I'm currently updating my HDR guide to 2.0. I want to get to more technical this time. Previously I was happy with producing pretty pictures. Now, given that I'm doing a talk, I want to know things. So does anyone know the contrast ratio, bit-depth or how many stops film has? I've heard its around 11ev but I want proof. I've heard that your average 30D is around 6-8ev. I want to be able to say that when you do a 3 shot HDR it is 10ev and very close to what film can do. I'm trying to get my head around this article on film vs digital. There are people out there who do say a 1D is very close or better than film.
Does anyone know how many stops film is?
- Thread starter petemc
- Start date
Irritable_Rabbit
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 450
- Edit My Images
- No
For Dynamic range, film is still way better than digital IMHO...
Science could probably back this up as well...
But would this link help?
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm
Science could probably back this up as well...
But would this link help?
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sheesh! Opinions are still so divided on this, and for every argument for one medium there's a counter version.
I'd be very wary of getting too many technical questions on this, (and you never know who's sitting out there) unless you're really clued up and can bat the answers back when the questions are dropped on your toes.
I'd be very wary of getting too many technical questions on this, (and you never know who's sitting out there) unless you're really clued up and can bat the answers back when the questions are dropped on your toes.
Irritable_Rabbit
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 450
- Edit My Images
- No
Ah.. The thing is, and as CT indicated, I bet I could, with little effort find other people who have posted the opposite findings to Mr Clarkvision....
You could spend the whole eveing arguing this with all sorts of camera types if you're not careful.
Then when you add exposure lattitude and the difference in the way clipping occurs between digital and film then you'll be in a nasty world of hurt unless you yourself have some kind of degree to back your arguments up.
But for exposure lattitude alone I feel on fairly safe ground that Negatives > Digital > Slides.
Edit* Oh grief! That Clarkvision site appears to have only compared dynamic range of Slide film and the rather rank disgusting consumer film Kodak Gold 200 to digital... Good negative films are a slightly different ball game when it comes to recording differing levels of EV.
That seven stops of EV on the Kodak Gold 200 match the scans I have, but I was getting about +2 and -1 EV with Kodak UC 400 pro in comparison (depending on the light range in the scene of course.).
You could spend the whole eveing arguing this with all sorts of camera types if you're not careful.
Then when you add exposure lattitude and the difference in the way clipping occurs between digital and film then you'll be in a nasty world of hurt unless you yourself have some kind of degree to back your arguments up.
But for exposure lattitude alone I feel on fairly safe ground that Negatives > Digital > Slides.
Edit* Oh grief! That Clarkvision site appears to have only compared dynamic range of Slide film and the rather rank disgusting consumer film Kodak Gold 200 to digital... Good negative films are a slightly different ball game when it comes to recording differing levels of EV.
That seven stops of EV on the Kodak Gold 200 match the scans I have, but I was getting about +2 and -1 EV with Kodak UC 400 pro in comparison (depending on the light range in the scene of course.
).
I completely agree. Its a minefield out there. You'll get die hard film users saying film has a higher dynamic range than digital, but ask them what it is and they couldn't say. One article I've read says that film is about 2000:1 or 11EV and that digital is around 400:1 or 8.5EV. When you use a 30D to HDR an image it gets bumped up to around 10EV or 1024:1. If you shoot JPG you're limited to 256:1 or around 8EV. I've spent a day reading all this and this is the best answer I've got.
Irritable_Rabbit
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 450
- Edit My Images
- No
until you include the world of 16 bit digibacks with 12 stops of latitude.
There's always someone who has to be a smarta**e isn't there.
But in the real world where I don't have a medium format camera, lenses, a digital back that cost > £10000, and of course, let's not forget the need to shoot at low noise ISOs of 200 and above .....
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
LOL.
Discretion being the better part of valour, I'd avoid the subject like the plague. I'm sure there are valid arguments for both mediums, but I'm happy with my move to digital.
It's interesting that 16X12 (inches) was always considered an exhibition sized print from a 35mm neg and that a typical viewing distance for a hung print that size would be around 3 or 4 feet? If you were to judge the grain in the image even with slow 50 ASA film by getting your nose down into the emulsion, then grain would definitely be visible.
With digital we don't have grain we have noise, and everyone is concerned about it, including me, but when we judge noise in an image on a monitor a few inches in front of our nose, aren't we just getting our noses down into the emulsion?
It's a bit off topic admittedly but it's one area where I can't help feeling that some people when making comparisons, confer advantages on film which I'm not sure it ever really possessed?
Discretion being the better part of valour, I'd avoid the subject like the plague. I'm sure there are valid arguments for both mediums, but I'm happy with my move to digital.
It's interesting that 16X12 (inches) was always considered an exhibition sized print from a 35mm neg and that a typical viewing distance for a hung print that size would be around 3 or 4 feet? If you were to judge the grain in the image even with slow 50 ASA film by getting your nose down into the emulsion, then grain would definitely be visible.
With digital we don't have grain we have noise, and everyone is concerned about it, including me, but when we judge noise in an image on a monitor a few inches in front of our nose, aren't we just getting our noses down into the emulsion?
It's a bit off topic admittedly but it's one area where I can't help feeling that some people when making comparisons, confer advantages on film which I'm not sure it ever really possessed?
Hehe my conclusion is that to get the best HDR images, buy a Hassleblad. The amount of data that thing has, and with its sensor size.... oh baby.
Annoyingly though, I do need direct comparisons. I can create HDR images with what amount of data thats higher than what? You can easily see that the DR is higher than a normal 30D photo, and that its closer to what your eye can see but ideally I want to know where these other people are getting their facts from.
Annoyingly though, I do need direct comparisons. I can create HDR images with what amount of data thats higher than what? You can easily see that the DR is higher than a normal 30D photo, and that its closer to what your eye can see but ideally I want to know where these other people are getting their facts from.
- Messages
- 29,411
- Name
- Marcel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bear in mind...think about your audience too.
Are they really going to care about EV ranges, contrast ratios and what not?
Just bat them a very general comparison, then carry on with your talk...If I was sat in the audience and you were throwing comparison figures at me, I'd either heckle you, boo you, fall asleep, streak naked around the room, or E, all four
Are they really going to care about EV ranges, contrast ratios and what not?
Just bat them a very general comparison, then carry on with your talk...If I was sat in the audience and you were throwing comparison figures at me, I'd either heckle you, boo you, fall asleep, streak naked around the room, or E, all four
Hawker
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 829
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Maybe, just leave the comparison of HDR/film as a passing comment or talk about in gerneral with the whole digital v film argument. Surely the impotant issue is that of a HDR image in comarison the techical limits of single digital image.
Pete -take Mr Clarkvision with you!
Annoyingly I have to write an article on it too
So I can't really get him to do that, and fly him over to do this talk. Bear in mind...think about your audience too.
Are they really going to care about EV ranges, contrast ratios and what not?
Just bat them a very general comparison, then carry on with your talk...If I was sat in the audience and you were throwing comparison figures at me, I'd either heckle you, boo you, fall asleep, streak naked around the room, or E, all four
I completely agree. I'm not going to go off on one about it, but how can I talk about HDR without know a bit about the technical side? Strictly speaking none of my photos are HDR and I need to make these points. I can't show HDR so I need to say a few technical bits and then demo. Oh and the audience will range from students to amatuers to professionals who know their lolipops.
It is, but I also feel that it would be nice to say that it can give you B&W film like results.
ShawWellPete
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,699
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How come?
HDR is 32bit. It has a contrast ratio of 4,294,967,296:1. The human eye is only ~10,000:1. A JPG image is 256:1. Basically your display can't handle a HDRI and a 180kb jpg sure couldn't. So they are compressed down from 32bit to 8bit into something you can enjoy.
Of course they're not going to be 32bit images. But from what I've read the tonal range is compressed into a usable form for the media you are using. We just don't have the capability of displaying a true HDRI in our every day lives. You can buy HDR displays but technically speaking once you've compressed the image back to 8bit, its not HDR. Its LDR.
Hawker
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 829
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ahh, see where you are coming from, quite right
Problem is HDR is still quite a nice snappy name.
ShawWellPete
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,699
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think I get it but it's Friday so I'm feeling a bit thick.
- Messages
- 2,666
- Name
- Alasdair Fowler
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What defines the 4,294,967,296:1 limit of hdr? Is it the 32bit? Wouldn't true hdr be whatever the brightest light the universe could create, right down to true black?
cjnicolai
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 702
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Pete,
My honest advice? Simply mention that there is no readily available, unbiased data on this. At the end of the day, NOBODY is going to go HDR over film or vice versa because of a perceived minute technical edge. Data like that is strictly used for crowing purposes, and I think we already have plenty of crowing in photography. It's a no-win situation for the author; say that HDR has greater contrast range, and the film folks will flood you with their version of the truth. Say that film has the greater range, and digital folks will accuse you of being an uneducated traditionalist diehard.
I'm going to point out, too, that you can't just generalize all film into one contrast ratio. It's like asking, "How fast an ISO looks good when shooting digital?" Films are very different, not just slide film vs. negative film, but neg films compared to each other. Some have huge ranges, others are more narrow.
If I were in your shoes, I would simply write about HDR rather than concentrating on somewhat irrelevant comparisons.
- CJ
My honest advice? Simply mention that there is no readily available, unbiased data on this. At the end of the day, NOBODY is going to go HDR over film or vice versa because of a perceived minute technical edge. Data like that is strictly used for crowing purposes, and I think we already have plenty of crowing in photography. It's a no-win situation for the author; say that HDR has greater contrast range, and the film folks will flood you with their version of the truth. Say that film has the greater range, and digital folks will accuse you of being an uneducated traditionalist diehard.
I'm going to point out, too, that you can't just generalize all film into one contrast ratio. It's like asking, "How fast an ISO looks good when shooting digital?" Films are very different, not just slide film vs. negative film, but neg films compared to each other. Some have huge ranges, others are more narrow.
If I were in your shoes, I would simply write about HDR rather than concentrating on somewhat irrelevant comparisons.
- CJ
Yeah I think thats the best thing. Though it will prevent Marcel from streaking at my talk Not that I want to see it but I'm sure it would create a nice distraction while I slip out the back
Actually I'm just going to say film can handle upto ~2000:1 or 11EV. Because you can get some really great film and coupled with medium or large format I'm sure you can get that. Your average DSLR, 30D will do 400:1 on a good day. With RAW you have a CR of 4096:1 but due to noise and on normal day it drops. Using bracketing and HDR software you could create an image with a usable DR of up to ~16,000:1. That would be 5 images * 2EV ranging from +/- 7. Can you realistically do this, and show an image with that CR? No. Its just theoretical limits.
Not that I want to see it but I'm sure it would create a nice distraction while I slip out the back Actually I'm just going to say film can handle upto ~2000:1 or 11EV. Because you can get some really great film and coupled with medium or large format I'm sure you can get that. Your average DSLR, 30D will do 400:1 on a good day. With RAW you have a CR of 4096:1 but due to noise and on normal day it drops. Using bracketing and HDR software you could create an image with a usable DR of up to ~16,000:1. That would be 5 images * 2EV ranging from +/- 7. Can you realistically do this, and show an image with that CR? No. Its just theoretical limits.
Staggerlee
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 284
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
From Wirrel
1. Head northeast on Kiln Rd toward Potters Close 0.1 mi
2. Slight right at Moat Ln 0.5 mi
2 mins
3. Turn left at A4128/High St
Continue to follow A4128 1.1 mi
4 mins
4. Turn left at A4128/Link Rd 0.2 mi
5. At the roundabout, take the 2nd exit onto A413
Go through 2 roundabouts 5.0 mi
8 mins
6. Slight left to stay on A413 0.5 mi
1 min
7. At the roundabout, take the 3rd exit onto A355/Gore Hill
Continue to follow A355 4.5 mi
7 mins
8. At the roundabout, take the 1st exit onto A40/London Rd 0.3 mi
1 min
9. At Pyebush Roundabout, take the 2nd exit onto A355 0.6 mi
1 min
10. At the roundabout, take the 1st exit onto the M40 ramp to London/M25 0.3 mi
1 min
11. Merge onto M40 3.9 mi
4 mins
12. At junction 1a, exit onto M25 toward M4/M23 48.8 mi
46 mins
13. Continue on M26 (signs for Maidstone/M26/M20/Dover) 10.0 mi
10 mins
14. Merge onto M20 36.5 mi
35 mins
15. Exit at junction 11a 0.4 mi
16. Slight right 0.7 mi
1 min
17. Continue straight 0.6 mi
2 mins
18. Slight left 0.5 mi
3 mins
19. Take the Folkestone - Calais train to Fréthun
Entering France 36.4 mi
1 hour 22 mins
20. Continue straight 0.2 mi
3 mins
21. Turn left 1.4 mi
2 mins
22. Merge onto A16/E402 via the ramp to E15/A26/Calais/Lille/Reims/Paris/Bruxelles
Continue to follow A16
Entering Belgium 35.6 mi
31 mins
23. Continue straight onto A18 26.1 mi
21 mins
24. Continue on A10 30.3 mi
25 mins
25. Take exit Zwijnaarde for E17 toward Antwerpen/Gent 1.2 mi
2 mins
26. Follow signs for Antwerpen and merge onto A14/E17 31.1 mi
25 mins
27. Continue on R1 9.7 mi
10 mins
28. Continue on A1
Entering Netherlands 21.2 mi
17 mins
29. Continue straight onto A16 2.6 mi
2 mins
30. Take the exit onto A27/A58/E312 toward Breda-Oost/Utrecht/Tilburg 4.4 mi
4 mins
31. Take the exit onto A27/E311 toward Breda/Utrecht 22.1 mi
18 mins
32. Take the exit toward Tiel/Nijmegen 1.0 mi
1 min
33. Merge onto A15 35.3 mi
28 mins
34. Take the exit toward Arnhem-Noord/Apeldoorn/Doetinchem 1.7 mi
1 min
35. Merge onto A50 8.1 mi
7 mins
36. Take the exit toward A12/E35 341 ft
37. Keep right at the fork, follow signs for E35/Arnhem/Apeldoorn/Zwolle/Doetinchem/A12 and merge onto A12/E35 4.0 mi
3 mins
38. Take the exit toward Apeldoorn/Zwolle 1.1 mi
1 min
39. Merge onto A50 12.4 mi
10 mins
40. Take the exit onto A1/E30 toward Deventer/Hengelo 30.4 mi
25 mins
41. Take the exit onto A1/A35 toward Borne/Oldenzaal/Hengelo/Enschede
Continue to follow A1
Entering Germany 16.9 mi
14 mins
42. Continue straight onto A30 39.8 mi
33 mins
43. Take exit 14-Lotte/Osnabrück to merge onto A1 toward Bremen 132 mi
1 hour 48 mins
44. Take the exit toward A1 0.5 mi
45. Keep left at the fork, follow signs for Lübeck/Berlin/Hamburg and merge onto A1 8.4 mi
8 mins
46. Take exit 36-Kreuz Hamburg-Süd toward Lübeck/A24/Berlin 0.8 mi
1 min
47. Merge onto A1 75.5 mi
1 hour 7 mins
48. Continue on B207 17.7 mi
22 mins
49. Turn left at B207/Wagenfähre nach Rödbyhavn 0.1 mi
1 min
50. Take the Puttgarden - Rödbyhavn ferry to Lolland
Entering Denmark 11.5 mi
52 mins
51. Continue straight onto E47/Sydmotorvejen
Continue to follow E47 74.9 mi
1 hour 12 mins
52. Take the exit onto E20
Partial toll road
Entering Sweden 33.9 mi
34 mins
53. Continue straight to stay on E20
Partial toll road 52.6 mi
52 mins
54. Take exit 30a toward Stockholm/21 0.6 mi
55. Merge onto E4 138 mi
2 hours 15 mins
56. Take exit 95a toward Stockholm 0.5 mi
57. Merge onto E4 196 mi
3 hours 16 mins
58. Take the exit toward Sundsvall/Stockholm C 0.6 mi
1 min
59. Merge onto E4 49.5 mi
53 mins
60. Take the exit toward 290 0.4 mi
1 min
61. Turn right at 290
Go through 1 roundabout 20.5 mi
29 mins
62. Turn left at Filmvägen 1.0 mi
3 mins
63. Turn right at Norrnäsvägen 1.4 mi
3 mins
To: Film
Östhammar, Sweden
Dunno how many stops but it is very far from the wirrel:razz:
1. Head northeast on Kiln Rd toward Potters Close 0.1 mi
2. Slight right at Moat Ln 0.5 mi
2 mins
3. Turn left at A4128/High St
Continue to follow A4128 1.1 mi
4 mins
4. Turn left at A4128/Link Rd 0.2 mi
5. At the roundabout, take the 2nd exit onto A413
Go through 2 roundabouts 5.0 mi
8 mins
6. Slight left to stay on A413 0.5 mi
1 min
7. At the roundabout, take the 3rd exit onto A355/Gore Hill
Continue to follow A355 4.5 mi
7 mins
8. At the roundabout, take the 1st exit onto A40/London Rd 0.3 mi
1 min
9. At Pyebush Roundabout, take the 2nd exit onto A355 0.6 mi
1 min
10. At the roundabout, take the 1st exit onto the M40 ramp to London/M25 0.3 mi
1 min
11. Merge onto M40 3.9 mi
4 mins
12. At junction 1a, exit onto M25 toward M4/M23 48.8 mi
46 mins
13. Continue on M26 (signs for Maidstone/M26/M20/Dover) 10.0 mi
10 mins
14. Merge onto M20 36.5 mi
35 mins
15. Exit at junction 11a 0.4 mi
16. Slight right 0.7 mi
1 min
17. Continue straight 0.6 mi
2 mins
18. Slight left 0.5 mi
3 mins
19. Take the Folkestone - Calais train to Fréthun
Entering France 36.4 mi
1 hour 22 mins
20. Continue straight 0.2 mi
3 mins
21. Turn left 1.4 mi
2 mins
22. Merge onto A16/E402 via the ramp to E15/A26/Calais/Lille/Reims/Paris/Bruxelles
Continue to follow A16
Entering Belgium 35.6 mi
31 mins
23. Continue straight onto A18 26.1 mi
21 mins
24. Continue on A10 30.3 mi
25 mins
25. Take exit Zwijnaarde for E17 toward Antwerpen/Gent 1.2 mi
2 mins
26. Follow signs for Antwerpen and merge onto A14/E17 31.1 mi
25 mins
27. Continue on R1 9.7 mi
10 mins
28. Continue on A1
Entering Netherlands 21.2 mi
17 mins
29. Continue straight onto A16 2.6 mi
2 mins
30. Take the exit onto A27/A58/E312 toward Breda-Oost/Utrecht/Tilburg 4.4 mi
4 mins
31. Take the exit onto A27/E311 toward Breda/Utrecht 22.1 mi
18 mins
32. Take the exit toward Tiel/Nijmegen 1.0 mi
1 min
33. Merge onto A15 35.3 mi
28 mins
34. Take the exit toward Arnhem-Noord/Apeldoorn/Doetinchem 1.7 mi
1 min
35. Merge onto A50 8.1 mi
7 mins
36. Take the exit toward A12/E35 341 ft
37. Keep right at the fork, follow signs for E35/Arnhem/Apeldoorn/Zwolle/Doetinchem/A12 and merge onto A12/E35 4.0 mi
3 mins
38. Take the exit toward Apeldoorn/Zwolle 1.1 mi
1 min
39. Merge onto A50 12.4 mi
10 mins
40. Take the exit onto A1/E30 toward Deventer/Hengelo 30.4 mi
25 mins
41. Take the exit onto A1/A35 toward Borne/Oldenzaal/Hengelo/Enschede
Continue to follow A1
Entering Germany 16.9 mi
14 mins
42. Continue straight onto A30 39.8 mi
33 mins
43. Take exit 14-Lotte/Osnabrück to merge onto A1 toward Bremen 132 mi
1 hour 48 mins
44. Take the exit toward A1 0.5 mi
45. Keep left at the fork, follow signs for Lübeck/Berlin/Hamburg and merge onto A1 8.4 mi
8 mins
46. Take exit 36-Kreuz Hamburg-Süd toward Lübeck/A24/Berlin 0.8 mi
1 min
47. Merge onto A1 75.5 mi
1 hour 7 mins
48. Continue on B207 17.7 mi
22 mins
49. Turn left at B207/Wagenfähre nach Rödbyhavn 0.1 mi
1 min
50. Take the Puttgarden - Rödbyhavn ferry to Lolland
Entering Denmark 11.5 mi
52 mins
51. Continue straight onto E47/Sydmotorvejen
Continue to follow E47 74.9 mi
1 hour 12 mins
52. Take the exit onto E20
Partial toll road
Entering Sweden 33.9 mi
34 mins
53. Continue straight to stay on E20
Partial toll road 52.6 mi
52 mins
54. Take exit 30a toward Stockholm/21 0.6 mi
55. Merge onto E4 138 mi
2 hours 15 mins
56. Take exit 95a toward Stockholm 0.5 mi
57. Merge onto E4 196 mi
3 hours 16 mins
58. Take the exit toward Sundsvall/Stockholm C 0.6 mi
1 min
59. Merge onto E4 49.5 mi
53 mins
60. Take the exit toward 290 0.4 mi
1 min
61. Turn right at 290
Go through 1 roundabout 20.5 mi
29 mins
62. Turn left at Filmvägen 1.0 mi
3 mins
63. Turn right at Norrnäsvägen 1.4 mi
3 mins
To: Film
Östhammar, Sweden
Dunno how many stops but it is very far from the wirrel:razz:
Staggerlee
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 284
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Um its going to take me 3.5hrs just to get to the Wirrel from the Wirral
Well of course I have given you the scenic route so you can take lots of pics.... (remind me not to use google map for directions)
D
Druid
Guest
I've been experimenting with an old F3 I bought recently and what I'm noticing isn't so much greater dynamic range, it's that film images degrade more gracefully on the boundaries of their range. For example, in a case where I'd just burn out the highlights of an image of a white rose, film gives me something very much more usable.
cjnicolai
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 702
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Druid, both aspects are true; film DOES have greater dynamic range, and also has more gentle boundaries. You'll see this much more readily in incidences of strongly contrasting light (i.e. moody portraits by window light where the light fall-off is very dramatic.) I can rely on the film's range to get a workable negative, whereas the same shot on digital would absolutely requie a reflector for acceptable detail.
End of the day, again, it shouldn't matter when discussing HDR. Two different beasts, nothing gained by comparing.
- CJ
End of the day, again, it shouldn't matter when discussing HDR. Two different beasts, nothing gained by comparing.
- CJ
H
Hoodi
Guest
As said, I'd basically try to avoid the subject - but here's another spanner in the works
I was shooting a fairly tricksy shot with my Mamiya a week or two back. I generally don't bracket too much as if I do it either way that's a third of the film gone Anyhoo I did throw this particular shot 1.5 stops either way. I was using Kodak 400VC.
Looking at the negs, you can clearly see the variances in density & exposure. Scanning them they all look pretty well exactly the same. Adjusting the scanning exposure showed that one had more highlight detail, and one more shadow detail, as expected. Point is that they were all fine for making a neutral exposure image. Then I took the "middle" exposure image and did three scans of it, at differing exposures. HDRed it up and it worked as expected, the detail is all there.
Then I took these three negs down to the lab and got three small prints of them done. Again, the printer will auto-expose the images, but not as well or to the same degree as the scanner. The result was that from the prints you could clearly see the exposure differences.
What am I trying to say with all this? Fairly simple ~ film does have an extraordinarily high exposure lattitude (I would say even slide film does. I've had skies that look blown on the slide but the scanner can extract detail from) - but with "traditional" means it's tough to fully access all that exposure lattitude (exception ~ B&W hand printing w/ dodging & burning) with a hybrid analouge - digital method, you're able to gobble up all that lattitude with relative ease. This isn't without its own foibles and limitations - my (cheap!) scanner cannot see the base black of Velvia 50.
As mentioned film really does generally "clip" in a much "nicer" way than digital, too. Having said that I hate the way some films really clog up the shadows. Highlights, though, are hit far more appealingly. It's not as simple as just hitting pure white, I've shot stuff with a view to having a "clipped" sky or side of a face that I wouldn't dream of with digital.
I was shooting a fairly tricksy shot with my Mamiya a week or two back. I generally don't bracket too much as if I do it either way that's a third of the film gone
Anyhoo I did throw this particular shot 1.5 stops either way. I was using Kodak 400VC.Looking at the negs, you can clearly see the variances in density & exposure. Scanning them they all look pretty well exactly the same. Adjusting the scanning exposure showed that one had more highlight detail, and one more shadow detail, as expected. Point is that they were all fine for making a neutral exposure image. Then I took the "middle" exposure image and did three scans of it, at differing exposures. HDRed it up and it worked as expected, the detail is all there.
Then I took these three negs down to the lab and got three small prints of them done. Again, the printer will auto-expose the images, but not as well or to the same degree as the scanner. The result was that from the prints you could clearly see the exposure differences.
What am I trying to say with all this? Fairly simple ~ film does have an extraordinarily high exposure lattitude (I would say even slide film does. I've had skies that look blown on the slide but the scanner can extract detail from) - but with "traditional" means it's tough to fully access all that exposure lattitude (exception ~ B&W hand printing w/ dodging & burning) with a hybrid analouge - digital method, you're able to gobble up all that lattitude with relative ease. This isn't without its own foibles and limitations - my (cheap!) scanner cannot see the base black of Velvia 50.
As mentioned film really does generally "clip" in a much "nicer" way than digital, too. Having said that I hate the way some films really clog up the shadows. Highlights, though, are hit far more appealingly. It's not as simple as just hitting pure white, I've shot stuff with a view to having a "clipped" sky or side of a face that I wouldn't dream of with digital.
cjnicolai
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 702
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hoodi, good post.
It's definitely true that hand-printing with dodging and burning is almost always necessary to maximize the quality of the B&W film print. That said, if a straight print with no adjustments is very far off, there's typically something significantly wrong with the way the negative was exposed.
You really can't judge the quality of the negative or the exposure by a straight machine print or scan, though. Keep in mind that most true B&W films were not made with scanning in mind. The REAL test is a straight darkroom print with no adjustments. After all, the machine doesn't have any idea what the print should look like. Much like a camera meter, the machine will often look at my negs (with lots of dramatic lighting and shadows) and print them dead flat grey. Or read the midtones much darker than they are. Contrast quickly gets out of whack, blocking up shadows and eliminating midtones. Scans and digital prints of my image (whether from negs or prints) never reflect the subtleties of traditional prints.
If the exposure is anywhere near correct, I'd be willing to bet that this wouldn't be an issue if the film was printed traditionally. Scans rarely pick up subtle shadow. Certain films, though, ARE designed for digital printing. I believe Kodak's TCN and Ilford's XP2 are both designed that way -- and I've found both films to be an enormous pain in the backside to print traditionally. They're great for hybrid techniques. They're also both C-41 process films, so they can be processed at any minilab.
- CJ
It's definitely true that hand-printing with dodging and burning is almost always necessary to maximize the quality of the B&W film print. That said, if a straight print with no adjustments is very far off, there's typically something significantly wrong with the way the negative was exposed.
You really can't judge the quality of the negative or the exposure by a straight machine print or scan, though. Keep in mind that most true B&W films were not made with scanning in mind. The REAL test is a straight darkroom print with no adjustments. After all, the machine doesn't have any idea what the print should look like. Much like a camera meter, the machine will often look at my negs (with lots of dramatic lighting and shadows) and print them dead flat grey. Or read the midtones much darker than they are. Contrast quickly gets out of whack, blocking up shadows and eliminating midtones. Scans and digital prints of my image (whether from negs or prints) never reflect the subtleties of traditional prints.
If the exposure is anywhere near correct, I'd be willing to bet that this wouldn't be an issue if the film was printed traditionally. Scans rarely pick up subtle shadow. Certain films, though, ARE designed for digital printing. I believe Kodak's TCN and Ilford's XP2 are both designed that way -- and I've found both films to be an enormous pain in the backside to print traditionally. They're great for hybrid techniques. They're also both C-41 process films, so they can be processed at any minilab.
- CJ
pxl8
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,288
- Name
- Andy Jones
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bit late to the party on this one but 20 odd years ago when I did my E6 training at Kodak we were told 5 stops for slide, 7 for colour and 9 for B+W were the safe ranges to work with. Should be fairly easy to work out what a particular brand of DSLR/sensor will manage with some simple tests - in fact I think that DPReview already includes the info somewhere...