Film feelings... Is it just me?

[mehran.mo]

My Rebel XT has been feeling a little ill lately so I started using my Mamiya C330 religiously.

Is it me or does it feel like film has a certain soul that digital doesn't. For some reason the pictures I take with the mamiya speak to me much better than the pictures I've taken with my Digital. And please I don't want this to become a FILM vs. DIGITAL thread. That's really not the point. My person belief is that both can be used along side each other.

I don't know, I just feel like film has a soul. The color shots are Portra 400NC and the B&Ws are T-Max 400.

I would like to know people's experience with this. And also any c&c are welcome and appreciated.

http://fc68.deviantart.com/fs44/f/2009/073/b/6/b626ce2bfdc2ba10c02a893a3041d739.jpg

http://fc31.deviantart.com/fs42/f/2009/073/9/0/907af1e08d474556e52cafafd7187c26.jpg

http://fc45.deviantart.com/fs44/f/2009/073/6/e/6e6bfad51381bfb7259d83b2d1a5145d.jpg

http://fc77.deviantart.com/fs44/f/2009/073/6/0/60160339aa85e2bcc5668f89581fff0d.jpg

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8733/4smallj.jpg

http://fc78.deviantart.com/fs40/f/2009/012/a/7/a796585b5d8dbc27cb02051e746a8900.jpg

[birdfromboat]

If it feels like it means something, it probably means something, right? I know what you mean, It has that certain 'more in the moment' feeling, some subjects will never care about what happens between pose and print, but other subjects have actually said "Oh, this is film? here let me....." as if they appreciated the extra effort I was going to make and wanted to feel like they helped out a little. If the subject is caring more, thats got to be better, If I am caring more, thats got to be better.
All that said....My last film camera, a junker, is up for sale on craigslist right now. I am throwing in my last rolls of film, and my last developed black and white film is waiting for me at the shop. I am officially gone digital, and I do feel something going away.

[mehran.mo]

I don't exactly remember the name of the person who said this, but he was a famous German writer from a century ago. He said that when he went from writing with a typewriter took away from him. He felt like his work wasn't as good when he used the typewriter than when used a pen and ink.

So I think there is more to the medium that you use. For example for me shooting 35mm and 120 square is very very different. I have to change my whole shooting habits. I am young photographer so I did start off with digital, but honestly I am so happy I am using film. I think to get the proper essence of photography you should shoot a little bit of film .

[birdfromboat]

I have heard the same story over and over regarding using a machine to do what was previously done by hand, and how it affected the art produced. But since the art we are producing is a realistic representation of a visual event, didn't we go way beyond creating our art by hand and using machines over 150 years ago? Is the digital camera versus the film camera as it applies to realistic visual representation anywhere near the leap of going from pen and ink to typewriters as it applies to writing? We are all cheating big time compared to a realist painter. H C B said he was a painter first, a photographer only because it was faster and easier. Widely accepted as the best photog ever, he didn't own a camera when he died.

[yogestee]

I shot film from the mid '70's to 2004 but digital from 2000 'til 2007 professionally, worked professionally from '78 to '07.. I agree film does have a feel to it,,hard to put my finger on it..

I have three 12x18 inch prints next to same sized digital prints on my walls.. Negatives were converted into digital..The prints shot on film do look different,,not better or worse.. Just different.. I can tell the difference but most people who come to my home can't..

[Mosca]

Can a beginner add something? I've been shooting for about 9 months, and I've been shooting film for a week.

Shooting film takes a lot more care in creating the initial image... but even more, shooting film requires an infusion of faith. Faith that what is coming out the other end is the same as what I think I put into it in the visualization and composition. There is that "black time" in between the capture of the image and the viewing of the result, where the imagination creates the possibilities of what the product might look like; and then, the image is in your hands. Perhaps the difference between what the imagination conceived and what the image actually became can be called its "soul". It is the path the image chose during the dark time.

Sorry for being so abstract.....

Edit: I love the pictures, btw.

[DC Fan]

Few experiences have been as special as taking six rolls of 35mm film to two one-hour minilabs, hoping they could actually process the film in one hour. And there always was the charm of pulling out the money to pay for the processing after every event. :)

[mehran.mo]

Can a beginner add something? I've been shooting for about 9 months, and I've been shooting film for a week.

Shooting film takes a lot more care in creating the initial image... but even more, shooting film requires an infusion of faith. Faith that what is coming out the other end is the same as what I think I put into it in the visualization and composition. There is that "black time" in between the capture of the image and the viewing of the result, where the imagination creates the possibilities of what the product might look like; and then, the image is in your hands. Perhaps the difference between what the imagination conceived and what the image actually became can be called its "soul". It is the path the image chose during the dark time.

Sorry for being so abstract.....

Edit: I love the pictures, btw.


I think it's that "dark time" that gives it it's soul as well. I develop my own b&w film and seeing an image appear on the negative is a special feeling.

[hawkeye60]

I used a Mamiya C33 for many years and loved the format and the look. But digital has completely won me over. For me the benefits of digital outweigh any failings.

[birdfromboat]

I worked my way through college running a processer for a major professional lab, I have probably run more paper than anyone I will ever meet. I remember the looks on peoples faces standing on the 'light' end of my processers, and working in the 'dark' end hoping I would have an audience when I went outside to deal with the rinse baths and take up reels. I still see that look on peoples faces as the 'chimp' their digitals, but it was ALWAYS there when they saw their prints for the first time at the end of my machine.
there is something to be said for antici...................pation.

[yogestee]

I used a Mamiya C33 for many years and loved the format and the look. But digital has completely won me over. For me the benefits of digital outweigh any failings.

Mamiya C220 and C330 were the first medium format cameras I ever used..

[bsaber]

I love film. There's something about that makes it appealing to me. Most of my portraits taken with digital are attempts to recreate specific films that I wanted to buy but couldn't back in high school when I first got into photography. I absolutely love my AE-1 and as soon as finals are over I'm going to buy a pack of Fuji Superia to go shooting.

[LW Dail]

I started with film, drifted away, and came back digital.

Recently picked up a Holga and am trying to unlearn all the rules.

Holga led me to pull out the old AE-1. It hangs in my bag now, with the 50mm for that perfect shot.

There is something about film that gives more depth and soul to a photo.

[bsaber]

I started with film, drifted away, and came back digital.

Recently picked up a Holga and am trying to unlearn all the rules.

Holga led me to pull out the old AE-1. It hangs in my bag now, with the 50mm for that perfect shot.

There is something about film that gives more depth and soul to a photo.

Explain? :)

[Gentleman Villain]

There are 2 details that I think you're seeing with the C330 film photographs that make them stand out from typical 35mm DSLR photographs.


The 1st detail is the way that the C330 Twin Lens Reflex camera renders the transition between in-focus and out-of-focus parts of the image. I call this the "box camera" look. Rangefinders, twin lens reflex cameras, and view cameras all have a similar look.

Take a look at these two photographs. Both of these appear to be front-focused and the eyes of the subjects are slightly soft. This doesn't bother me at all :) It doesn't bother me because the transition between IF and OOF areas of the image is so smooth that it's really hard to see that the eyes of the subjects aren't perfectly sharp within the focal plane. Now, if you had taken those exact same pictures on a digital 35mm and front-focused then the eyes would have looked way soft and the portraits rendered probably unusable. That's because the transitions between IF and OOF areas of a DSLR are more abrupt, therefore focus is much more critical.

The smooth transitions between IF and OOF areas of a "box camera" (as I like to call it) render the image in a "dreamy" way. This is a really cool effect....the backgrounds look very dreamy...the OOF areas look very dreamy. It's a different OOF look that the Bokeh that we're used to seeing from digital 35mm dslr cameras.

I'm not an engineer or a scientist...I don't know why these types of cameras draw images the way that they do...But they do it. I'm just pointing it out so that others can be aware of it....



I would like to know people's experience with this. And also any c&c are welcome and appreciated.







http://fc77.deviantart.com/fs44/f/2009/073/6/0/60160339aa85e2bcc5668f89581fff0d.jpg

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8733/4smallj.jpg



The 2nd reason that many people like film is the range of gradients that are available. Modern Digital cameras certainly have a huge color palette to work with...but film often offers even more subtle gradients. For example, if a subject is wearing a red sweatshirt that sweatshirt might have far more gradients of red if rendered on film than on digital. In B&W....these gradients are portrayed as micro-contrast.

Color film images often have more color gradients then digital images......and B&W film images often have more micro-contrast than digital images. These are very very very subtle details. These are the little things that photographers pick up on subconsciously but might not necessarily be able to articulate what they are seeing. They are seeing micro-contrast, gradients, mid-tones and in-between tones on film that aren't usually captured in digital.

Hope that makes sense...that's my un-technical way of explaining a subtle thing what we are all seeing when shooting film vs digital. OF course, this is so subtle that most non-photographers will NEVER pick up on it no matter how close they look.

[mehran.mo]

Thanks Villain, that was a great explanation. I can see it now, you are definitely right about that dreamy look.

[Gentleman Villain]

Thanks Villain, that was a great explanation. I can see it now, you are definitely right about that dreamy look.

Cool - There's another thing (I just remembered) that might help explain a bit of the film look...

CMOS sensor cameras often portray texture in an over-smoothened and plastic sort of way. Objects can look a little too perfect and almost waxy. Film tends to render texture in a way that is more similar to how our eyes percieve texture. Subjects shot on film often have a more natural or life-like texture.

Texture is just one more subtle thing to notice when comparing digital to film.

[bsaber]

Cool - There's another thing (I just remembered) that might help explain a bit of the film look...

CMOS sensor cameras often portray texture in an over-smoothened and plastic sort of way. Objects can look a little too perfect and almost waxy. Film tends to render texture in a way that is more similar to how our eyes percieve texture. Subjects shot on film often have a more natural or life-like texture.

Texture is just one more subtle thing to notice when comparing digital to film.

Yes! Digital looks "sterile" :D Which isn't a bad thing either

[rdenney]

You are seeing four effects:

1. Format. The C330 creates a much larger image surface than an affordable digital camera. I don't care how many pixels you stuff into a space, you can't overcome the fact that the 6x6 image has 3136 square millimeters of image and the Digital Rebel only has 345. There's just a huge amount of information, even if it's integrated into a small print. In the old days, I could tell the difference in an instant between an 8x10 print made from medium format film and an 8x10 print made from 35mm film. In both cases, the print size is well within the technology when considering resolution and acutance, but the smaller format just doesn't contain as much information.

2. Camera angle. You hold a TLR down low and look up at your subjects. You hold a Rebel at eye level and look across at your subject, or even down at them. Don't underestimate the effect of this change in point of view. It radically alters the background, and it also alters the perspective rendering of the face and body of your subject.

3. Film has a different response curve to light than does digital. The characteristic curve of film is usually s-shaped, while digital is more linear. Without being corrected (if that's the right word) in post-processing, film will show more tonal subtlety in shadows and highlights, and less in the mid-range. I usually have to adjust the tone curve of my images to pull down the lower part of the curve and pull up the upper part of the curve to make it look right to me. Part of this is a digital fact: With 24-bit color (that people use with JPEG images), shades may be 5 or 10, and highlights 245 or 250. In both cases, the difference is fairly large compared to absolute black (0) and absolute white (255). The difference between 5 and 10 is double--enough to notice. With film, these parts of the image will have a smooth gradient between those two levels, and the film will smoothly curve down to maximum black. That's one reason I shoot raw and make sure to get as much of the scene's luminances into the image as possible. Then, I make my tone-curve adjustment, which keeps the whole histogram within the image. Converting to JPEG subsequently combines those images, but at least they are all there. I think this is what GV is seeing in part.

4. Film's granularity is randomly distributed, and digital's granularity is organized in rows. I suspect that GV's perceptions at the fine level reflect this difference also.

The result of these factors is that the pictures have a different "look". Each look has its artistic possibilities, but I don't attribute soul to those possibilities. It may be that your soul resonates with one set of possibilities better than the other, but that may also be a learned response.

For sure we are wasting digital's artistic potential when we try to make it look exactly like film. If we consider artistic development, from the base capabilities of the technology to its ultimate expression, as a vector, then when we try to recreate film using digital we are trying to point a vector that starts at a different spot so that it reaches the same endpoint. But I believe we should, for the most part, point the digital photography vector towards its own artistic endpoints.

For example, I could put film in a view camera, and go out and try to make pictures using the techniques of Ansel Adams. I would apply the Zone System, previsualize, use Polaroids as proofs, flash the negative if necessary, use appropriate filters, measure the luminance of tiny spots all over the scene, map those luminances to desire print tonalities, determine what sort of development I need to achieve those tones, and on and on. Making one good image with a big camera requires a huge investment of learning and skill development.

I may be able to reproduce that image using digital tools with perhaps one-tenth the effort. I know for a fact that I can manipulate tonality with far finer control and flexibility than using film. Let's say that I achieve that same result such that nobody can distinguish between them.

To me, that runs the risk of being a shortcut. We may be able to produce a cabinet using power tools as well as an ancient cabinet maker using hand tools. But doing so is a simulation. If power tools can do so much more, then we should be able to achieve more. I'm not sure we've really learned how to do that yet. We still may be in the mode of using power tools to build the same cabinet as our forefathers built using hand tools.

(I did the majority of what commercial work I did in my younger years using a Mamiya C-3, then a C-33, and finally a C-330, by the way.)

Rick "a film photographer using digital tools" Denney

[Gentleman Villain]

2. Camera angle. You hold a TLR down low and look up at your subjects. You hold a Rebel at eye level and look across at your subject, or even down at them. Don't underestimate the effect of this change in point of view. It radically alters the background, and it also alters the perspective rendering of the face and body of your subject.
That is excellent point. One of the things that isn't often discussed at POTN is the look of an SLR vs the look created by other cameras. Part of what makes the look of a particular camera might have to do with the way that it is approached by the user. Your example of the small differences in composition that might take place when viewing a subject through a twin lens viewfinder as opposed to an SLR viewfinder is exactly right.



3. Film has a different response curve to light than does digital. The characteristic curve of film is usually s-shaped, while digital is more linear. Without being corrected (if that's the right word) in post-processing, film will show more tonal subtlety in shadows and highlights, and less in the mid-range. I usually have to adjust the tone curve of my images to pull down the lower part of the curve and pull up the upper part of the curve to make it look right to me. Part of this is a digital fact: With 24-bit color (that people use with JPEG images), shades may be 5 or 10, and highlights 245 or 250. In both cases, the difference is fairly large compared to absolute black (0) and absolute white (255). The difference between 5 and 10 is double--enough to notice. With film, these parts of the image will have a smooth gradient between those two levels, and the film will smoothly curve down to maximum black. That's one reason I shoot raw and make sure to get as much of the scene's luminances into the image as possible. Then, I make my tone-curve adjustment, which keeps the whole histogram within the image. Converting to JPEG subsequently combines those images, but at least they are all there. I think this is what GV is seeing in part.

Yes, that sounds like it could be a good part of what I'm seeing


4. Film's granularity is randomly distributed, and digital's granularity is organized in rows. I suspect that GV's perceptions at the fine level reflect this difference also.

Excellent point. The randomness of film grain vs the organization of digital has a lot to do with why some people might think film has more "soul" (as originally observed by the OP)



For sure we are wasting digital's artistic potential when we try to make it look exactly like film. If we consider artistic development, from the base capabilities of the technology to its ultimate expression, as a vector, then when we try to recreate film using digital we are trying to point a vector that starts at a different spot so that it reaches the same endpoint. But I believe we should, for the most part, point the digital photography vector towards its own artistic endpoints.

I agree with that....It's good to compare film to digital so that a photographer has a reference and can understand the positives and negatives of both. But in the end, we shouldn't try to make digital look exactly like film. That's definitely true.

Thanks for the cool post!

[mehran.mo]

This is great. These are exactly the points that have subconsciously given me the special feeling with film. Thanks guys, great stuff.

[Tareq]

I am late to use Medium Format, just got it in Jan 2009, i feel it is really amazing and unbeatable, even it is digital but i can see the film-look at the photos so clearly, and i had one photo that making me to hate my DSLR more but i know that is not the problem of DSLR, but the problem of the fake feeling that MF take over in minds.

[HappySnapper90]

It isn't just you. Last night I ordered an EOS-1v HS from KEH which will go alongside with my EOS-3 and Pentax K1000. My 5D will most likely get used this year only for partial shooting at some family events and action/sports/wildlife (which isn't much).

I'll probably have b+w in one, slide film in another, and negative film in the last.

[_aravena]

I think its a personal thing. You yourself feel different therefore your photos are different. It's been so long since I typed up essay and stories and I feel a bit rusty but I've also written a bit down in pencil and it's as if I never stopped and it's been even longer for that. I just didn't feel like typing. There's just something about going back to your roots is all. Psych 101 crap but yeah...

When a new format comes out, people that started with these cameras will say the same.

[randerson07]

I am late to use Medium Format, just got it in Jan 2009, i feel it is really amazing and unbeatable, even it is digital but i can see the film-look at the photos so clearly, and i had one photo that making me to hate my DSLR more but i know that is not the problem of DSLR, but the problem of the fake feeling that MF take over in minds.

I too just jumped to Medium format this year, shot 35mm almost all of last year, very little digital.

I love medium format, handling MF Slides is a lovely experience every time. Ive even started doing my own prints in my bathroom darkroom this month, Ive never felt more in tune with something as this whole process from making the exposure to developing the film to making the prints.

[Tareq]

I too just jumped to Medium format this year, shot 35mm almost all of last year, very little digital.

I love medium format, handling MF Slides is a lovely experience every time. Ive even started doing my own prints in my bathroom darkroom this month, Ive never felt more in tune with something as this whole process from making the exposure to developing the film to making the prints.

I see, and i am still thinking to get a film MF, i have a choice between Hasselblad or Mamiya, but i think i should use my digital MF and tweak my photos in film-like more, not rush to get film as i didn't use my DMF enough more yet.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3218/a0000404bwpi9.jpg

adding little grain, and some pp and it will be perfect.

[mehran.mo]

Digital MF is a little beyond me... I don't really see myself ever owning one really.

[Tareq]

Digital MF is a little beyond me... I don't really see myself ever owning one really.

Why? Me too can't afford it.

[mehran.mo]

Well. considering its like +20K$... I don't really see myself paying that much money for a camera. Specially considering this is a hobby.

[rdenney]

Well. considering its like +20K$... I don't really see myself paying that much money for a camera. Specially considering this is a hobby.

I held off buying the 5D for a couple of years in the hopes that Pentax would bring their 645 Digital camera to market. But with a proposed 36x43 sensor, it might have been disappointing. I really do like my wide-angle lenses.

The price, though, was projected at $7500. It may be that Pentax couldn't keep the costs low enough to allow that price point, in which case their apparent desire to compete against the 1Ds might have fallen flat.

Rick "whose widest rectilinear wide for the 645 is a 45, only 80% of normal for that sensor" Denney

[Ballen Photo]

Love the second image with the reflection. :)
That Mamiya C330 is a great camera. I have a Yashica TLR, but would have preferred the Mamiya. :cool:
rdenney makes some very good points about the difference in size.
Lastly, You might enjoy perusing this thread. ;)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=652339
-Bruce

[hrm5270]

Lately I have been missing taking photographs with 35mm film. I used color film and also made silver gelatin prints by working in a darkroom for years. I switched to digital around a year ago and I am not happy with quality compared to my 35mm film color photos.All the processing I have to do drives me crazy, but I don't mind working in the darkroom for hours, because the result I feel is worth it, I have not been getting that with my digital photos. I have been struggling with this issue lately. I like the fact that digital picture taking is so instant, unlike film. I also cannot afford to by film or print in my darkroom weekly, where as I can shoot with my digital camera daily without spending money. I am a film lover and plan to go back to it, but I need to create a better understanding of my digital headaches. Ahh, Missing Film:(

[LW Dail]

Explain? :) Explain why shooting with the Holga makes me forget the rules....

Sorry I drifted away - am in Houston for some TDY and actually have to produce!

Unlearning the rules (relating to the Holga) is kind of funny. A well thought out and composed shot with a Holga doesn't work. A picture of a street sign at an angle cross-processed does.

I tend to get tied up with aperture, exposure, subject, lighting, hairs out of place, etc. I can WAY overthink something.

When you put a plastic camera in your hand that has two shutter speeds, no focus, no depth of field adjustments, and loves double exposures, you get down to the nitty gritty of photography. Shooting a great shot, as you see it, when you see it.

For me, it's fun to remember being a kid with an Instamatic, thinking I was taking award-winning photos! It forces me to just see the picture and snap it when I can. And it's kind of fun, not to think about it!

[LW Dail]

Oh yeah, and to wait for the results to see if it even worked!

We can shoot, download and correct in a heartbeat, without even leaving a location. With film, you shoot, leave, and pray. You will never be able to reproduce the image!

[adam8080]

Holly, do you shoot RAW or jpg?

[hrm5270]

Hi,

I shoot in RAW.

Holly

[adam8080]

Try shooting in jpg and adjusting the settings in camera to your liking. This will help reduce most if not all of your work on the back end.

[bsaber]

Explain why shooting with the Holga makes me forget the rules....

Sorry I drifted away - am in Houston for some TDY and actually have to produce!

Unlearning the rules (relating to the Holga) is kind of funny. A well thought out and composed shot with a Holga doesn't work. A picture of a street sign at an angle cross-processed does.

I tend to get tied up with aperture, exposure, subject, lighting, hairs out of place, etc. I can WAY overthink something.

When you put a plastic camera in your hand that has two shutter speeds, no focus, no depth of field adjustments, and loves double exposures, you get down to the nitty gritty of photography. Shooting a great shot, as you see it, when you see it.

For me, it's fun to remember being a kid with an Instamatic, thinking I was taking award-winning photos! It forces me to just see the picture and snap it when I can. And it's kind of fun, not to think about it!

Ah, that's something I gotta try out! :D

[LW Dail]

Ah, that's something I gotta try out! :D

It really is a hoot! It's actually hard to go from the 5D to the Holga. With any digital SLR, you have tons of options and I find myself using them all, knowing something will be great! With the Holga, you have limited options, 12 shots and absolutely no way of knowing what will come out (given light leaks, processing, etc). Keeps my brain fresh trying to switch gears!

Other funny is going from the 5D to the AE-1. I find myself holding down the shutter release a lot on the AE-1, thinking to myself "Aw crud, battery? Error? What happened???.....shoot, need to advance the film!!!!"

Give me a couple of weeks and I'll add a new topic, I've stumbled onto a Baby Brownie in my parent's attic! Can't wait to clean this puppy up and try it! :D

<Baby Brownie Info:
Type: Solid body eyelevel rollfilm
Introduced: Sept 1939
Discontinued: 1954
Film size: 127
Picture size: 1 5/8 X 2 1/2"
Manufactured: US
Lens: Meniscus
Shutter: Rotary
Numbers made: ?
Original price: $1.25>

[randerson07]

can you respool 120 onto 127 reels?

The only 127 film I know thats readily available is the Efke R100 and IR820 that Freestylephoto sells

[bsaber]

It really is a hoot! It's actually hard to go from the 5D to the Holga. With any digital SLR, you have tons of options and I find myself using them all, knowing something will be great! With the Holga, you have limited options, 12 shots and absolutely no way of knowing what will come out (given light leaks, processing, etc). Keeps my brain fresh trying to switch gears!

Other funny is going from the 5D to the AE-1. I find myself holding down the shutter release a lot on the AE-1, thinking to myself "Aw crud, battery? Error? What happened???.....shoot, need to advance the film!!!!"

Give me a couple of weeks and I'll add a new topic, I've stumbled onto a Baby Brownie in my parent's attic! Can't wait to clean this puppy up and try it! :D

<Baby Brownie Info:
Type: Solid body eyelevel rollfilm
Introduced: Sept 1939
Discontinued: 1954
Film size: 127
Picture size: 1 5/8 X 2 1/2"
Manufactured: US
Lens: Meniscus
Shutter: Rotary
Numbers made: ?
Original price: $1.25>

I find myself doing the same thing with my AE-1! :lol:

[AxxisPhoto]

Wow. Outstanding images! Really makes me miss shooting film.
I agree with you. Film has soul, is organic, and can is something that you physically touch. I even miss making prints in the darkroom, which is an art unto itself.

[mehran.mo]

can you respool 120 onto 127 reels?

The only 127 film I know thats readily available is the Efke R100 and IR820 that Freestylephoto sells

I've seen people do this. It's possible, a huge hassle though. You should keep the paper backing from a 127 reel and use the tape markings on that to identify where the film should end and start. The only issue I can see is cutting the edge of the film to match the right size.

Wow. Outstanding images! Really makes me miss shooting film.

Thank you. I try my best.

[Karl Johnston]

I remember reading somewhere that film had 2.5x the dynamic range that digital does, or had 2.5x the sensitivity to pick up all ranges of light. Maybe that's got something to do with it

[cdifoto]

Film is overrated.

[Ballen Photo]

Film is overrated.
It can be very under rated as well. ;)
-Bruce

[cdifoto]

It can be very under rated as well. ;)
-Bruce
Ba dum CHING. :lol:

[HappySnapper90]

I remember reading somewhere that film had 2.5x the dynamic range that digital does, or had 2.5x the sensitivity to pick up all ranges of light. Maybe that's got something to do with it

Negative film is awesome for highlight retention.

Try taking a photo of someone with a digital SLR on a bright cloudless day in early to mid afternoon sunlight. You'll end up with either blown highlights on the hair and a darker face or if you expose for the highlights on the hair you'll have even a darker face.

Do the same with negative film and the hair will not be blown out or washed out and the face will have very light shadows. Negative film was meant to be "over exposed" from a middle meter reading because it has lots of extra stops of highlight retention compared to digital.

With negative film, there's no reason to under exposed for a middle meter reading unless you need a faster shutter speed to avoid camera/subject motion.

[yogestee]

Negative film is awesome for highlight retention.

Try taking a photo of someone with a digital SLR on a bright cloudless day in early to mid afternoon sunlight. You'll end up with either blown highlights on the hair and a darker face or if you expose for the highlights on the hair you'll have even a darker face.

Do the same with negative film and the hair will not be blown out or washed out and the face will have very light shadows. Negative film was meant to be "over exposed" from a middle meter reading because it has lots of extra stops of highlight retention compared to digital.

With negative film, there's no reason to under exposed for a middle meter reading unless you need a faster shutter speed to avoid camera/subject motion.

I hope you're referring to colour negative film here?? Overexposing B/W film is a no-no unless you pull the developing back.. If not, it gets as lumpy as a sack of golf balls..

[HappySnapper90]

b+w film also has a very wide exposure latitude.

[LW Dail]

Just another 'hooray' for film, I found the post-processing much more fun with film!

Go into a darkroom, burn and dodge to your hearts content.

I think that's what makes a film photographer try so hard to get it right in the camera, we were 'negatively reinforced' to get it right in the camera.

<pun unintended, but I'll take the points!>

[yogestee]

b+w film also has a very wide exposure latitude.

More so than colour emulsions.. Tri-X 400 you could get a brightness range of around 6 stops if exposed and processed carefully.. It also had the longest tonal range of any film on the market..

Whats so crazy about Tri-X it was first "developed" in the mid 1950's with little or no improvement until it went out of production..

[airfrogusmc]

More so than colour emulsions.. Tri-X 400 you could get a brightness range of around 6 stops if exposed and processed carefully.. It also had the longest tonal range of any film on the market..

Whats so crazy about Tri-X it was first "developed" in the mid 1950's with little or no improvement until it went out of production..

And tri x 340 professional sheet film with the right developer/temp/agitation you could pull out what 9 stops of range. The toe and the shoulder with the right developer is amazing. I think tri X pro sheet film is still around :confused:...

[airfrogusmc]

I hope you're referring to colour negative film here?? Overexposing B/W film is a no-no unless you pull the developing back.. If not, it gets as lumpy as a sack of golf balls..

Yep you want to get as close to the threshold of exposure as possible.

[randerson07]

I hope you're referring to colour negative film here?? Overexposing B/W film is a no-no unless you pull the developing back.. If not, it gets as lumpy as a sack of golf balls..

More so than colour emulsions.. Tri-X 400 you could get a brightness range of around 6 stops if exposed and processed carefully.. It also had the longest tonal range of any film on the market..

Whats so crazy about Tri-X it was first "developed" in the mid 1950's with little or no improvement until it went out of production..

Out of Production?

You can still buy Tri-X in 135, 120, 220, 100ft rolls, 4x5, 8x10, and pobably more. Now if your talking about the original formula well yes that has been tweaked in recent years. here is what Freestylephoto has in stock
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_search.php

[mehran.mo]

Wait! what now? Tri-X is out of production? That's news to me. We have a bunch at the store, maybe I should stock up?

Anyway, as far as film goes, it's an awesome medium. B&W is very interesting specially if you do some extreme pull processing. You can get a huge tonal range. You'll get a natural looking "HDR" shot. The Tri-X used to be the prime candidate for this type of processing.

[yogestee]

Wait! what now? Tri-X is out of production? That's news to me. We have a bunch at the store, maybe I should stock up?

Anyway, as far as film goes, it's an awesome medium. B&W is very interesting specially if you do some extreme pull processing. You can get a huge tonal range. You'll get a natural looking "HDR" shot. The Tri-X used to be the prime candidate for this type of processing.

I stand corrected.. I thought Tri-X went out of production a few years back..

[airfrogusmc]

Out of Production?

You can still buy Tri-X in 135, 120, 220, 100ft rolls, 4x5, 8x10, and pobably more. Now if your talking about the original formula well yes that has been tweaked in recent years. here is what Freestylephoto has in stock
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_search.php

I don't think they touched the 340 tri X did they?

[randerson07]

I don't think they touched the 340 tri X did they?

I dont see any 340, but I do see 320txp, is that what your referring to?

Ive shot 5 or so rolls of it, not sure i notice a difference from it and 400tx in 120.

[airfrogusmc]

I dont see any 340, but I do see 320txp, is that what your referring to?

Ive shot 5 or so rolls of it, not sure i notice a difference from it and 400tx in 120.

OPPPs 320 tri -x sorry. With the right developer it has a much slower curve and not much of a toe or shoulder (more detail in the shadows and highlights).
It was one of Adams favorite films and he had a special dilution of HC 110 so he could get even more dynamic range from his negs. I didn't know they made tri-x 320 in rolls...

[Bumgardnern]

I love film. I am having my wedding in September shot with a Mamiya RZ and might also throw in a few shots from a 4x5 camera. I agree that film just has something to it. People have told me that my fine art film photography has a certain soul to it that my digital work lacks. I really hated that comment as I make my living with my digital work.

[caesar2164]

I've had film feelings for a while and have now really started appeasing them...

I now own:
- a Mamiya 645 Pro TL with 5 lenses and other stuff
- a 1980s East German Pentacon 6 TL with two Zeiss lenses
- Canon Elan 7e and Canon Film Rebel GII
- Rollei 35
- Olympus OM-1
- Kodakreflex TLR

I used to develop/print all my own stuff but I think I'm going to start just developing and scanning...

[Ballen Photo]

Nice collection caesar2164. ;)
-Bruce

[Colorblinded]

Film has a very different look and feel to it. The only film I really miss is B&W and some day when I have space I'd like to get back to shooting film and I'd set up a B&W darkroom to develop and print in if it would still be feasible.

That said I also find digital to be better for the particular quality I like much of what I photograph to have, the smoother and less grainy look of digital (properly exposed and all of course) works better for me in that regard but for other types of photography I enjoy there's something about the grain and the look of B&W film.

It's also quite fun to shoot with different cameras that force you to think and compose differently. I've always been a big fan of the square aspect ratio and many of the images I take with my DSLR are cropped to squares because that's how I feel they should have been in the first place, unfortunately DSLRs don't tend to come in a good variety of aspect ratios.

[sjones]

...there's something about the grain and the look of B&W film...

One of the main reasons why I switched to film.

Plus, I enjoy the affordable availability of different systems; I would not want to be anchored to just an SLR; rangefinders are too fun, and I hope to pick up a TLR next year.

[bsaber]

One of the main reasons why I switched to film.

Plus, I enjoy the affordable availability of different systems; I would not want to be anchored to just an SLR; rangefinders are too fun, and I hope to pick up a TLR next year.

I really want a rangefinder... a digital one. Unfortunately they're just too expensive. At least the Leicas are, any cheaper digital rangefinders out there?

[Colorblinded]

I want a Sigma DP1 type camera done right, that'd be my point & shoot and could replace my XTi + 30 & 50 1.4 lenses which currently sort of take up that task.

Otherwise my ideal kit would remain largely digital still (I'm undecided what film systems I'd want but I'll be keeping my EOS 3). I'd like a full frame DSLR as well as a digital medium format view or field camera... undecided on whether trading off some of the extra motions for compactness might be worth it... for the most part it probably would be. Square back I think, I can always crop but I like a square :)

[sjones]

I really want a rangefinder... a digital one. Unfortunately they're just too expensive. At least the Leicas are, any cheaper digital rangefinders out there?

The only other digital rangefinder produced was the Epson RD-1, which was slightly revised to the RD-1s. It is a Leica-M mount based on a Voigtlander Bessa body. A new version, the R-D1x, has recently been released, but I believe it is available only in Japan, costing about US$2,000. Early reports indicate that it uses the same 6-megapixel sensor as the original.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/27/epsons-r-d1xg-digital-rangefinder-locates-our-analog-hearts/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09022701epsonrd1xrangefinder.asp

RD-1s:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0603/06031502epsonrd1s.asp

[bsaber]

The only other digital rangefinder produced was the Epson RD-1, which was slightly revised to the RD-1s. It is a Leica-M mount based on a Voigtlander Bessa body. A new version, the R-D1x, has recently been released, but I believe it is available only in Japan, costing about US$2,000. Early reports indicate that it uses the same 6-megapixel sensor as the original.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/27/epsons-r-d1xg-digital-rangefinder-locates-our-analog-hearts/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09022701epsonrd1xrangefinder.asp

RD-1s:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0603/06031502epsonrd1s.asp

Thanks! Still out of my price range though... Oh well, one day maybe :)