Can your camera do this? Would you want it to?

[skysh4rk]

UK Film Lab recently tested a few popular film emulsions and compared them over a range of exposures (photo below). Even those that shoot film have been impressed by the results and the latitude of these modern film stocks, demonstrating that many of us just aren't aware of the strengths afforded by negative film.

In fact, I think if I'd been aware of this when I first got into photography a couple of years ago, I'm not sure that I would have ever even purchased a digital SLR (especially once I discovered medium format!), especially as this demonstrates that exposure with film isn't nearly as difficult as one might have originally thought (at least with negative film anyway!)

Obviously digital offers far more flexibility with regard to high ISO, high FPS, and convenience, but film offers its own flexibility in that you often don't need to worry about ND filters, overexposure, precise metering, or faffing about on the computer (you can have the lab develop, scan, and colour correct all images to your tastes). With medium format film it's also really easy to get shallow depth of field as the image area is several times larger than even 35mm digital sensors.

I want to preface this post by saying I'm not interested in discussing the merits of film versus digital, they're both perfectly capable media in my opinion, but that I want to discuss whether film is being unfairly ignored in favour of digital (i.e., digital is disproportionately overshadowing film relative to the strengths of each).

I mean, if a digital camera had a sensor capable of matching the latitude and colours of the film shown below, would it not be a huge hit? Isn't the latitude and dynamic range of film desirable? If so, then why are more people not utilising the benefits of film at least to some degree? Are many of us even aware or am I missing something?

It just seems like this latitude could really be handy for many folks, especially those who are just getting started in photography, but it's just never mentioned anywhere.

 

[Steve Smith]

As with a lot of of things now, convenience and ease of use are the winning factors.


Steve.

 

[skysh4rk]

As with a lot of of things now, convenience and ease of use are the winning factors.


Steve.

Yep, I agree.

That said, this latitude and the use of film affords convenience in other ways. I can shoot freely, simply erring on the side of overexposure, send the negatives to the lab, and then get them back without requiring any work on the computer except for a bit of simple editing or sharpening. As a PhD student, the time I save not dealing with raw files is a huge plus.

 

[StephenM]

I'm a cynic. I believe that the history of photography shows that convenience will always beat quality in the popular market. Hence, digital (cheap because exposures are free) will always win the cost argument (although film cameras are cheap to buy and don't need upgrading when a better film comes out). Don't most people look at the cost of processing and say that it's expensive to spend (say) £10 on getting a film processed from a £100 camera when they can get free processing from their £700 camera?

Add to this where people learn about photographic equipment. Magazines - how namy are digital only? How many that aren't review new film cameras (how many have come out in the last two years?). Forums - how many people post scanned photos rather than straight from the camera?

And what happens when you go into a shop? In the UK until the collapse, Jessops was the high street dealer of the masses. And Jessops didn't exactly stock many film cameras! You're more likely to find film in a supermarket or pound shop than a photo dealers in most high streets.

 

[Steve Smith]

I agree but whether you are scanning or printing optically, it still makes sense to be consistent.

With black and white negative film, it's a very common practice to use half the ISO rating (i.e give double the exposure) and reduce development time by about 20 - 25% to improve the shadow detail.

You can actually see the shadows in the background getting a little bit lighter in your examples as the exposure increases.
The difference is that with standard C41 developing, the negative will get more dense and there will be compensation added at the printing stage. With the over-expose/under-develop method, you should still get a normal negative density.

I'm a cynic. I believe that the history of photography shows that convenience will always beat quality in the popular market. Hence, digital (cheap because exposures are free) will always win the cost argument (although film cameras are cheap to buy and don't need upgrading when a better film comes out). Don't most people look at the cost of processing and say that it's expensive to spend (say) £10 on getting a film processed from a £100 camera when they can get free processing from their £700 camera?

Don't underestimate* the power of Shiny New Toy Syndrome!

(* or as G W Bush said, misunderestimate).


Steve.

 

[skysh4rk]

I'm a cynic. I believe that the history of photography shows that convenience will always beat quality in the popular market. Hence, digital (cheap because exposures are free) will always win the cost argument (although film cameras are cheap to buy and don't need upgrading when a better film comes out). Don't most people look at the cost of processing and say that it's expensive to spend (say) £10 on getting a film processed from a £100 camera when they can get free processing from their £700 camera?

Add to this where people learn about photographic equipment. Magazines - how namy are digital only? How many that aren't review new film cameras (how many have come out in the last two years?). Forums - how many people post scanned photos rather than straight from the camera?

And what happens when you go into a shop? In the UK until the collapse, Jessops was the high street dealer of the masses. And Jessops didn't exactly stock many film cameras! You're more likely to find film in a supermarket or pound shop than a photo dealers in most high streets.

Well, the current situation with regard to magazines, internet forums, and high street shops is due to the general apathy toward film. My question is whether that apathy is justified?

Regarding cost, ultimately I think that both media work out to be about the same in the long run.

 

[AshleyC]

convenience and cost

Cost - people think film is more expensive so theyre not willing to spend £20 on a camera, £1 on a roll of film and £3 processing it, theyd rather point and shoot their £300 compacts

Convenience - people want their images on facebook, 500px, flickr, wherever a millisecond after taking the picture. They want to take a picture of their holiday location and then stare at it on a 3 inch lcd and say isnt it lovely rather than look at the scene itself

99% of camera owners dont want to understand the technicalities of an emulsion or even understand the basics of exposure so are more than happy with an auto digital equivalent. They can and want to take a picture now and get it out to the masses asap. And why not, different people want different things, and thats cool. Film is as available now as it was back in the 80's so im as happy as they are.

 

[skysh4rk]

I agree but whether you are scanning or printing optically, it still makes sense to be consistent.

With black and white negative film, it's a very common practice to use half the ISO rating (i.e give double the exposure) and reduce development time by about 20 - 25% to improve the shadow detail.

You can actually see the shadows in the background getting a little bit lighter in your examples as the exposure increases.
The difference is that with standard C41 developing, the negative will get more dense and there will be compensation added at the printing stage. With the over-expose/under-develop method, you should still get a normal negative density.

Yes, I do try to be consistent with my own exposures, but in dynamic situations the latitude is very welcome. Also, when I want to do some daytime long exposures and I don't have a ND filter, I love the flexibility of being able to use my polariser and just overexpose a bit.

It just seems that there is some flexibility inherent to negative film that appears to be underappreciated and under-utilised.

If a new digital Nikon or Canon came out offering the latitude of those film emulsions, permitting exposures that are four stops overexposed without much of a problem, would it not be the biggest thing in photography?

And why not, different people want different things, and thats cool.

This is my point. Surely there are some people who want some of the things that film offers, but I feel like this group of people is currently underrepresented.

 

[AshleyC]

but its all out there for them. If they want a digital camera that can make a good stab at a film "look" get a fuji x Fuji invented velvia so if anyone can digitally recreate it, they can. Or buy any of the off the shelf filter add ins for whatever PP app you want.

The choice is there, whether people realise it or not is another thing.

Just as an aside, i was just thinking about the death of film. ironically its not film thats dieing, its as freely available as it ever was. Its the death of the film camera thats done itself in. That and social meeeja anyway and the incessant need to show the world what your doing the minute you do it.

 

[skysh4rk]

but its all out there for them. If they want a digital camera that can make a good stab at a film "look" get a fuji x Fuji invented velvia so if anyone can digitally recreate it, they can. Or buy any of the off the shelf filter add ins for whatever PP app you want.

The choice is there, whether people realise it or not is another thing.

Just as an aside, i was just thinking about the death of film. ironically its not film thats dieing, its as freely available as it ever was. Its the death of the film camera thats done itself in. That and social meeeja anyway and the incessant need to show the world what your doing the minute you do it.

I don't think the Fuji X cameras come close to replicating the look of medium format film, personally. The sensors are small (isn't it 1/8 the size of 6x6cm film?), they definitely don't have the latitude of most colour negative film emulsions, and the colours simply just aren't as good.

That said, I suppose these things might just be good enough to satisfy most people.

 

[Lemaildetom]

I'm very new to film photography. So far I have been very impressed with the high latitude of the film, I almost couldn't believe my first results (I was extremely worry about exposure, and also focusing).
I have an Olympus OM1 with built in lightmeter which so far as work great.
And I more recently bought a Bronica Sq-a with which I have to use a handheld lightmeter. I have no idea what to do with the light meter, I take a quick reading then I'm happy shooting away with changing slightly the speed if I think a scene is brighter or darker than the previous one or adjusting to compensate changes in f stop. So far the result have been great. Never with my DSLR I could take a lightmeter and just shoot away in this manner!

Other point, is that I'm still new to film photography and it is still very exciting to put different film through as they have all different rendering feeling to them.

Last point, is that I do like the 35mm for holidays and snapshot but it clearly is a too small format for enlarging. This is were the medium format came in and really impressed me. The size of the negative, the ability to zoom in similar as a 10-20 Mpixel camera. It's really impressive.

Now I still like the digital for situation where checking instant result on a screen is usefull. Also when shooting an event or something were a few hundred shot can be easily snap in a session (wild life, star photography, kids running around, ....)

The only down side I find so far his the price. I know you can go the way of poudland + asda developing but so far in my experience. Talking about cost:
- A roll of 36 exposure on 35mm or of 12 exposure on 120 format (5£)
- Developing (5£)
- Scanning (5£)
So a total of 15£ for 36/12 exposure and this as a student must be quiet something for you. Let say you shoot 1 film per week, 52 week per year this is 780£/ year. (i'll be happy to know if you get better deal and manage to bring this cost down). So In my mind I'll shoot 12 roll a year for 180£ and keep the 600 extra cash for a digital camera (which I change every so many year...). I have also bought myself a scanner to save these 5 pounds and try to shrink the cost down but this mean a lot more computer work which isn't what I fancy with using film camera.
Sorry I'm taking this thread onto on other direction which was how good film stock are compare to digital sensor.

 

[skysh4rk]

The only down side I find so far his the price. I know you can go the way of poudland + asda developing but so far in my experience. Talking about cost:
- A roll of 36 exposure on 35mm or of 12 exposure on 120 format (5£)
- Developing (5£)
- Scanning (5£)
So a total of 15£ for 36/12 exposure and this as a student must be quiet something for you. Let say you shoot 1 film per week, 52 week per year this is 780£/ year. (i'll be happy to know if you get better deal and manage to bring this cost down!)
I have bought myself a scanner to save these 5 pounds and try to shrink the cost down but this mean a lot more computer work which isn't what I fancy with using film camera.
Sorry I'm taking this thread onto on other direction which was how good film stock are compare to digital sensor!

You're certainly spending more per roll than I am. Even so, how much would it cost you to buy a digital medium format camera? Even a 'full frame' DSLR? Likely more than £780, if not a lot more in some cases.

Ultimately, I think that the costs for digital versus film cancel out for most people in the long run, so I don't think that they're worth discussing here. Obviously film has ongoing costs, but then you don't need to upgrade cameras every few years as you do with digital.

That said, there are many in the digital realm who would think nothing of spending hundreds or even thousands on the latest digital cameras to get the greatest sensors, so why are people so hesitant to spend money on film, which is ultimately the equivalent in the film realm?

 

[freecom2]

Regardless of the ongoing discussion - some of the over and underexposed pictures have incredible colour palettes; perhaps even nicer than the results at box speed!

 

[Steve Smith]

Regardless of the ongoing discussion - some of the over and underexposed pictures have incredible colour palettes; perhaps even nicer than the results at box speed!

The over exposed shots, certainly. I would rather not under expose as the results tend to emphasise the grain - something which obviously doesn't show up in the small example images posted.


Steve.

 

[skysh4rk]

The over exposed shots, certainly. I would rather not under expose as the results tend to emphasise the grain - something which obviously doesn't show up in the small example images posted.


Steve.

The underexposed shots really aren't too bad with regard to grain and I could certainly see people intentionally underexposing to achieve a particular look:

 

[Steve Smith]

They do look better than I expected!

I can't find it at the moment, but Les Sarile, a member of Photo.Net has posted a series of pictures he has taken of coloured crayons both with various negative films and a Canon digital ranging from (about) -3 to +5 stops. Whilst all the film shots are usable, the over exposed digital equivalents blow out to white wih the detail unrecoverable.


Steve.

 

[skysh4rk]

They do look better than I expected!

I can't find it at the moment, but Les Sarile, a member of Photo.Net has posted a series of pictures he has taken of coloured crayons both with various negative films and a Canon digital ranging from (about) -3 to +5 stops. Whilst all the film shots are usable, the over exposed digital equivalents blow out to white wih the detail unrecoverable.


Steve.

And this is precisely what I'm getting at!

Film offers a level of flexibility and latitude that goes beyond even what film users expect! No, it doesn't offer the instant convenience of digital, but it offers the convenience of knowing that you're not only going to get a useable photo, but likely one with great colours as well.

 

[skysh4rk]

The responses so far have mostly come from folks who already frequent the film and conventional section of the forum, but I was hoping to open things up to the whole of the forum.

Does the exposure chart in the initial post not make film even slightly intriguing? Wouldn't a digital camera capable of those exposures be hailed as amazing? If so, wouldn't it be worth exploring film to achieve this sort of performance and flexibility, even on a limited basis or for specific purposes?

Whether yes or no, I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts, no matter if you're from the film, digital, or hybrid crowds.

 

[Steve Smith]

Does the exposure chart in the initial post not make film even slightly intriguing? Wouldn't a digital camera capable of those exposures be hailed as amazing? If so, wouldn't it be worth exploring film to achieve this sort of performance and flexibility, even on a limited basis or for specific purposes?

In my opinion, it's not the fact that you can 'get away' with over or under exposing which gives film the edge. It's more the way it handles highlights on a normally exposed shot.

As the light increases, the red, green and blue sensor get up to maximum and can record no more detail whereas the film's response has a curve at the highlights so the film keeps getting progressively more dense but at a slower rate rather than going straight to full density.

On digital, this shows up on shots with the sun in the frame. The sun is often a white disc with a yellow ring around it. The yellow is due to the blue blowing out before the red and green leaving the colour which red and green make when combined - i.e. yellow.

 

[srichards]

I use the digital cameras built in HDR for tricky scenes. It does mean checking the histogram rather than just snapping away merrily like you would with film...

 

[FruitFlakes]

The way film rolls off highlights is exactly why I keep my Fuji S5 around. It's almost impossible to blow out your highlights when you're exposing normally. With other digital cameras I tend to underexpose since there's far more latitude in the shadows (which is something film isn't as good at).

 

[Jayst84]

Flexibility isn't all that straightforward though. You say, "you often don't need to worry about ND filters, overexposure, precise metering," but if your exposures are all over the place on a roll of film, you're not going to be too happy. If you just send the roll off to a lab and get it all developed the same, your negs are going to be all over the place. Shooting digital is more akin to shooting sheet film in that regard - each image can be developed exactly as you like, depending on the exposure of that individual frame.

As for, "[no need for] faffing about on the computer (you can have the lab develop, scan, and colour correct all images to your tastes)." Well, same goes for digital, you can send your files off to a lab / retoucher and they will batch them for you (as a lab would a roll of film). Or, you can have them work up each individual image on its own merits.

Yes, some film looks pretty, and some has great latitude - but, there are advantages to digital which will always see the masses lean towards the convenience of the newer tech. Plenty of people still shoot film for pleasure and work though, and likely always will (in our lifetimes at least).

 

[skysh4rk]

Flexibility isn't all that straightforward though. You say, "you often don't need to worry about ND filters, overexposure, precise metering," but if your exposures are all over the place on a roll of film, you're not going to be too happy. If you just send the roll off to a lab and get it all developed the same, your negs are going to be all over the place. Shooting digital is more akin to shooting sheet film in that regard - each image can be developed exactly as you like, depending on the exposure of that individual frame.

This isn't even remotely true at all with colour negative film. The example exposures in the chart above will have all been from the same roll for each film stock. You do not need to compensate during development. On the same roll of film I will shoot at EI 50 all the way to 800 and it makes no difference as you can easily adjust it when either you or your lab scan or print the negatives.

Your negs will be more dense the more you expose them, but your resulting images will not be all over the place as the examples above show.

You would be right if we were talking about slide film if your exposures were all over the place, but we aren't discussing that here.

As for, "[no need for] faffing about on the computer (you can have the lab develop, scan, and colour correct all images to your tastes)." Well, same goes for digital, you can send your files off to a lab / retoucher and they will batch them for you (as a lab would a roll of film). Or, you can have them work up each individual image on its own merits.

True, I'd forgotten about the option of farming out your digital files. Even with this, I'm still not convinced that the digital files you'd get back would handle the highlights and colours the same way that colour negative film would. Is there a minimum number of images that you need to send off for such services or can you send a handful for retouching?

 

[skysh4rk]

I use the digital cameras built in HDR for tricky scenes. It does mean checking the histogram rather than just snapping away merrily like you would with film...

Fair enough if you're aware of the advantages of film and digital in this regard and opt for digital, but it's in these situations that colour negative film is really well suited and it doesn't seem to get much love. Surely there are folks who would want to be able to easily capture scenes with extended subject brightness ranges in a single exposure?

 

[Jayst84]

This isn't even remotely true at all with colour negative film. The example exposures in the chart above will have all been from the same roll for each film stock. You do not need to compensate during development. On the same roll of film I will shoot at EI 50 all the way to 800 and it makes no difference as you can easily adjust it when either you or your lab scan or print the negatives.

Your negs will be more dense the more you expose them, but your resulting images will not be all over the place as the examples above show.

You would be right if we were talking about slide film if your exposures were all over the place, but we aren't discussing that here.

Fair enough, it's a long time since I shot any negative film. If you're getting the lab to do everything, I assume they're going to charge you extra to fix it all up when scanning? Especially if there's a 7 stop difference between your exposures.

True, I'd forgotten about the option of farming out your digital files. Even with this, I'm still not convinced that the digital files you'd get back would handle the highlights and colours the same way that colour negative film would. Is there a minimum number of images that you need to send off for such services or can you send a handful for retouching?

You'd have to speak to whomever you were sending the files to. But generally you can send as few or as many as you like. Cost ratios may improve with more files. Depends of course on the level of work you want doing as well.

 

[skysh4rk]

Fair enough, it's a long time since I shot any negative film. If you're getting the lab to do everything, I assume they're going to charge you extra to fix it all up when scanning? Especially if there's a 7 stop difference between your exposures.

Nope, no extra charge.

Do whatever you want with your exposures, but they'll all come back corrected for colour and density with no additional fees, just as in the example attached to the first post. This is the beauty of modern film!

You'd have to speak to whomever you were sending the files to. But generally you can send as few or as many as you like. Cost ratios may improve with more files. Depends of course on the level of work you want doing as well.

Interesting. I always prefer the scans that I get back from the lab to anything I get from my digital camera, but I wonder how edits of my digital photos from one of these services would compare.

 

[Jayst84]

Nope, no extra charge.

Do whatever you want with your exposures, but they'll all come back corrected for colour and density with no additional fees, just as in the example attached to the first post. This is the beauty of modern film!

Jolly good. I keep meaning to dust off the old TLR, need to find something worthy of shooting with it. Lab costs are obscene here though, especially if you want a scan at more than 1,000px wide.

Interesting. I always prefer the scans that I get back from the lab to anything I get from my digital camera, but I wonder how edits of my digital photos from one of these services would compare.

They would vary wildly. You can pay a couple of pence to a computer farm in Pakistan - or a heck of a lot more, depending on where you go.

 

[skysh4rk]

Jolly good. I keep meaning to dust off the old TLR, need to find something worthy of shooting with it. Lab costs are obscene here though, especially if you want a scan at more than 1,000px wide.

Yeah, development and scanning isn't cheap, but you also pay significantly less for film cameras and there's no need to upgrade. Ultimately, I think that costs of film and digital are about even over the long haul (that said, I could never afford the digital equivalents to my medium format film cameras).

I personally use UK Film Lab, as shown in the chart above, and their development and scanning is well worth the investment in my opinion, especially as they will individually correct each scan for colour and density according to your tastes and preferences. Their small scan sizes are 2400x2400 for 6x6cm, which I would assume your TLR shoots. Large gets you 3600x3600.

They would vary wildly. You can pay a couple of pence to a computer farm in Pakistan - or a heck of a lot more, depending on where you go.

Good stuff, I'll keep this in mind if I ever get back into shooting more digital.

 

[Steve T]

Well I just love the whole thing about film, I have a canon A1 totaly mint which is just a gorgeous thing and I have just snagged a Minolta x700 equally mint with a motor grip. This thing is absolutly beautifull. The old legacy lenses are addictive and have fantastic glass in them that cost a fraction of the digital equivalent. Whats not to love about shooting film as your hobby, I'm just about to lose my developing viginity so I will be even more involved in the process of getting the image I'm after. For me, apart from all the tech differences, film is a real hobby whereas digital seems to be more intense and has to be instant. I hope that if I develop, scan the negatives to digital and only print my real killer photos it will be only marginally more expensive than straight digital.

I started out shooting digital, mainly product stuff though, but to be honest I find it boring and predictable and not all that much fun.

Digital is like Mackrell bashing whereas film is like tying a beautifull imitation of whatever fly is hatching at the waters edge and presenting it with a perfect cast to an unsuspecting trout and.... later eating it ass

I have got the film bug big time but still use a dslr for product stuff so I agree both are great tools for creating images, its just up to the individual how they pursue their hobby.

Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

As for, "[no need for] faffing about on the computer (you can have the lab develop, scan, and colour correct all images to your tastes)."

But I hate 'faffing about' on a computer. With film, my pictures don't have to go anywhere near one.


Steve.

 

[gad-westy]

The way film rolls off highlights is exactly why I keep my Fuji S5 around. It's almost impossible to blow out your highlights when you're exposing normally. With other digital cameras I tend to underexpose since there's far more latitude in the shadows (which is something film isn't as good at).

Found this interesting. I had an S5 pro for a bit and don't think I took full advantage of this though I think I may check back through my pics and see if I notice this trait. I have to say the results were the most 'film like' of any digital camera I've used. Very clean and lovely tones.

Have been messing around with film a lot myself in recent years. Mainly 35mm B&W and 120 kodak ektar. Some of results are just lovely but I do find I get the exposure wrong far more often than with digital. Think I need to start concentrating on exposing for the shadows.

 

[Phil V]

This is scandalous:
The internet is full of old timers telling the digital brigade that they've got an easy life. That shooting was harder in the days of film and that with film you couldn't just shoot and fix later.

Of course those of us blowing raspberries at that were told we didn't have a clue.

But now you're telling the world that we should shoot film for convenience.

 

[Nod]

It should also be pointed out that the OP's CAMERA can't do this either, it's the film's latitude and the lab's processing that allows the extremes. Sling a roll of slide film in there and see what effect a 1/2 stop either way can do in the way of latitude!

I do still like the idea of film but have the attention span of a gnat so welcome the immediacy that digital gives me. I also hate spending time doing PP so shoot JPEG but have the luxury of almost always being able to spend the time getting exposure right in camera thus avoiding the raw processing time.

 

[srichards]

Fair enough if you're aware of the advantages of film and digital in this regard and opt for digital, but it's in these situations that colour negative film is really well suited and it doesn't seem to get much love. Surely there are folks who would want to be able to easily capture scenes with extended subject brightness ranges in a single exposure?

Film isn't easy. You need to go out and buy another camera. Load the film. Remember to take it with you and you have to use it and then get it developed and for dev plus scan its cost you at least a tenner with the film cost.

 

[Steve Smith]

But now you're telling the world that we should shoot film for convenience.

Yes. It's both easier and more difficult depending on which point we are trying to make!

... and then get it developed and for dev plus scan its cost you at least a tenner with the film cost.

Scanning isn't essential.


Steve.

 

[inkiboo]

Sorry are we in 2014 and still having a film vs digital debate?

 

[skysh4rk]

Sorry are we in 2014?

Yes

are we still having a film vs digital debate?

No

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There are lies damn lies and statistics.
The film / Digital merits fall into much the same category.

I shot and processed film for some 60 years most of that time as a qualified professional. I would not go back to film.

The set of Photographs shown certainly demonstrate the latitude of film. and it is well known that Film compares very favourably in this regard.
However the usable latitude depends on the contrast range of the subject, which in this particular set is unusually low. A full tonal range in bright sun takes up the majority of the straight line portion of a films characteristic curve. Indeed slow fine grain films can need special processing to capture the full tonal range and very accurate exposure.

The other extreme is seen on a misty overcast day with very little tonal range, taken with a fast film. Almost any exposure setting of such a scene will place the range on the straight line portion of the curve.
Negative colour films are known for their great Latitude Only exceeded by some Black and white emulsions. and provided the entire tonal range of the subject is captured on the straight line of the curve they will be printable with very similar results.

The best Digital Full frame sensors that do not have excessively small pixels, also have astonishingly wide Latitude, and this is taken advantage of in the extremely high ISO settings they provide. Even pocket digital cameras take advantage of such latitude they might have, by providing Iso setting film users could only dream about.

Even ISO 800 films have unacceptable grain structures compared to Digital noise as similar speeds.

The effect shown in the samples was extremely well known by everyone, and taken advantage of by millions of simple and even disposable film cameras, that were provided with no means of adjusting for exposure.

However manipulation and and filtering still took place at the processing stage by the Printer, using very sophisticated equipment much as digital printers still do today.

 

[droj]

... a films charismatic curve.

Ah, yes - charisma!

(Sorry, Terry!)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Cost is an entirely different issue
The Highest ongoing cost using film is taken up in processing and printing. The actual film price was inconsequential to a professional and was easily built into his costings.
In Digital the cost of film is of course absent. And the cost of Processing from raw and printing are equivalent and again are the main ongoing cost.

The cost of the equipment used, taking inflation in to account is surprisingly similar. It is still dictated by the level that you chose to work at.

Cost per frame varies with the user, and comes down to how many shots you take with your digital camera and the cost of your chosen equipment.

This is to some extent true with film, except for the fact that the cost of film and its development become an irreducible addition to the cost of every frame.

Everything else being equal, film will always have a higher running cost.