Photography Thailand Forum

[bkkdave]

Hello David;

Gotcha cornered now! I really like your images and respect your talent. I am curious as to why you have reverted to film? No criticisms; far from it... but can you please explain your reason again? I searched and did not find the original post that I am thinking of.

Just one reason I am curious about; are the good results that I had with film / slides before computers and digital.

Sure digital is cheaper than film until you start to factor in the cost's of computers, software; etc if you buy registered software as I do.

Thanks

[David Procter]

Thanks Dave, besides the aesthetics in terms of tone (particularly with b/w) and the fact that interesting accidents occur are more likely to occur, film makes me slow down and think. When I am shooting digital, I tend to rattle off a huge amount of shots which just can't be done when you have twelve on a roll. I also find that, experimenting with different films and now formats, forces me to think about how to capture subjects before I shoot to greater extent than I do with digital. This slowing down also makes me more appreciative of light and how it is rendered on different films and depending on the format involved, composition must be approached in different ways. I also develop my own b/w negatives and the sheer excitement of having to wait and then seeing your pictures appear makes me very happy.
The main reason though for shooting more film at this point is because it is new to me and so there is much to learn and experiment with. Don't get me wrong, I love digital technology and the flexibility it brings. In certain scenarios I wouldn't think of using film. The fact is that if I had been into photography before the digital days, I would no doubt be applying the careful approach I take with film, with a digital camera in my hand.
In addition to the above ramblings, there is very little photo shop involved when using film and going back to the subject of this post, I've always been frustrated/limited with my photoshop when I see people who are skilled, turn average exposures into fabulous photographs.
I still want to better my photoshop!

[Marc Schultz]

I decided to split these 2 messages into a separate post since they are no longer on the subject of the other post which was about Photoshop courses.

David - I think your thoughts about why you want to still use film sometimes is interesting. In fact, I agree with much of what you say, but in the same respect digital does offer certain advantages as you noted.

Although I agree that being forced to take a lower number of shots, having to "make them all count", and then being able to fantasize for a while about how they might look when you get your film developed can be fun, but it can also work against you. I think it is fine just for fun day out of shooting and when you are looking for interesting accidents to happen as you say, but, when you really need to know if you got the shot or not, having digital makes all the difference.

I used to burn through heaps of expensive Polaroid snaps in the past, not to mention how much longer it would take to have to wait each time for a Polaroid to develop before knowing anything about whether your setup is correct or not.

With digital you sort of have your Polaroid and real film all in one. And Polaroids were never that good anyway I felt since they reacted differently to light than actual slide film does. So it made it difficult to look at a Polaroid anyway and know what you really have.

So the luxury to be able to shoot hundreds of shots and not worry about cost of film and whether you got the shot or not is a huge improvement in terms of workflow I believe.

For me, I still fantasize about using old medium format film cameras sometimes like you do, but it just remains a fantasy since the practicalities for me seem so limited.

[vinlyn]

...When I am shooting digital, I tend to rattle off a huge amount of shots which just can't be done when you have twelve on a roll....

David...interesting discussion.  The other day I was combining some old slide images that I had scanned with a high quality film scanner and some newer digital with both a Canon 30D and 50D, and I stopped short.  Some of the film photos were so good (but I also remember all those that weren't), and I found that my 30D shots were clearer than my 50D shots (same lens).

So, I spent most of the day yesterday with David Busch's guide to the 50D...page by page...and promised myself to slow donw and experiment more and more with my own settings, rather than relying so much on the camera.

I guess the bottom line for me for why I'm glad to be away from film, are those trips where I know I'll never be able to go again, and having no idea when I left whether I had any memories or not.  Long before I came here to live in retirement, I specifically remember one trip where a couple of rolls were effectively ruined by too many airport scanners.  I was heart broken.

Thanks again for the discussion.  You've helped remind me that quick snapping is not the fun part of photography!

[Ray Evans]

I re-involved myself with film last year - more by accident really.

When retiring to Thailand some 9 years ago I had the specific intent of scanning all my old film stuff dating back to the 70's and preserving it in digital form.

I went through various flatbed scanners (all I could afford) and was utterly underwhelmed. I gave up at this point.

Last year my luck changed - I sourced a Minolta Dimage Multi Pro dedicated film scanner - long since out of production but a low usage model complete with spares. Arguably the best desk top scanner ever made.

Boy, what a difference! 35mm was wonderful and the 120 stuff was so sharp it made my eyes bleed!

Off to Ebay and now shooting a Rollei 6002, Hasselblad 500CM and a Contax G2 

The main thing with film for me is it's cheaper (!) - buying all the latest digital gear is just too darned expensive. The above film equipment, complete with a full range of Zeiss lenses for each model set me back a total of $4,500. I can just about get the new Canon 1D MK 1V body only for this price! And how long will it be before that's old hat?

I used to dream about this type of film gear 25 years ago - now I own it!

Digital MF is the price of a car and totally out of my reach - but my Hasselblad with CF glass gives it a run for sure. And my metered Rollei is the definitive P&S for sure!

Of course, many people have now realised this and film cameras and film itself is now getting expensive (can't win really).

I love my Canon 5D and the wonderful IQ but film is my passion. The tones, feel and depth of a film image is something else (and not nostalgia)

And a strange twist - I have a selection of images with various stock libraries - about 2,500 in total of which 30% are film. - The film images outsell the digital and the per image sale is usually twice as much!

Long live film








 

[Adzz]

I would start as I often do, by saying Its all to do with the right tool for the job.
You don't really  need very big file sizes for advertising work, so Mark is right from his working point of view, Digital capture is a god send, that brings with it many advantages over film when it comes to production and concept development for your clients.
For social photographers and  fine artists, the highest resolution available can be important for them, printing real detail instead of interpolated is obviously preferable to some, to others not so important if the final result  satisfies them.
Computers, Scanners, Printers, Sensors, Lenses, Papers, Screens, etc,  have all made such rapid improvements over recent years and continue to do so, compared to Silver imaging the development it is astonishing.
But silver has in my mind had its day, so enjoy it whilst you can, because it is an interesting medium that has a place in the development of your photographic philosophy. David has clearly latch on to this and many of us who used film can understand its relationship to our photographic  development .
My father is 83 and living here in Thailand with me, a photographer also, he started with glass plates, wet printing, the first color and so on. I spent decades  loading dark slides, 120 backs, then loading drum scanners, finally capturing with scanning backs and then single sensors.Yes Im happy I had the experience of film, but personally more than happy to see the back of it and all the toxic chemistry related to it.  My only frustration is that the already rapid improvements in digital Imaging are not even quicker, I feel we are still just at the start.


Here is a little test some of you might like to try, if you do not like to pay for film and processing.
Turn the preview off in you DSLR and  cover the screen up with a piece of card so you cannot sneak a peek . Go on assignment for the day, , limit yourself say 3-4 rolls (36 per roll) 108-144 shots and use only manual settings including focus.  After the shoot, go home and wait for 2 hours for you camera to process your imaginary film.
While its doing that , have a think about how you shot everything and how  your images  might look...
After two hours, take a look.. try it a few times.

David is right film makes you work in a different way , and its a useful experience.

Nb: If your looking for technical answers to Film , Scanning and Capture sensors.. this is a good site.
http://www.clarkvision.com/

Regards Adam

[Marc Schultz]

Good points Adam, but worth noting is that with digital now way up in the 21MP range, you no longer need to shoot with Medium Format film as you are suggesting to get the higher resolution when needed. Even at 16MP the quality is already "challenging" MF, but, as I said, I think at 21MP you have already surpassed it with that much native pixel resolution.

The one and old thing I do miss about film though is how film lied a bit, and often in your favor. Especially the oversaturated slide films designed to make things more vivid than life. It darkened shadows and blew out highlights a bit. Less dynamic range than digital, but a good way of covering up mistakes too at times and with lots of contrast

And of course those nice B&W grains you used to get from Tri-X and the like. Digital on the other hand is so smooth and literal that you almost always have to process your pictures if you want them to have the dreamy look of saturated slide films or the grainy look of high-speed B&W film.

But herein lies the rub, if you shoot with a high-speed film because you like that affect, there is no way of ever turning that film into something with smoother grain if you change your mind later and want more sharpness. Digital on the other hand can be broken down to a more grainy look and you still also have the luxury of it always being sharp in the original file if you want that too. The same goes for those films which are higher contrast, but lower on the side of the dynamic range. You can't pull from them what is not there, but on digital you can always darken shadows and blow out highlights a bit if you want more contrast.

So in the end, I still see very little argument in favor of film over digital. Digital can do everything that film did and better. That is just my one sided perspective of course :)

[Adzz]

Ha , funny you talk about how forgiving film was , even at 5x4 which was the most prominent format I shot on, my biz partner and I would always look at some shot and say with confidence..."don't worry, It will come out in the wash!". And sure enough it would come back looking great for all the reasons you mention...
What you say about DSLR's competing with MF backs is very true.. Two big differences for me. Low light DSLR's hands down winners. Need swing shift and tilt,you cant beat a 4-shot MF back. Right tools for the job as always. Sort of wish my DSLR could shoot 4 shot, and of course it can, but they wont make them like that.  And if we had one light for all occasions, in our dreams.
Anyway nice to reminisce about the old days.. Im just waiting for someone to say to me something like, Polaroid? never herd of it..... E6? C41? Ektachrome? Velvia? 10x8film, ahh.. feeling old!

Regards Adam

[Ray Evans]

Good points Adam, but worth noting is that with digital now way up in the 21MP range, you no longer need to shoot with Medium Format film as you are suggesting to get the higher resolution when needed. Even at 16MP the quality is already "challenging" MF, but, as I said, I think at 21MP you have already surpassed it with that much native pixel resolution.

The one and old thing I do miss about film though is how film lied a bit, and often in your favor. Especially the oversaturated slide films designed to make things more vivid than life. It darkened shadows and blew out highlights a bit. Less dynamic range than digital, but a good way of covering up mistakes too at times and with lots of contrast

And of course those nice B&W grains you used to get from Tri-X and the like. Digital on the other hand is so smooth and literal that you almost always have to process your pictures if you want them to have the dreamy look of saturated slide films or the grainy look of high-speed B&W film.

But herein lies the rub, if you shoot with a high-speed film because you like that affect, there is no way of ever turning that film into something with smoother grain if you change your mind later and want more sharpness. Digital on the other hand can be broken down to a more grainy look and you still also have the luxury of it always being sharp in the original file if you want that too. The same goes for those films which are higher contrast, but lower on the side of the dynamic range. You can't pull from them what is not there, but on digital you can always darken shadows and blow out highlights a bit if you want more contrast.

So in the end, I still see very little argument in favor of film over digital. Digital can do everything that film did and better. That is just my one sided perspective of course :)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe (or I've read somewhere) that it's actually the TONAL range of digital that's superior, whereas the DYNAMIC range is superior in film. Further, and again please correct me, I believe that the latest 60 megapixel Hasselblad has finally equaled the resolution of 120 film and that a 39 megapixel sensor is needed to equal 35mm film. LF resolution will never be achieved in digital.

My 13 megapixel Canon produces a 16 bit TIFF file of 101 MB - my 120 slides scanned at 4800 dpi produce a file of 480 MB or a "mere" 184 Mb from 35mm.

[Marc Schultz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe (or I've read somewhere) that it's actually the TONAL range of digital that's superior, whereas the DYNAMIC range is superior in film. Further, and again please correct me, I believe that the latest 60 megapixel Hasselblad has finally equaled the resolution of 120 film and that a 39 megapixel sensor is needed to equal 35mm film. LF resolution will never be achieved in digital.

My 13 megapixel Canon produces a 16 bit TIFF file of 101 MB - my 120 slides scanned at 4800 dpi produce a file of 480 MB or a "mere" 184 Mb from 35mm.

Hi Ray - I agree that tonal range is probably better too on digital than from film, but the comparison I was making was in terms of dynamic range (the range of shadow to highlight information) and I would say the gamut is wider there too. If you shoot something with slide film, you will often get blown out highlights and overly dark shadows. With digital the sensitivity of the sensor is greater than film, so you will pick up more detail in the shadows, meaning a greater range of shadow detail, and less loss in the highlights, meaning again a wider range of highlight detail will be preserved without the highlights getting blown out. And now, with the advances in RAW file processing Adobe has made, you can even sometimes pull back lost highlight detail when processing your RAW files in Camera Raw.

I am sorry, you are probably right in terms of pixel for pixel that you may need a 60MP digital camera to match the  amount of scanned digital information in Megabytes for a frame of MF film. But in terms of image quality, I would say that on a 21MP 35mm DSLR that you have already surpassed the detail/sharpness quality when compared to MF film, regardless of how you scan that film.

So I wouldn't look just at the megabytes from a film scan because film can be scanned to any resolution you want (above and beyond the number of lines of resolution within the film itself), but after a certain point though you are only getting more pixels and not more detail out of your scan, which is the key here.

When Canon came out with the 16MP Mark II, Michael Reichman had said "The bottom line? An $8,000 Canon 1Ds Mark II camera now provides image quality equal to or surpassing that of a $12,000 medium format back of just one year ago. " which can be seen in his review of the Mark II here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Canon-1ds-mkii-p1.shtml

In a comparison article of the Mark II against a digital back he said this: "But, this difference is only apparent on close examination of large prints side by side. Take a 16X20" print made with the 1Ds Mark II and look at it on its own, and you'll be amazed by the image quality. Simply superior to anything that I've ever seen from a 35mm format camera. Period. And, easily challenging medium format film quality." The article is here and go down to the end of the article where it says "The Verdict & The Conundrum" to see where I copied the above sentence from: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds-mk11-vs-p25.shtml

I was basically making my statement though that 35mm DSLRs has surpassed medium format film quality based upon a Canon 21MP Mark III DSLR (and the same would apply to Nikon's current flagship DSLR).

Although Reichman does give a review based on a preproduction model of the Mark III that he shot with in 2007, he doesn't actually compare it to film anymore. It seems his comparisons have moved onto comparing 35mm DSLR cameras against Medium format backs now: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/mada-iiis.shtml  

A bit more on the subject of film versus digital in a technical sense can be read here which brings us back to the general discussion here in this thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml

In case you haven't read Michael Reichman's site before, I feel he is one of the best I have read on the internet in terms of consistency about knowledge of technology of camera equipment in general and that is why I am making references to articles on his website regarding this subject.

I hope that helps...

[Ray Evans]

It's been a good discussion and most informative.

I do read the LL reviews/articles and agree that Michael does indeed put out a fair and accurate appraisal. Conversely, (don't laugh) I love Ken Rockwell!

With respect to the EOS 1DS MK11 that you highlight, I'm actually considering this camera as my next move up in the digital arena. The 1DS MK111 is just too expensive, the 5DMK11 has issues (focusing). The 1D MK111 doesn't have the pixels and the new 1D MK1V is a ridiculous price.

16.7 megapixels seems ideal to me (native resolution for stock) and the focusing speed and acclaimed accuracy appeals. PLUS, of course, it's a lot more affordable these days!

I wonder what you and other members feel about this specific camera. Outdated or sufficient?

[Marc Schultz]

Ray - I have been using the 1DS Mark II for about 4 years already.

I had thought about buying a 5D Mark II recently though for the following reasons: Bigger Display Screen, More Pixels, Lower Noise, Newer Processor, & Self Cleaning Sensor. In the end the reason I did not buy it was because: Prosumer Body Build, Only Holds One Memory Card (no backup), Auto Focus Is Slow, And The Camera Only Has 9 Focusing Points. Those seemingly few negatives were big issues for me though and enough to put me off of it.

I also haven't gone for the Mark III because it seems to have slow buffer problems, as well as the fact that is an older processor than the 5D Mark II, which means it is not much lower on noise than the Mark II I already have. The increased number of pixels and the bigger display screen would be nice, but not enough for a justifiable upgrade at the price of one.

If I were still sitting on the sidelines though, and was not going to be using the camera for professional work, then I would probably go for the 5D Mark II instead of the older 1DS Mark II. Mainly because the 5D has newer technology, is higher in resolution, offers better picture quality, and is lower on noise than the 1DS Mark II.

I hope that helps :)

[Adzz]

My biz partner in the UK, is still using a 22-meg back purchased some time ago and has not chosen to upgrade, other friends that use Canon like Mark have not either. There clients are not demanding anything different, they are very happy with the production files they get given. Its like I said earlier you don't actually need that much resolution for the majority of work that goes to print or bill board.
And like Mark has said there are now a lot more things to consider before choosing to upgrade, as for the most part resolution is not an issue now for many photographers.

[Marc Schultz]

My biz partner in the UK, is still using a 22-meg back purchased some time ago and has not chosen to upgrade, other friends that use Canon like Mark have not either. There clients are not demanding anything different, they are very happy with the production files they get given. Its like I said earlier you don't actually need that much resolution for the majority of work that goes to print or bill board.
And like Mark has said there are now a lot more things to consider before choosing to upgrade, as for the most part resolution is not an issue now for many photographers.

Good points Adam and I should have added that even at 16MP the resolution is overkill for 90% of the commercial work I do. And these days clients are no longer even asking about resolution since I think there is not question about digital having enough anymore. So I am not forced to upgrade to a higher resolution camera for my work which is good. I can now wait until the right one comes along that I want to buy, which pleases me :)

[Ray Evans]

It's the focusing and speed accuracy of the 1D series that is the real appeal.

What's you opinion of these attributes compared to (say) my 5D MK1 which is pretty sluggish in this area.