So there is some logic to undercutting the gear cost by going film because your nice gear can be relatively inexpensive if you know where to look.

Absolutely agree with this.

The Mamiya 7 system offers some of the sharpest lenses ever made for any system. The 43 f/4.5 is (allegedly - I don't own it...yet) as close to 'perfect' as one can get in a lens. Total cost for the body and an 80 f/4? $1200, and the guy threw in some film. I'm just this minute looking at some Provia 400X chromes I shot on it last weekend, and I'm absolutely blown away. I get similar results from my cheap-as-chips Hasselblad.

About the only film system that hasn't lost too much value is Leica M. The bodies are available at good prices, but Leica glass has held its value very well, because there is a digital path to use them. Not so with the Mamiya (Hasselblad V-series lenses CAN be used on digital MF, but the camera bodies are prohibitively expensive). However, on a Leica M film body, there are good alternatives to Leica glass (Zeiss, Voigtlander, Konica) that are stellar performers (at least, in comparison to most 35mm SLR glass), but are still reasonably expensive. To wit, I own a Leica MP, but no Leica glass. On film, I just wont see the difference between a 50 Summilux ASPH and a CV 50 1.5 Nokton.

 

[Evil Spoonman]

The Mamiya 7 system offers some of the sharpest lenses ever made for any system. The 43 f/4.5 is (allegedly - I don't own it...yet) as close to 'perfect' as one can get in a lens. Total cost for the body and an 80 f/4? $1200, and the guy threw in some film. I'm just this minute looking at some Provia 400X chromes I shot on it last weekend, and I'm absolutely blown away. I get similar results from my cheap-as-chips Hasselblad.

It is worth noting that lens manufacturing techniques have dramatically improved over the years. A lens from 1960 is going to be pretty crap compared to a lens made last year. There is a sweet spot that Edge100 seems quite aware of where the lens quality was high, manufacturing techniques were good, but it was still the film days. Some of the infamous Nikkor lenses also come from this barely pre-digital era. AR coatings improve, glass refraction indexes and precision machining techniques improve. Designing/testing/validation techniques improve. More modern lenses have the opportunity to be much better than older lenses. They are not always, though.

There is also a distinction to be made between lens 'flavour'/'style' and lens quality. A lot of people seem to like a certain softness or dreaminess in their film lenses. Speaking technically that's just a crappy lens. Good lenses have measurable high light transmission, low CA, low distortion, good reflection and flare resistance, and edge-to-edge sharpness. There are film lenses with these exceptional qualities, there are also some that produce interesting results but are not very good lenses.

Pick carefully!

 

[MacCruiskeen]

A lot of people seem to like a certain softness or dreaminess in their film lenses. Speaking technically that's just a crappy lens.

Not necessarily. I've got a "soft-focus" portrait lens that is designed deliberately to produce a certain amount of spherical aberration (the effect goes away as you stop down). But then, I also shoot with an Agfa Clack (plastic meniscus lens) and I won't even bring up the Great Wall Diana. But in their day, Mamiya and Konica were producing lenses equal to anything coming out of Europe--even today I doubt you will find much better, and you will pay dearly for it. My Schneider Xenar is a bit soft around the edges, at least wide open, but my 1940s-vintage 203mm Kodak Ektar is quite fine. One of the fun features of the Speed Graphic is that you can use it with anything that will pass light that can be strapped to the front. But in those days that was a top-of-the-line lens that had the strictest quality control.

Did I mention that I also have a large stash of magnesium flash bulbs?

 

[ChrisA]

It is worth noting that lens manufacturing techniques have dramatically improved over the years. A lens from 1960 is going to be pretty crap compared to a lens made last year. There is a sweet spot that Edge100 seems quite aware of where the lens quality was high, manufacturing techniques were good, but it was still the film days. Some ...

No. Not at all. The physics of optics has not changed and by the lat 1950's the best lenses (thse made without compromise to cost) were about as good as are allowed by the laws of physics.

Now that people are using SLRs to shoot serious videos I've noticed the older manual focus Nikon lens have become very poplar. The quality is about as good as it gets and the mechanical build quality is much better.

What has changed are ZOOM lenses. The older zooms are not as good as today's best. This is because of two advances (1) better antireflection coatings allow more lens elements to be used and (2) cheaper aspheric lenses. In the old days aspheric lenses where to expensive to be used in consumer products but today they use molded plastic that reduces the cost. This allows for better zooms

But fixed focal length lenses were at their peak years ago.

For example my old Maniya RB67 lenses completely blew away be new nikon gear. There was just a world of difference. And then Hassellblad and Ziess where a another step up from that.

If you have been using current generation Nikon or Canon SLRs you will be in for a shock when you try out some used 70's vintage pro equipment (Like a Haselblad 500C system that was for decades the "standard" wedding and portrait camera. Today we put up with the poorer result because we like the quick, instant results of digital. The lenses were better.