Are there any benefits of using film compared to digital

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find film inferior to digital in every respect, except the fun factor. Digital is so perfect it becomes boring. I like the imperfections of film.

 

Well, I shoot digital and film (about 50:50), and I cannot fully agree with your statement here. It is important to distinguish between certain parameters here like resolution, dynamic range (highlight/shadow details), and tonal range for example. Let's tackle resolution first: Comparing apples to apples in 35 mm film or respective sensor format, yes, digital is better here with modern full frame sensors. Also the dynamic range on modern sensors beats film. It gets a bit more tricky if we go to a higher film size format, for example 4x5". I find the resolution with 4x5" film outstanding and easily comparable to my 36 MP full frame sensor camera (if the film shot was done right and the development well done, too). Pulling things from shadows in film is nearly impossible, but I find a big credit in highlight areas, for example sky with cloud patterns etc - with digital I always need to use a graduated ND filter to achieve the same and avoid clipped highlights. Film can simply cope much better with overexposure which can be quite useful for landscape photos in B&W. This brings me to my last point - tonal range: digital nowadays can match quite well the tonal range of B&W film even it is not exactly the same. I personally also find silver gelatin prints from B&W negatives more appealing than B&W inkjet prints - the latter doesn't look bad either, it is just not the same.

 

With color film it is more a wash-off with digital - with some post processing you can match the color saturation of a specific color film. The advantage of color film is just that you get the vivid colors upfront without too much post processing of the image assuming the negative/slide scan uses the correct white balance. You can print also directly in the darkroom from color negatives with the RA-4 process, but it is a fairly cumbersome process which takes quite some time for one print. I agree here that it is much more convenient to do this digitally instead.

 

You also mention the advantage of imperfections with film - yes, this can add some artistic perspective to it, but to be honest, I rather have it without these imperfections. Scratches and dust particles on the negative are cumbersome and not always easy to avoid. I am personally also not a big fan of too much grain - I prefer low grain film - not to achieve the similar look as on my digital files, but I find too much grain distractive. I know that many here state grain as being one reason why they shoot film, but this has a very low priority for me. I do it for the other reasons mentioned above - yes, the fun factor is an additional benefit, but it also costs time.

 

I said it earlier before in other posts, film is not better than digital and vice-versa. They are just different. Both have their pros and cons - and by far digital is not perfect either.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Martin B

[Michael-IIIf]

I'm coming to this thread late. I've just dusted off the M2 and shot my first roll of film in many years and it prompted me to wander over to this section of the forum.

 

I agree with all the above comments about the better latitude, the "3D" quality, the desirability of the grain.

 

But what I found liberating was, from laziness, I sent the roll to Ilford for processing and printing; when I downloaded the scans I imported them into LightRoom for cataloguing purposes; from curiosity I ran some of the post-processing levels and adjustments I would normally do on my M9's files. What surprised me was there was nothing to do: out of the box they were ready to go.

 

I often spend a whole evening post-processing digital files in LR. It was liberating not to have to do so.

 

The traditionally printed ILFORD Galerie RC Digital Silver prints are lush too.

 

Of the 37 shots, a good 30 are keepers - effortlessly.

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve Ricoh]

I bit the bullet, as it were, and bought myself an M6 in very nice condition.

 

For the present time I plan to send my film to a lab for developing and scanning, but if I really gel with analogue I could end up processing my own B&W film at home. But as I do not have the space for a darkroom or the desire to make a temporary darkroom out of the bathroom, a hybrid solution seems the logical choice. Well it did until I started reading about scanners, as it appears the Achilles Heel with the hybrid workflow is the scanner itself. This resource http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html provides a useful comparison of some on the market, and it appears the flatbed produces the poorest quality and are only intended for smallish prints. (Flat beds are fundamentally better when used for reflected light scanning, it would appear.) Dedicated film scanners come out best, but some eg the Plustek range, can be quite slow, especially if running Silverfast Ai. In the review, attached, the Reflecta brand seem to be somewhat quicker offering comparable output and I'm wondering if anyone have experience with this product?

[earleygallery]

Don't dismiss the flatbeds. I have a top range Epson (was their top end model a few years back) and it makes - to my eyes - perfectly acceptable scans for prints up to A3.

[mikemgb]

I have used my Epson V600 flatbed to scan a negative for printing a 1m tall poster, I find the scans to be more than acceptable for my use.

[Steve Ricoh]

Reading this https://www.35mmc.com/14/01/2017/reflections-reflecta-rps-10m-guest-review-frank-lehnen/ and especially the comments at the end that are more generic to scanning in general, it becomes clear why film scanning is a real pain in the neck, and why many photographers prefer digital cameras and reserve scanning for legacy work.

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find film inferior to digital in every respect, except the fun factor. Digital is so perfect it becomes boring. I like the imperfections of film.

...  but it distorts the reality Edward !

[Guest]

...  but it distorts the reality Edward !

 

Now that would be a really funny comment, expect I think you really mean it!

[Doc Henry]

Now that would be a really funny comment, expect I think you really mean it!

 

I mean color not satisfying ... but you do what you want !

[Mute-on]

Benefits of using film ...

 

Use of a film Leica, not a computer with a lens mount

Replacements sensors are readily available and come conveniently boxed in rolls of 24 or 36

No sensor corrosion issues to be concerned about

The camera will last longer than your next computer, and the one after that, potentially decades ...

No batteries to go flat and prevent you from continuing to take photos

No memory card failures to prevent you from continuing to take photos, or lose your photos all together

No need to spend upwards of $7,000 up front to get access to taking digital images (on new Leica)

No gnashing of teeth or wringing of hands over the features of the next computer with lens mount, or the upgraded computer with more megapixels, or a slimmer computer that is more like your film Leica, or the hysterical cost of upgrading your computer, with which you are actually perfectly happy, because you are worried about sensor corrosion issues, or some other failure of technology ...

More time out taking photos instead of waiting for batteries to charge, formatting memory cards, and of course the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands over, well, you know the rest

 

Cheers

 

J

[Mute-on]

Not to mention the actual pictures themselves will be on FILM

[Steve Ricoh]

Benefits of using film ...

Use of a film Leica, not a computer with a lens mount

Replacements sensors are readily available and come conveniently boxed in rolls of 24 or 36

No sensor corrosion issues to be concerned about

The camera will last longer than your next computer, and the one after that, potentially decades ...

No batteries to go flat and prevent you from continuing to take photos

No memory card failures to prevent you from continuing to take photos, or lose your photos all together

No need to spend upwards of $7,000 up front to get access to taking digital images (on new Leica)

No gnashing of teeth or wringing of hands over the features of the next computer with lens mount, or the upgraded computer with more megapixels, or a slimmer computer that is more like your film Leica, or the hysterical cost of upgrading your computer, with which you are actually perfectly happy, because you are worried about sensor corrosion issues, or some other failure of technology ...

More time out taking photos instead of waiting for batteries to charge, formatting memory cards, and of course the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands over, well, you know the rest

Cheers

J

Puts things in perspective.

[Herr Barnack]

I'm currently using an M240, however from time to time I start thinking about acquiring and using a film M (an M6 is currently on my watch list) but then the other half of me says don't be silly, the expense and extra effort to process and digitise negs or slides isn't worth it.

What are the pros and cons that I should seriously consider before hitting the buy key?

 

Any thoughts would be welcome to help with my decision making.

 

PRO

Most film M cameras (used) are much more affordable than digital M cameras

With film, you have a permanent hard copy of the image - the negative or the transparency

A film M like the M4-P that I use will never run out of battery in the middle of a shoot

With a film M, you can print to a fairly large size (11x14, some say larger) and still have fine print image quality

A film M like the M4-P is much lighter in weight than my M-P 240

There is a sense of accomplishment from processing your own film

You do not end up spending $7000+ for a digital camera that will be worth half that in 3 years

There are still a multitude of film emulsions and chemicals available for purchase

 

 

CON

Outsourcing of your developing is costly

Processing your own film is labor intensive (but is still enjoyable)

Scanning and digitizing of negatives or transparencies is labor intensive

Outsourcing the scanning and digitizing of negatives or transparencies is costly

You cannot trust a lot of labs to process your film and do it professionally

You will have to spend money on film and chemistry - a lot of money if you shoot a lot of film

 

 

Given all the above, I still shoot and process film, although the speed and ease of digital photography is hard to tear myself away from at times.  I think of film as a viable alternative to digital and another tool in the photographer's tool kit.  I cannot see that film will ever become extinct - at least in our lifetime.  New emulsions are released onto the market regularly. 

 

I think of film photography as a special process that I would use to photograph a specific body of work.  I think of digital as an all around solution, a jack of all trades of the photography world. 

[Martin B]

Last year (and also this year so far) I shot as much film as digital. Something really interesting happened after I started to shoot film with my Leica Ms again: my number of frames decreased and my number of keeper frames increased dramatically - both in film and digital! For a day-trip of shooting, I am fine with a maximum of two self-rolled 39-40 frames/film. Depending on the situation, I sometimes even shoot less frames in digital now, but where I normally shot about 200-300 photos digitally, I am now between 50-100. Why? Because I became much more considerate about framing and composing first before releasing the shutter. I have been like this before I went digital in 2005, but it all came back after I started shooting film again in parallel. Digital has the big temptation to do fast shooting without thinking too much about a single frame - and it is really hard to resist. Now I am spending more time to develop and digitize my negatives, but save on the other hand a lot of time to select from the number of taken photos and by post processing much less digital frames. 

Edited May 16, 2017 by Martin B

[A miller]

Well, first of all, it is a shame for the world of art (as distinguished from efficient utilitarian picture taking) that digital was ever invented.

 

Second of all, you won't realize the full force of your film photos with lab scans.  They will have a level of grain and contrast and overall resolution that is well short of the negatives' potential.  Please bear this in mind when you get your first batch back.

I personally believe that the nikon coolscans are the best within reason (the Hassy X1 is marginally better and more versatile though it is a true fortune).  But you really need to be committed to a decent volume.  Unless and until you reach this level, I would highly recommend a top line Epson flat bed.  Perfectly acceptable and reasonably priced and way better than the lab scans.

 

Thirdly, sharpening and (in many cases, depending on the film stock) noise reduction will need to be more aggressively applied with film scans relative to digital files.  To appreciate this, I would recommend that you ask your lab to make you some simple 4x6 prints of a few rolls of your developed film.  You will instantly see beautifully sharp images.  Then look at the unsharpened scan of the same image, and you will instantly see softness, and likely even some extra grain (mostly due to the digitization of the negative).  A full high res scan has the potential to have substantially the same look as a lab print (or, better, a true wet print).  But it requires some skill in the sharpening and NR phase.  There is a book on this called "Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw and Lightroom" by Fraser and Schewe that Jaap turned me onto years ago.   They extensively discuss the need to aggressively sharpen and NR film scans, and give tips on how to do it.   Worth buying.

 

Fourth, what a good scan will do that is a HUGE advantage over digital is that it will set the white and black points so that the highlights are NOT blown and the shadows are NOT crushed - even though the image may have been overexposed or underexposed by a stop or two.  In the case of underexposure, the shadow detail may come out an ugly blue, which is not ideal, which is why erring on the side of overexposing negative film by a stop or even a bit more is recommended.  By not having uncharging highlights that are blown to the moon and back agin is AWESOME and will allow you to mold the tones in the way that you see fit in post while keeping the highlights detail rich.  Keep in mind, though, that as you overexpose, color saturation and sharpness may be compromised.

 

I am anxious awaiting the first Steve.. Ricoh.. Wales film photo to be shared

Edited May 17, 2017 by A miller

[Steve Ricoh]

Last year (and also this year so far) I shot as much film as digital. Something really interesting happened after I started to shoot film with my Leica Ms again: my number of frames decreased and my number of keeper frames increased dramatically - both in film and digital! For a day-trip of shooting, I am fine with a maximum of two self-rolled 39-40 frames/film. Depending on the situation, I sometimes even shoot less frames in digital now, but where I normally shot about 200-300 photos digitally, I am now between 50-100. Why? Because I became much more considerate about framing and composing first before releasing the shutter. I have been like this before I went digital in 2005, but it all came back after I started shooting film again in parallel. Digital has the big temptation to do fast shooting without thinking too much about a single frame - and it is really hard to resist. Now I am spending more time to develop and digitize my negatives, but save on the other hand a lot of time to select from the number of taken photos and by post processing much less digital frames.

 

It's early days for me using a film camera but I must say I've become far more discerning about what I'm going to take and how, and it's having a knock on affect using my digital Leica. I'm taking far fewer shots, and correspondingly I should have less images to discard at the review and editing phase.

One thing I will admit to which might raise a smile (It did for me), after the first exposure or two with the M6, I angled the back to chimp but was faced with the ISO dial.

[mahakalaka]

For me it's very simple. The positives of using film is, I like the look of the photos better. I don't care if film is technically better or worse, it's just more pleasing to my eye. The negative is of course that it is not as convenient as digital.

[Ko.Fe.]

Last year (and also this year so far) I shot as much film as digital. Something really interesting happened after I started to shoot film with my Leica Ms again: my number of frames decreased and my number of keeper frames increased dramatically - both in film and digital! For a day-trip of shooting, I am fine with a maximum of two self-rolled 39-40 frames/film. Depending on the situation, I sometimes even shoot less frames in digital now, but where I normally shot about 200-300 photos digitally, I am now between 50-100. Why? Because I became much more considerate about framing and composing first before releasing the shutter. I have been like this before I went digital in 2005, but it all came back after I started shooting film again in parallel. Digital has the big temptation to do fast shooting without thinking too much about a single frame - and it is really hard to resist. Now I am spending more time to develop and digitize my negatives, but save on the other hand a lot of time to select from the number of taken photos and by post processing much less digital frames. 

 

I was taking thousands of exposures with film M per year until I started to ask myself one question more frequently: "A'm I going to print this?".  After it two digital M came to my hands and I'm getting nervous if I'm taking more than 36 exposures digitally. All of the sudden, film and digital is no difference anymore. Because I like to print from both. 

I was re-printing some in my basement this night... 

[Steve Ricoh]

Well, first of all, it is a shame for the world of art (as distinguished from efficient utilitarian picture taking) that digital was ever invented.

 

Second of all, you won't realize the full force of your film photos with lab scans.  They will have a level of grain and contrast and overall resolution that is well short of the negatives' potential.  Please bear this in mind when you get your first batch back.

I personally believe that the nikon coolscans are the best within reason (the Hassy X1 is marginally better and more versatile though it is a true fortune).  But you really need to be committed to a decent volume.  Unless and until you reach this level, I would highly recommend a top line Epson flat bed.  Perfectly acceptable and reasonably priced and way better than the lab scans.

 

Thirdly, sharpening and (in many cases, depending on the film stock) noise reduction will need to be more aggressively applied with film scans relative to digital files.  To appreciate this, I would recommend that you ask your lab to make you some simple 4x6 prints of a few rolls of your developed film.  You will instantly see beautifully sharp images.  Then look at the unsharpened scan of the same image, and you will instantly see softness, and likely even some extra grain (mostly due to the digitization of the negative).  A full high res scan has the potential to have substantially the same look as a lab print (or, better, a true wet print).  But it requires some skill in the sharpening and NR phase.  There is a book on this called "Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw and Lightroom" by Fraser and Schewe that Jaap turned me onto years ago.   They extensively discuss the need to aggressively sharpen and NR film scans, and give tips on how to do it.   Worth buying.

 

Fourth, what a good scan will do that is a HUGE advantage over digital is that it will set the white and black points so that the highlights are NOT blown and the shadows are NOT crushed - even though the image may have been overexposed or underexposed by a stop or two.  In the case of underexposure, the shadow detail may come out an ugly blue, which is not ideal, which is why erring on the side of overexposing negative film by a stop or even a bit more is recommended.  By not having uncharging highlights that are blown to the moon and back agin is AWESOME and will allow you to mold the tones in the way that you see fit in post while keeping the highlights detail rich.  Keep in mind, though, that as you overexpose, color saturation and sharpness may be compromised.

 

I am anxious awaiting the first Steve.. Ricoh.. Wales film photo to be shared

Yes, I've read about lab scans so may not bother and instead opt for prints until I sort DIY scanning. Thus I'm sorry to say the "Steve.. Ricoh.. Wales photo" may have to wait.

 

The ability to scan is somewhat of a deal breaker for me, but is it really the case that I need to spend as much on a scanner as I would to purchase a high spec FF camera to a produce a scan equivalent to a digital negative?

 

I've read quite a bit and it seems that flatbeds are challenged unless scanning for web or printing fairly small, no more than A4. Any larger and a dedicated 35mm scanner seems suited, but the downside is that they're painfully slow, eg maybe 2hrs scanning a roll of 36 using a Plustek. It's a great shame Nikon removed themselves from the scanner market in 2009/2010!

 

Attributes I'm considering:

Current production model, not 2nd hand from eBay (I want warranty and options to repair if necessary);

I want to purchase the right scanner for me first time, not having to sell and purchase again if I make a mistake;

Affordability, £ or $;

Quality of scan;

Dust management;

Dpi - real life, not the marketing hype - based on 360dpi for an acceptable print and on multiples of the 35mm negative;

2/ dMax (3.6 seems to be a a good aim);

3/ Speed - flatbed scanners are virtually unbeatable (apart from drum scanners) whereas dedicated 35mm scanners, such as the Plustek, are dreadfully slow.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[A miller]

Yes, I've read about lab scans so may not bother and instead opt for prints until I sort DIY scanning. Thus I'm sorry to say the "Steve.. Ricoh.. Wales photo" may have to wait.

 

The ability to scan is somewhat of a deal breaker for me, but is it really the case that I need to spend as much on a scanner as I would to purchase a high spec FF camera to a produce a scan equivalent to a digital negative?

 

I've read quite a bit and it seems that flatbeds are challenged unless scanning for web or printing fairly small, no more than A4. Any larger and a dedicated 35mm scanner seems suited, but the downside is that they're painfully slow, eg maybe 2hrs scanning a roll of 36 using a Plustek. It's a great shame Nikon removed themselves from the scanner market in 2009/2010!

 

Attributes I'm considering:

Current production model, not 2nd hand from eBay (I want warranty and options to repair if necessary);

I want to purchase the right scanner for me first time, not having to sell and purchase again if I make a mistake;

Affordability, £ or $;

Quality of scan;

Dust management;

Dpi - real life, not the marketing hype - based on 360dpi for an acceptable print and on multiples of the 35mm negative;

2/ dMax (3.6 seems to be a a good aim);

3/ Speed - flatbed scanners are virtually unbeatable (apart from drum scanners) whereas dedicated 35mm scanners, such as the Plustek, are dreadfully slow.

 

Steve - Don't overthink it.  Just get an Epson flat bed to start.  You'll always have the negs to do a more serious re-scan later on.  Lots of very good film photographers use and love the Epsons.