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

[Nikon_Nick]

I think its a safe assertion to make, if Terry last used film 8 years ago, that the quality of flims and the images they produce would now be better considering the advances made. Its exactly the same with how digital sensor technology has moved on in the last 8 years. No test to 'prove' anything needed, as we know that digital sensors are better now (just as people who still use film know how film has improved).

I havent seen this as a film v digital debate at all, it just seems that some people are intent on turning it in to one as usual. As the OP has said, if you want the kind of latitude that you can get from film (and film cameras are generally pretty cheap), would you consider using both, now knowing what kind of latitude you can get (if you didnt already know). I appreciate that there are a lot of people on this forum that have used film in the past, but remember that there are also a lot of people on here that have not, and may just be considering picking up their first film camera to 'play' with. I think the openning post would make interesting reading for those people especially.

 

[skysh4rk]

I'm afraid you're not in the slightest interested in exploring the ground between the two, in a myriad of posts all you've done is argue the case for film, and told anyone who disputed the 'evidence' that they're wrong.

If you're so convinced that Terry's assessment is flawed, redo the 'test' with a subject with greater dynamic range. That way you can 'prove' he's wrong rather than just asserting it.

I wasn't arguing for film over digital, I was defending film because it was being misrepresented. If folks had been comparing modern film emulsions to 10-year-old digital sensor technology, I would have done the same for digital. I think you're being a bit unfair here.

No. Because I'm not seeing the same value to those benefits as you. I really don't get this 'film look' business, and if these characteristics were so valuable (colour, exposure latitude, highlights roll-off etc) I don't see why digital wouldn't be capable of that, and more, if sensor technology was developed in that direction. Market demand is the key.

Film is just not viable for me any more, or for most people, and I still have 35mm and 120 film cameras. There isn't a film camera and lens system (past, present, future) at any price, that comes near the capability of a full-frame DSLR.

Fair enough if you decide you don't want to use any film and prefer your digital cameras. You don't think there would be any demand for this sort of performance in a digital sensor though?

I think its a safe assertion to make, if Terry last used film 8 years ago, that the quality of flims and the images they produce would now be better considering the advances made. Its exactly the same with how digital sensor technology has moved on in the last 8 years. No test to 'prove' anything needed, as we know that digital sensors are better now (just as people who still use film know how film has improved).

I havent seen this as a film v digital debate at all, it just seems that some people are intent on turning it in to one as usual. As the OP has said, if you want the kind of latitude that you can get from film (and film cameras are generally pretty cheap), would you consider using both, now knowing what kind of latitude you can get (if you didnt already know). I appreciate that there are a lot of people on this forum that have used film in the past, but remember that there are also a lot of people on here that have not, and may just be considering picking up their first film camera to 'play' with. I think the openning post would make interesting reading for those people especially.

Yes!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Pointed out by whom? Terry? We already established that his knowledge of and experience with colour negative is outdated, as colour negative has continued to move on. The latitude is certainly better than Terry suggests, as I use ISO 400 film at f/2.8 outdoors and I don't have a problem even though the fastest shutter speed on any of my cameras is 1/500.

Even if Terry were right though, the outdoor conditions and lighting in the UK often match what's in those examples, so they're still very relevant (or at least there's not often sunshine and very contrasty conditions in Scotland anyway).

I don't want to get hung up exclusively on latitude though, as I think other advantages of film are demonstrated in that chart such as colour palette, skin tones, and straight-from-the-camera results (obviously the lab has to do some interpretation, but no more input required from the photographer).

In my own experiences, digital has not been as convenient when it comes to getting the images that I want. Perhaps this isn't just simply to do with capture media, but also intertwined with my preference for medium format and my dislike of the 3:2 format.




I definitely do, but most folks are seeing this discussion through their own biased eyes, but from the digital side of the camp.

I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I'm just interested in exploring the ground between these two sides, because it ultimately shouldn't be an either/or prospect.

I rather doubt that my knowledge of negative film and processing or any other aspect is outdated. Certainly there are things I might never have learnt, but I doubt there are many significant ones in the practical aspects of professional photography.

I was aware of the convergence of still and cine emulsions, But I am not aware that that is an actual advance, but rather a commercial necessity to save further investment in new technology. The improvements for Photographers was entirely fortuitous.

Further changes are unlikely unless they save money.

There is no "Even IF" about it, I stated fact not opinion. To get round your error by defining English/Scottish lighting as low contrast is laughable.
The market place and usage of negative film is world wide and needs be, covers every lighting condition.

The fact that the lab has to make the adjustments for colour and may be contrast in producing prints, is no different to that undertaken in digital photography by the print technician or photographer. Who ever does it, it still needs to be done. The changes made are both personal and subjective.

The Latitude in terms of "Stops" Is not a suggestion by me. The figures and graphs are available for every emulsion and for every digital camera.

You have not discovered something new. These figures have been available for every film ever made and have been published as data sheets by all the leading manufacturers.
However I am pleased that you like what you have found. Who knows what else you may learn in the fullness of time.

 

[skysh4rk]

I rather doubt that my knowledge of negative film and processing or any other aspect is outdated. Certainly there are things I might never have learnt, but I doubt there are many significant ones in the practical aspects of professional photography.

I was aware of the convergence of still and cine emulsions, But I am not aware that that is an actual advance, but rather a commercial necessity to save further investment in new technology. The improvements for Photographers was entirely fortuitous.

Further changes are unlikely unless they save money.

There is no "Even IF" about it, I stated fact not opinion. To get round your error by defining English/Scottish lighting as low contrast is laughable.
The market place and usage of negative film is world wide and needs be, covers every lighting condition.

The fact that the lab has to make the adjustments for colour and may be contrast in producing prints, is no different to that undertaken in digital photography by the print technician or photographer. Who ever does it, it still needs to be done. The changes made are both personal and subjective.

The Latitude in terms of "Stops" Is not a suggestion by me. The figures and graphs are available for every emulsion and for every digital camera.

You have not discovered something new. These figures have been available for every film ever made and have been published as data sheets by all the leading manufacturers.

Terry, I have no reason to doubt your overall photographic knowledge, it's probably far beyond my own, and I would imagine that your knowledge regarding processing still holds true as well, but you did say yourself that you hadn't used colour negative in ten years, which means that your information regarding colour negative is outdated. The differences may be subtle, but it'd be unfair to simply ignore them.

Anyhow, we've taken this thread places I never intended; perhaps it was my own doing.

Hopefully there are a few folks that found the chart in the initial post interesting at least.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Film will only be a specialist medium from now on, and quite rightly so. Something to select in the same way one might carefully choose a special lens or a particular filter to create a certain look, rather than an everyday snap-shooting material. It's simply too inconvenient for casual snaps.

No it isn't, I use film for casual snaps all the time as do many others!

And until about ten years ago, countless millions did it worldwide.

What was/is inconvenient about dropping off a roll of film and picking up your prints an hour or a day later?

Steve.

You might want to think about really why film isn't used by those countless millions any more, rather than just blaming marketing and ignorance.

What was or is inconvenient about dropping film off? For many people - the casual snappers rather than serious photographers - it would usually be because they'd just take a few pictures here & there, rather than hundreds of images. After 6-12 months they'd suddenly find they'd run out of film and, having popped a new roll in the camera, would leave the used roll sat on the sideboard for a few months until they remembered to take it in to get developed. There's nothing REALLY inconvenient about it, but the amount of photography done by ordinary people has multiplied many times now they are no longer limited by the requirement to purchase film and then have to get it developed (usually only to be disappointed with the quality of their pictures).

What would be inconvenient for me now? I'd have to make arrangements to travel to where ever does D&P or post stuff off. Then I'd wait & after some time and a fair bit of cash, get back a DVD I can bung in the computer to upload the images so I can finish what I started. It wouldn't be the end of the world, but it's not ideal. Now if I *wanted* to use film then I'd be happy to put up with this, but I already have a perfectly good digital system that means I can start working on my pictures at my convenience.

This whole thread is really disappointing, because for some it's as though film is being treated like an incredible new invention that should be washing away all our terrible, dull and crude digital cameras in a tide of warm, smooth gorgeousness, rather than seeing it as it really is: another tool for use when appropriate. You want to shoot film all the time - more power to your elbow, but can we drop the mocking, morally superior tone?

 

[PMN]

You might want to think about really why film isn't used by those countless millions any more, rather than just blaming marketing and ignorance.

What was or is inconvenient about dropping film off? For many people - the casual snappers rather than serious photographers - it would usually be because they'd just take a few pictures here & there, rather than hundreds of images. After 6-12 months they'd suddenly find they'd run out of film and, having popped a new roll in the camera, would leave the used roll sat on the sideboard for a few months until they remembered to take it in to get developed. There's nothing REALLY inconvenient about it, but the amount of photography done by ordinary people has multiplied many times now they are no longer limited by the requirement to purchase film and then have to get it developed (usually only to be disappointed with the quality of their pictures).

What would be inconvenient for me now? I'd have to make arrangements to travel to where ever does D&P or post stuff off. Then I'd wait & after some time and a fair bit of cash, get back a DVD I can bung in the computer to upload the images so I can finish what I started. It wouldn't be the end of the world, but it's not ideal. Now if I *wanted* to use film then I'd be happy to put up with this, but I already have a perfectly good digital system that means I can start working on my pictures at my convenience.

This whole thread is really disappointing, because for some it's as though film is being treated like an incredible new invention that should be washing away all our terrible, dull and crude digital cameras in a tide of warm, smooth gorgeousness, rather than seeing it as it really is: another tool for use when appropriate. You want to shoot film all the time - more power to your elbow, but can we drop the mocking, morally superior tone?

You can use whatever format you want, my point is that your outright claim that film is too inconvenient to use for casual snapshots is unequivocally false because I and many others use it for just that all the time. It purely depends on what you as an individual deem to be inconvenient.

State your opinion by all means, but don't assume everyone else has to share it.

Also, for the record, I shoot more digital than I do film so if you think this is some kind of snobbish rant about digital being rubbish you've missed the point more than I first thought.

 

[PMN]

The small advantage in film latitude is more than lost against variable ISO, instant feedback, control over output, etc etc.

I understand why some people feel the need to shoot film, or manual focus, or large format. But for what most people do, the picture and it's convenience override any judgement of the means of capture.

Yes, basically this whole discussion can be summed up by use whatever works for you. Arguing whether film is better than digital or vice versa is utterly pointless, they're both nothing more than tools to be used as people feel appropriate.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Terry, I have no reason to doubt your overall photographic knowledge, it's probably far beyond my own, and I would imagine that your knowledge regarding processing still holds true as well, but you did say yourself that you hadn't used colour negative in ten years, which means that your information regarding colour negative is outdated. The differences may be subtle, but it'd be unfair to simply ignore them.

Anyhow, we've taken this thread places I never intended; perhaps it was my own doing.

Hopefully there are a few folks that found the chart in the initial post interesting at least.

I am sure there are more than subtle changes when converging still and cine film technologies. However the more things change in film the more they stay the same.
The chemistry in both cases follows similar constraints, and although I am no longer a user of negative film I have been interested enough to keep up to date.

The chart should be interesting to newcomers to Photography. But it is introducing them to old rather than new technology.
I have seen similar charts showing shots taken at different ISO settings on Full frame sensors that were used to the extoll the latest advanced results of Canik cameras. and the latitude displayed is indeed remarkable. However as with film it is always a balance between Iso speed and Photons received at the sensor and acceptable noise.

However such things are achieved, by chemistry or electronically, Only the Photons that arrive at the sensitive media can be counted. and Modern sensors have reached the stage where they can count individual photons at the lower limits. Reading these low energies are limited by chemical fog in film and noise in Digital.
Digital can attain far greater sensitivity than film in terms of useful ISO. Digital is limited in the upper limits by the size of the "Pots" that count the photons and they simply overflow when full and can collect no more information. The equivalent silver crystals in film can reach a rather higher density before they are "full".
It is this difference between maximum and minimum useful information that we call Latitude.
At moderate ISO settings Film is still the winner, at low ISO settings there is not a lot in it, But at High Iso settings Digital wins by default, as film can not achieve such settings.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Film is still used in a moderate way by professional photographers and serious amateurs.
However the whole structure that supports it is crumbling.
Almost no new film cameras are made and virtually no large format ones that do not support digital in some way.
There is a vast array of second hand models available for collecting and may be occasional use.
Darkroom equipment is junked rather than sold.

Art workers in many fields are looking at heritage photographic processes as a means of expression.
Chemical photography will not die but the exponents will be specialist artist, using comparatively basic processes.
Materials that require advanced manufacture will cease to exist.
Chemical Photography will be skilled, fun, artistic, messy and experimental once again. The results will be down to your own efforts and imagination.

 

[Steve Smith]

Almost no new film cameras are made and virtually no large format ones that do not support digital in some way.

Large format cameras (for film use) are probably the bulk of new film cameras being made today. Having said that, Holga/Lomo might be the larger share of the market.


Steve.

 

[skysh4rk]

Almost no new film cameras are made and virtually no large format ones that do not support digital in some way.

Well, we're really moving off course now, but I still think there are a fair few film cameras being made today, especially when you consider that many medium format cameras have detachable backs that can take both film and digital. You can see some of the currently available medium format options here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Medium-Format-Cameras/ci/465/N/4288586271

That said, I like film, but I probably would never buy a new film camera as there's so much available on the secondhand market at great prices. Does film photography need folks buying new cameras to survive? Hmmm...

I don't know what Lomo has in the way of new products or what's happening in the large format market though.

As it is widely known, Kodak has been struggling mightily, but I can't see still negative film production as a whole stopping any time soon, although I'm not as confident with regard to the long-term future of slide film. Film companies will certainly need to make adjustments to navigate the new reality of film simply being a niche market within photography.

 

[ancient_mariner]

You can use whatever format you want, my point is that your outright claim that film is too inconvenient to use for casual snapshots is unequivocally false because I and many others use it for just that all the time. It purely depends on what you as an individual deem to be inconvenient.

State your opinion by all means, but don't assume everyone else has to share it.

Also, for the record, I shoot more digital than I do film so if you think this is some kind of snobbish rant about digital being rubbish you've missed the point more than I first thought.

My point is that film is too inconvenient stands up well, because otherwise digital would never have replaced it - only a tiny minority are willing to continue to use it casually. I cited examples that supported my point to from common experience when it was the only medium available for any photography. Please come down from your horse now.

 

[PMN]

My point is that film is too inconvenient stands up well, because otherwise digital would never have replaced it - only a tiny minority are willing to continue to use it casually. I cited examples that supported my point to from common experience when it was the only medium available for any photography. Please come down from your horse now.

No high horse here, I just can't do with sweeping statements like there's only one available viewpoint.

 

[skysh4rk]

My point is that film is too inconvenient stands up well, because otherwise digital would never have replaced it - only a tiny minority are willing to continue to use it casually. I cited examples that supported my point to from common experience when it was the only medium available for any photography. Please come down from your horse now.

Why do you insist on being so inflammatory? It's a bit brazen to be so dismissive of other's preferences and then accuse them of being on a high horse when they challenge you on that point.

As you said, it's the photographer taking the photographs, film and digital are just tools in the toolbox.

 

[AJQS]

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).

The S5 behaves a lot like film, even it's grain and slight softness look like film. I loved mine, paired with an F100.

Now for the OP there is a LOT of digital processing gone into that image. They have all been colour balanced for a start. Then they have all been enhanced to match the exposures. That is quite simply not what you would get yourself if you shot a strip and flopped it on a flatbed and scanned it as one image so it's a bit misleading. Yes you can have massive range, if you're prepared work to use it. Certainly none of the scanners I've used could pull anything out of a negative of more than half a stop underexposed and I'm sure printing optically would have been fun.

 

[skysh4rk]

The S5 behaves a lot like film, even it's grain and slight softness look like film. I loved mine, paired with an F100.

Now for the OP there is a LOT of digital processing gone into that image. They have all been colour balanced for a start. Then they have all been enhanced to match the exposures. That is quite simply not what you would get yourself if you shot a strip and flopped it on a flatbed and scanned it as one image so it's a bit misleading. Yes you can have massive range, if you're prepared work to use it. Certainly none of the scanners I've used could pull anything out of a negative of more than half a stop underexposed and I'm sure printing optically would have been fun.

Yes, whether you print or scan colour negative, the images will need to be individually corrected for colour and density, although there's not any sort of additional crazy digital trickery going on here as you suggest. I use this lab myself and those are the sorts of images I get back on a regular basis, so I don't really see how that's misleading.

Could I do it easily if I scanned it myself? I'm certainly not as good as the lab at scanning, and they also have much nicer equipment, but I could get relatively close with colour negative. I do scan my own black and white negative though and it's not much of a problem to scan at all.

Once you start underexposing though you start to create far more problems for yourself in the scanning department, no doubt about that.

 

[StephenM]

I have a couple of negatives that scan to give a very flat and muddy image. The sort of thing that would be held up as a grossly underexposed snapshot if it came back from the chemist. So what, you say? Well, the fact is that I thought the the negatives were unexposed until I looked very, very carefully and thought that perhaps there was something on one of them. Put them on a sheet of white paper and you'd swear that they were blank film. But my flatbed scanner still produced a useable, albeit poor, image. That's not a mere half stop underexposure.

 

[Steve Smith]

Put them on a sheet of white paper and you'd swear that they were blank film. But my flatbed scanner still produced a useable, albeit poor, image. That's not a mere half stop underexposure.

I have had negatives like that and have been amazed at the amount of detail I could get out of them by traditional printing.


Steve.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Why do you insist on being so inflammatory? It's a bit brazen to be so dismissive of other's preferences and then accuse them of being on a high horse when they challenge you on that point.

As you said, it's the photographer taking the photographs, film and digital are just tools in the toolbox.

I'm going to apologise. For various reasons, possibly to do with the way I read things, I saw very red indeed and shouldn't have responded quite like that. Sorry.

 

[Llamaman]

I much prefer the quality sound of my vinyl collection over this modern digital CD rubbish.

Admittedly, setting it up in the car means I no longer have a passenger seat and I skip tracks with every speed bump, but that's the price you pay for quality.

 

[wickerman]

Tim Parkin carried out a similar test on the exposure latitude of Portra 400, link here

 

[ancient_mariner]

Tim Parkin carried out a similar test on the exposure latitude of Portra 400, link here

It looks impressive, but can you imagine shooting a wedding, then having streaks across your images because of the way the film was developed.

I'd be interested to see how my Sony A58 would have coped with the first image, where he would have had to choose between foreground or sky on his 5D, and how different the side by side images would look after appropriate PP.

 

[Steve Smith]

It looks impressive, but can you imagine shooting a wedding, then having streaks across your images because of the way the film was developed.

Why would that happen?


Steve.

 

[skysh4rk]

Why would that happen?


Steve.

Well, to be fair, it happened to Tim in one of his examples for the article above.

At the same time, a memory card could also fail, so it's all about balancing out the pros and cons of the respective media according to your needs.

I do think that the dynamic range of films like Kodak Portra could be particular useful for those shooting landscapes though.