5 Reasons to Shoot Film -- Popular Photograghy Article

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Summer Wind, Dec 27, 2006.

  1. That's if you feel some need to then have them all on your computer.
    I look at them on the light table, toss the one's that missed, and only
    scan the ones that I need to do something with immediately. And a few that
    I like to toss around to friends, either the great captures or the funny
    misses. But generally, it's only one to three a roll.

    I agree with you - if I needed to have them all in digital form I
    probably would have gone digital a long time ago. And yet, I still would
    have been shooting film for things like portraits and low light, since
    digital still can't get the colors I need from them.

    - Al.
    Al Denelsbeck, Dec 30, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. To me, that's where the second body loaded with either Sensia or
    print film comes in. Bracketing is fine, if you need those particular
    film qualities *and* you're sure the film *can* capture the D-range. Half
    the time with bracketing I found that I'd lose the highlights by bringing
    out the shadows, and ended up scanning two images to combine them. Wasn't
    worth it, especially when shooting without a tripod (rotate 1.5 degrees
    CCW, shift down, wait, another .25 degrees back, etc.)

    Mmmm, yeah, depends on what you're shooting. I'm doing field shots
    for stock (personal, not agency) and marketing - there's not too many
    grab shots I take then. The grab shots come from the Canon Pro 90
    digital, the Shoot-In camera ;-)

    - Al.
    Al Denelsbeck, Dec 30, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Summer Wind

    Scott W Guest

    But the point is that if people could not use the collection of M
    lenses they already had the M8 would be a lot less attractive. If you
    were being forced to buy into not just a new body but also all new
    lenses a lot of people who might have bought a M8 would have bought a
    5D instead. This has more or less Leica to compromised the over all
    design in order to use the old lenses, if they had the freedom to
    design the M8 to only work with newly designed lenses some of the
    problems the M8 is currently having would not have been an issue.

    It will take some time before we really know how big of a problem this
    Still for the cost of the M8 it would be nice if they could get the
    colors right.
    And people are finding ghosting problems when using the IR blocking
    filters Leica is sending out.

    It would be a pretty big surprise if Leica did not fix many of the
    problems with the M8 in the M9.

    Scott W, Dec 30, 2006
  4. The M8 and the 5D are two very different creatures.
    I could well imagine taking the M8 on a long trip or walk. Not the 5D
    (or at least it would mean that the whole trip would become camera-centric).
    Also the basic concepts and ranges of use are totally different.
    While using existing lenses is a plus point for the M8, it certainly
    fills a niche which the 5D doesn't.
    Consider also, with the M8 you can buy a decent 15.6mm (equivalent, the
    CV 12mm) relatively cheaply, and have a range of lenses to choose from
    several manufacturers, some of which are truly incomparable.
    My remaining doubt on this is how the M8 handles non-Leica (or
    non-codified) lenses.

    I certainly hope there is a M9. It would mean that:
    1) Leica survived the current problems.
    2) There is a full-frame rangefinder (maybe) available.
    3) Used M8s will go *way* down in price.
    Chris Loffredo, Dec 30, 2006
  5. Summer Wind

    Scott W Guest

    But this is exactly the point, a large part of the draw to the M8 is
    that it will use the older lenses, if you had to buy all new lenses it
    would be a lot less attractive.
    Well if there isn't an M9 you would not want to have bought an M8 since
    it would mean Leica did not survive. IF there is an M9 it will likely
    be enough of an improvement over the M8 that the wait would be
    worthwhile, unless you have enough money that you don't mind spending
    $4500 on a camera now and doing it again in 12 to 18 months.

    Scott W, Dec 30, 2006
  6. Summer Wind

    Scott W Guest

    But if you are only scanning 3 photos / roll and shooting 30 rolls a
    year that is only 90 images a year, that seems very low to me. I will
    have a day where I need more images then that.

    Scott W, Dec 30, 2006
  7. Summer Wind

    Summer Wind Guest

    This group *is not* a film group.
    The 35mm in the group title refers to cameras that use 35mm film. A common
    distinction between digital and film cameras is "digital" vs. "35mm". I
    would think that someone who is "totally digital" would want to post in
    rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,
    rec.photo.digital.rangefinder, rec.photo.digital.point+shoot, or
    rec.photo.marketplace.digital. Those groups were formed at the start of the
    digital age to provide a forum for digital camera users. The original,
    pre-digital, photo groups remain for film camera users. They are
    rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.darkroom,
    rec.photo.equipment.large-format, rec.photo.equipment.medium-format, etc.
    You would not expect those older groups to have the word film in their
    titles or charters because they were formed when film was the only capture
    medium. This group is definitely for 35mm film camera users, whether they
    also use digital or not. I can understand discussions of the relative
    merits of film vs. digital by those who use both, but someone who is
    "totally digital" and anti-film for apparently emotional reasons doesn't add
    much to the discussion. "Totally digital" users would be more likely to
    find soul mates in one of the digital photo groups.

    Summer Wind, Dec 30, 2006
  8. Summer Wind

    Peter Irwin Guest

    That's his explanation. I don't think it works.
    The minimum useful part of the curve in negative film
    is very well established. You can find it by dividing
    the DIN speed by negative ten. Thus the minimum useful
    part of the curve for 400/27 speed negative is at -2.7,
    for 200/24 speed negative it is at -2.4. If the curve
    of a 400 speed film is still linear at +0.3 then
    you have at least 10 stops, if it extends to +0.6
    you have 11 stops and if it goes to +0.9 you have
    at least 12 stops. Note that the curves for negative
    films normally stop while the film is still very
    linear. It is not safe to assume that this represents
    the actual limits of the film.

    (Nitpickers will note that the best established
    criterion for minimum useful exposure is actually
    the Jones point which is always a little to the
    left of the DIN speed point, and they will also
    note that the DIN speed point for colour negative
    film is a little different from the standard
    for B&W film, but this does not make any material
    difference to the discussion.)

    Also, look at a graph of negative film and
    compare it to a graph of reversal film. Notice
    how much further to the right the curve of
    the negative film goes. 0.3 units equals one stop.
    No, you would need a stop or two more exposure for a
    white object in full sunlight at the beach to
    reach 11 stops over the DIN speed point, but a
    disposable camera does make use of 9 stops of so
    of range and it couldn't possibly work the way it does
    without that range.

    Peter Irwin, Dec 30, 2006
  9. Summer Wind

    Skip Guest

    What is the resolution of the scans you get on that CD from the one hour
    place? When I've done that, I get scans that are unusably low res. To get
    a scan that I can use costs $10 per image.
    Skip, Dec 30, 2006
  10. Summer Wind

    Alan Browne Guest

    It's that last statement that counts. And at that, for most useful
    photography I would never count on more than 7 stops (-3 to +3) for
    color negative film.

    The whole discussion is interesting but for most photographers it is not
    an exercise of extracting the most information from a scan, or in
    getting detail out of over/underexposed negatives but in producing a
    usable print from a deliberately well exposed negative.

    Alan Browne, Dec 30, 2006
  11. Summer Wind

    Annika1980 Guest

    Which colors would those be?

    Your statement sounds silly to me. Perhaps you should have said, "I
    don't know how to get the colors I want digitally."
    And you claim to be an expert in photo editing?

    The bottom line is this: I have yet to see an image straight from the
    camera (film or digital) that could not be improved in some way by
    post-processing. And don't hand me that crap about "A good
    photographer gets it right in camera," because even greats like Ansel
    Adams did their magic in the darkroom. Today's darkroom is digital so
    why not start with a digital image in the first place?
    Annika1980, Dec 30, 2006
  12. The graphs of actual exposure density do not verify
    your statement. Again, it shows that there is no where
    near any 10, 11, or 12 f/stop range.

    Does your rule of thumb above apply to the averaged
    density characteristics?
    Which graph are you referring to?

    Look at Figure 10 in in this article,


    Note the difference between real exposures (the brown dots)
    and the characteristic curves provided by the film manufacturer,
    which are apparently averaged (the solid red line).

    The solid red line may show an 11 or 12 f/stop range, but that
    is *not* what can actually be recorded by the film for any
    given image.
    So we agree that film and digital are just about exactly the
    same... Right at 9 f/stops. (I'd say, just less than 9,
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 30, 2006
  13. Summer Wind

    Alan Browne Guest

    Digital is similar to slide film on the high end (about 2 stops) but
    deeper on the lo end, (up to, at most -5) for practical purposes.

    Through chimping and the histogram one arrives at near optimally
    saturated shots on digital. A feat that requires a combination of
    skill, luck and sometimes bracketting on slide film.

    The exceptions are the Fujifilm S3,S5 cameras with extended highlight
    range at the sacrifice of pixel density growth.
    Alan Browne, Dec 30, 2006
  14. But they are here looking to bicker and get noticed.
    The 'conversation' has nothing to do with discussing
    equipment, equipment is just the excuse for acting out.
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Dec 30, 2006
  15. No it doesn't, at least not exclusively.

    You clearly weren't around for the formation and discussions around the
    re-forming of the groups you cite.
    John McWilliams, Dec 30, 2006
  16. Summer Wind

    Annika1980 Guest

    Unlike the film luddites who come here to spam up some sales for their
    dying darkroom accessory business, right Nick?
    Annika1980, Dec 30, 2006
  17. Summer Wind

    Summer Wind Guest

    Then what does 35mm in the group's title refer to?

    The original groups from the film-only era were not changed in any way.
    Digital photography groups were added.

    Summer Wind, Dec 30, 2006
  18. Summer Wind

    Peter Irwin Guest

    Practically every manufacturer published H&D curve
    for negative film shows an exposure range of at least 3.0
    (10 stops) from the DIN speed point to the right of the graph
    where the curve is generally still linear. Try and find
    one that doesn't.
    My "rule of thumb" is a restatement of the ISO speed
    definition for black and white negative film. It
    is based on the exposure which gives a density of
    0.1 above base fog with standard development. The
    actual minimum useful exposure is better given by the
    Jones point which is where the slope of the curve is
    equal to 0.3 of the average slope of the curve. This
    is always a little to the left of the DIN speed point.

    The ISO definition is speed = 10 log (1/Hm) where speed
    is in the DIN style log units and Hm is the exposure
    in lux seconds corresponding to the 0.1 above base fog point.
    The definition for colour negatives is a bit different,
    but it not as neat mathematically and the difference is
    really not important to our discussion.
    The H&D curves thoughtfully provided for us by film
    manufacturers in PDF files. They are easy to find
    if you look for them.
    I don't understand exactly what is going on in Roger's curves
    there, but they don't appear to match any other information
    I could find anywhere.
    Um, no. I claim that negative films must have at _least_
    9 stops of range in order for disposable cameras to
    work as they do, using only one exposure for a wide
    variety of daylight conditions.

    Peter Irwin, Dec 30, 2006
  19. And virtually every one of those graphs is *clearly* an
    *averaged* curve, not what you will be able to get from exposing
    a single frame. I thought that was clearly stated in the web
    pages cited.
    But none of that is responsive to the question. All of it is
    based on an averaged curve to remove the influence of noise.
    Averaged to remove the influence of noise...
    He says they do, and cites URLs. I don't see any discrepancy.
    So those disposable cameras provide nice correctly exposed
    prints, because the film has more than 9 f/stops of dynamic
    range... (I have never tried it to see if that is true. I'm
    not convinced though.)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 30, 2006
  20. Fortunately, a good film scanner and the corresponding software today
    demonstrate the true capabilities of color negative film, not a machine
    print. Professional results are now achieved by changing software
    parameters in one's own digital darkroom, even with printing from
    digital data in total at a fraction of the cost of a professional lab's
    conventional print.
    Dr. Heinz Anderle, Dec 30, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.