My first roll of film is back - need some help!

[Julian Thompson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK - I've shot a roll of 400 speed Fuji standard film in my new MP. Today the M9 sat in the bag and wasn't touched.... I got some nice shots and some poor ones.

 

The first thing that strikes me as someone coming from M9 is the softness. Where, usually, I can detect immediately if I've absolutely nailed the intended focus here, with film, I can't - everything looks fine but it doesn't have that clinical 'crispness' that my digital files do.

 

Secondly, I can't believe the 'bokeh' - it's just so different than with the digital body. I know my lenses well but, for example, F2 on the 75 summicron renders the OOF areas to a soft and squishy mush! I'd say that F2 on the digital body is (kind of) similar to about F4 on the film one!! Why is this?

 

Thirdly - it's more rewarding. Somehow. And more difficult. When you only have 1/1000 as your fastest speed and no way out on ISO you learn quickly that the lens ring isn't just there for artistic effect. That will, I think, speed up my digital shooting very rapidly.

 

Lastly - indoors and colour. Under spotlights (in the kitchen) my first test shots (yes, yes, of the cats. I know!) - came out very yellow. Is this the film? Or have I underexposed it?

 

Sorry - a lot of questions and I'm listening! So thanks in advance!

[andybarton]

Daylight film in artificial light will always have warm colours. Use your M9 set to daylight white balance n the kitchen and see the same affect.

 

Your experiences are very interesting to a predominantly film shooter. Maybe every digital user would benefit from the added discipline that shooting film demands.

 

I don't know what film you are using, but with a 400ASA film, you will always get less "crisp" images, due to the grain.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Julian Thompson]

Thanks Andy. The film was just a roll I picked up on my way home yesterday from Boots! 'Realta' or something similar - can't remember properly!

 

I have now loaded some Kodak B&W 400 (also picked up at the same time!) to try tomorrow! At this time I don't think my film choice is holding up my shooting skills :-) so anything will do!

 

So - I understand about the light indoors. I didn't even know there was such thing as 'indoor film' ! I have much to learn !

 

Intend to try and relax a bt more tomorrow. Somehow I seemed to put myself under massively more pressure than with the digital camera. Every shutter release felt like an occasion for some reason. Very odd!

[Riccis]

One thing to also keep in mind is that your scans will show more grain than it's actually there... If you want to better judge your film, print it and you will be surprised.

 

Have fun!

 

Riccis

[andybarton]

Every click of the shutter costs you money. You soon learn to be discriminating

[Pangur Ban]

Thirdly - it's more rewarding. Somehow. And more difficult.

 

Yep, that about sums it up.

 

Keep at it though and you'll both see what all the fuss is about and make good use of that tremendous kit you have. Taking photos is only half the fun - the developing and printing is at least as good to do and when all parts of the process come together - subject, camera, lens, film choice, exposure, development and printing then it becomes a very satisfying experience.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Pangur Ban

[cheewai_m6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

you definitely need to think a whole lot more with film. when i go on the dslr, i shoot a lot more with a low/lower strike rate. on film i shoot a lot less, but with a MUCH higher strike rate. say 1 in 2 or 3. for sure, you don't release the shutter till you've thought about it. unless you really can't spend a few seconds composing.

[NZDavid]

You don't need to worry about processing costs with digital. Zillions of pictures get deleted. Zillions more should be deleted.

[Julian Thompson]

One thing to also keep in mind is that your scans will show more grain than it's actually there... If you want to better judge your film, print it and you will be surprised.

 

Actually these are 8x6 prints that I got from a high street 'minilab' type operation. At present I have not bought my scanner so my only judgement is coming from these.

 

I know this is all very basic stuff but can I ask - are these high street prints a great representative of what is actually on my negatives or are they generally very poor?

[Xmas]

[quote name=Julian Thompson;1268535

Secondly' date=' I can't believe the 'bokeh' - it's just so different than with the digital body. I know my lenses well but, for example, F2 on the 75 summicron renders the OOF areas to a soft and squishy mush! I'd say that F2 on the digital body is (kind of) similar to about F4 on the film one!! Why is this?

[/quote]

 

The sensor elements are different from the Silver crystals in the gelatin. It is harder going in the other direction, than from your M9 to MP.

 

You need to leave off the IR filter and you lenses will have less flare/ghosts, the filter can interact with the sensor plane (or film plane to a lesser extent), and is not needed with film.

 

The film characteristic shape is also different, wet night street scenes, omit a UV filter, watch the film high lights burn slowly.

 

The film is designed to be enlarged not scanned. You can get reasonable enlargers and rest of kit for free. Scanning is difficult.

 

It is a different world.

 

But you should have got an M2 or M3.

 

Noel

[marcusperkins]

Secondly, I can't believe the 'bokeh' - it's just so different than with the digital body. I know my lenses well but, for example, F2 on the 75 summicron renders the OOF areas to a soft and squishy mush! I'd say that F2 on the digital body is (kind of) similar to about F4 on the film one!! Why is this?

 

The best way to explain this is to first understand that there are two ways of focussing -

 

1. Move the lens forward and backward

2. Move the sensor/film forward and backward

 

Then consider this:

With the exception of the emulsion's base and cover, the image is made on and through the whole depth of the film which is the primary reason for the increased perception in depth of field. Digital has a much narrower 'pickup', possibly 1/10 of film.

 

To get the same effect that film produces using digital, you would have to take multiple frames, each with the sensor shifting forwards and backwards to replicate the depth of the film. Then layer the files together, and flatten.

 

What you end up with is an image that has a marginally greater depth of field, but in front or behind every perfectly focussed part will be some slightly out of focus detail, giving a kind of sharp soft look.

 

However, this effect also mixes up the out of focus areas, so you effectively have multiple OOF areas all blended together giving you the look you are describing. When viewed as a large print (made with an enlarger, or a high end Imacon and high quality printer), the effect is actually rather beautiful, and extremely pleasant on the eye.

 

Some film emulsions are thinner than others - Kodak Technical Pan (now discontinued) was an extremely thin emulsion. In addition to the fine grain, it gave a subtle increase in the perceived sharpness (if focussed properly), and a slightly different look to the OOF area in the direction of digital (although we didn't know it then).

 

As Noel said - it is a different world, an in many more ways than I've explained.

Edited March 18, 2010 by marcusperkins

[marcusperkins]

Actually these are 8x6 prints that I got from a high street 'minilab' type operation. At present I have not bought my scanner so my only judgement is coming from these.

 

I know this is all very basic stuff but can I ask - are these high street prints a great representative of what is actually on my negatives or are they generally very poor?

 

The systems available to minilabs can actually be very good. My guy can scan at a true 5000dpi, and supply the scan on disc. However, he really understands his equipment (most don't) and always turns off all the automatic adjustments (sharpening, colour, contrast) for the more discerning.

 

I would find a local minilab, and and get some kind of working relationship going, then you'll squeeze the best out of the equipment. Otherwise you're going to get highly processed scans and prints in which you loose a lot of delicate detail through sharpening and colour/contrast adjustments.

[earleygallery]

Julian,

 

Welcome to film or 'real' photography!

 

To answer a few of your points.

 

Google 'colour temperature correction' - all colour film is daylight balanced. There used to be Tungsten film for shooting under photofloods but I think it has now all been discontinued. Flash is balanced for daylight too, but normal indoor lighting is very warm hence your yellow looking photos. Tube lights often give a green cast. The solution is to use a colour correction filter on your lens typically an 80A to correct yellow casts.

 

The softness you mention could be down to a number of things, but your photos certainly shouldn't be 'soft' - of course I don't know what your opinion of soft is and the comparisons you're referring to.

 

The quality of minilab processing is so variable, some I've used recently have been dreadful, one ruined my films too. I have found Snappy Snaps pretty reliable, and they can print on a nice Matt finish paper - give them a try next time. They will also make a CD of the images for you which I use as 'proofs' and for posting to the web. In fact I don't bother with prints, I get colour film processed only with a CD then re-scan and print the shots I want at home.

 

B&W processing (traditional film, not the C41 stuff) is easy, so I do that myself.

 

As you are finding out, film and digital really are two different mediums.

[plasticman]

In fact I don't bother with prints, I get colour film processed only with a CD then re-scan and print the shots I want at home.

 

James - not meaning to derail the thread, but what do you use to scan your negs?

[earleygallery]

Epson 4870. I know it's 'only' a flatbed but I shoot MF too so it's ideal for my requirements and I've no complaints with the quality, although some films are tricky - I'm not sure if that's down to me, the scanner/software or film though!

[Xmas]

generally very poor?

 

Yes they are generally very poor. They may scan and print digitally, they are primarily for happy snappers with cam phones..

 

If you can cope with the complementary colors a jewelers loupe, is the simplest of judging quality and boketh.

 

There are those who say you need a Leica enlarger or Leica projector to see the Leica quality.

 

Kodachrome 64 at 10x15 foot on screen is impressive, especially if you cheat and stand 1 foot from screen.

 

You need to try a B&W C41 film and a B&W conventional film, the last you should develop yourself, the kit for this is obtainable free from local camera club, from some one who has just gone digital.

 

You can now go to retro photo exhibitions with a new vision, and stand as close as you can get to the silver gelatins.

 

If you are not careful you can turn in to the stills man from 'Citizen Kane'.

 

Noel

[Xmas]

An after thought...

 

You can (still) get 400 foot of Kodak 5222 cine, (or a short end,) preferably expired (i.e. cheap) load 100 foot into a daylight cassette loader. That reduces the film cost to the cost of D76 developer kit, used for early movie film sound tracks... and fixer and negative filing slips.

 

Load your own cassettes, shoot the film like it was digital, well in 36 exp memory cards then

 

I can see your shadow getting darker - Rosebud.

 

Noel

[Julian Thompson]

The best way to explain this is to first understand that there are two ways of focussing -

 

1. Move the lens forward and backward

2. Move the sensor/film forward and backward

 

Then consider this:

With the exception of the emulsion's base and cover, the image is made on and through the whole depth of the film which is the primary reason for the increased perception in depth of field. Digital has a much narrower 'pickup', possibly 1/10 of film.

 

To get the same effect that film produces using digital, you would have to take multiple frames, each with the sensor shifting forwards and backwards to replicate the depth of the film. Then layer the files together, and flatten.

 

What you end up with is an image that has a marginally greater depth of field, but in front or behind every perfectly focussed part will be some slightly out of focus detail, giving a kind of sharp soft look.

 

However, this effect also mixes up the out of focus areas, so you effectively have multiple OOF areas all blended together giving you the look you are describing. When viewed as a large print (made with an enlarger, or a high end Imacon and high quality printer), the effect is actually rather beautiful, and extremely pleasant on the eye.

 

Wow that's mega useful information!

[Julian Thompson]

i shoot a lot more with a low/lower strike rate. on film i shoot a lot less, but with a MUCH higher strike rate. say 1 in 2 or 3. for sure, you don't release the shutter till you've thought about it. unless you really can't spend a few seconds composing.

 

Missed a couple of good shots actually today while I was 'making sure' I was happy!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Lazzaros]

Julian I think you have to learn much more about the films... Each film has different characteristics and that will influence the final results.

 

With your amazing camera I think you should know what you are doing. Which film gives you "this" or "that"...

 

With digital is easy...Shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot...Don't like...Delete...

 

 

 

 

EDIT: if you think that shooting in film is "harder" so you are doing it wrong...I shoot the same way with digital and film...I only press the shutter when I know that it's the time. I hate to delete pictures on digital. So I try to do my best all the time. The good and "easy" thing on digital is that you can "test" the light, etc... Polaroids can do that too for film photography...But it's expensive.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Lazzaros