Reason for still using film (again)?

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It sounds like it's at the other end of the curve.

Pete

Yes that's what I thought, Pete, only I don't recall hearing it called that before.

 

Pete.

[adan]

An aside - but "reciprocity failure" means that the amount of silver generated stops being directly proportional to the amount of exposure given, for overall exposure at very short or long exposure times.

 

I.E. 1/250 @ f/8 and 1/16,000 @ f/1.0 should give identical exposures, but don't - and 1/250 @ f/1 and 16 sec. @ f/64 should give identical exposures, but don't.

 

It does happen at both ends of the curve, but is strictly related to extreme exposure times.

 

Getting onto the "shoulder" or "toe" of the H&D response curve is NOT the same thing as reciprocity failure - although it also means that exposure is not perfectly linear in response to light. I.E. a bright highlight that meters 20x as bright as a midtone does not produce 20x as much silver/density in the negative

 

http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs39j/sp02/images/session11-hdcurve.gif

 

Reciprocity failure refers to the WHOLE picture being underexposed due to a very long or short shutter speed (or flash duration) - getting onto the ends of the H&D curve only affects those PARTS of a picture (highlights and shadows) that push beyond the linear part of the curve, and can happen at ANY shutter speed.

Edited February 28, 2011 by adan

[Advertisement]

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

[Knomad]

I'm mostly back to film these past few weeks, and enjoying it very much.

 

Although I certainly can see the difference between scanned film images and digital from my M8 when printed on a 3880, especially when they're placed side by side, it's not entirely about the look. Rather it's the process of shooting and developing film that I'm enjoying.

 

Every day at the office I'm engaged in technology. I'm dripping technology. Right now I'm typing on my laptop and I have an iPad and a Blackberry sitting in front of me, and at least for work I pretty much can't live without them.

 

When I take pictures it's to get away from all that, to balance it. I don't want to be in a hurry. I don't mind the slight imperfection occasionally, if it adds character. It's simplicity and minimalism I'm after.

 

It's odd that a German camera company can build something that facilitates an almost zen-like experience, while most of the Japanese camera companies have long since lost that in the headlong race for feature creep.

 

I will probably continue to shoot both film and digital, although I may not be buying any new digital gear for a long time. I've had it with obsolescence, with continually buying new cameras, and then new faster laptops, and then more storage. I don't buy the argument that digital is cheaper. All it does is make us spend on hardware instead of film and processing and paper.

 

My M4 will still be working when most of that digital gear is in the landfill.

[Riccis]

I shoot film because I like its look over that of digital and while you can get very close once you start using filters and PS tricks, the time spent post-processing in the computer is better invested in other areas of my business. My lab and my printer are my partners and they make my work look amazing, allowing me to better concentrate on other aspects that are more beneficial to my business in the long run.

 

You can read more on this article just published in this month's issue of Rangefinder Magazine (http://www.rangefindermag.com/storage/articles/RF0211_Valladares_Perkins.pdf).

 

Cheers,

[Xmas]

With a 35mm scanned film image, how large can one print an image with an inkjet and still achieve acceptable results? I've made 16x20's with my M9 that could probably go quite a bit larger without noticing much degredation.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

If you are going to use a loupe then it depends on the film type, & the scanner, if you use an enlarger then it only depends on the film type.

 

If you can get rolls of paper and enlarge, you can butt join the paper, and only be limited by dark room size...

 

With retained silver you will get grain, but it is random unlike e.g. moire, dust is a pain and you will need to retouch each print, fine camel hair brush.

 

Noel

[IkarusJohn]

This looks like a debate which will continue to play until film is no longer available, and then it will simply change focus.

 

I was raised on film, and the M9 was my first real digital camera - it has taken some adjustment!

 

For me, the fundamental difference is that using my MP is just simpler. I have to wind the film on, frame the shot, focus, select the exposure I want, and take the picture. I then wait for the film to be processed and scan the resulting images (I seriously can't be bothered processing my own film, or enlarging and printing the results - what do I do with them then? they'll just gather dust).

 

With my M9, the variables are greater - I still do the above, but there's ISO selection, bracketing, and there's no winding, so I can take shot after shot. Then I simply download the images. I don't chimp - I don't see the point, so the excitement of seeing my images on the screen for the first time is just as real as using film.

 

So, yes using the MP takes more time and consideration, while the M9 has more variability and is more immediate. The M9 will be superseded sometime in the next couple of years, but frankly I won't care too much. So long as the electronics keep working, I'll stick with the M9. The MP will still be going for as long as there's film.

 

I don't rate one over the other - they're just different. Some purist will be able to tell which camera an image was taken with (or at least, he will think he can) - until I can completely remove operator error, it's unlikely to make a difference. The great thing is getting more use out of Leica's fantastic lenses.

 

Cheers

John

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't rate one over the other - they're just different. Some purist will be able to tell which camera an image was taken with (or at least, he will think he can) - until I can completely remove operator error, it's unlikely to make a difference. The great thing is getting more use out of Leica's fantastic lenses.

 

The way those lenses render on film and digital is totally different - this will be most noticeable if you explore them at their widest aperture.

 

The differences have been widely discussed on the forum over the years. One particularly good explanation of the way that film differs in its look from digital was provided by Jaapv - who as you probably know shoots with the M9 and film (and an M8 backup, if I'm not mistaken).

You can read what he said here - the simple metaphor he uses was a revelation to me, and allowed me to explain the enormous differences I was seeing with my own eyes, but for which I could provide no explanation. No need to be a "purist" to tell which is which.

 

I've posted a link to this image before - not the most striking difference that I've ever seen, but helps to explain the phenomenon for unbelievers.

 

I also shoot film and digital side-by-side. I also work with digital images and media day in and out. Everything has its place - but I certainly don't need to be told that the two media are indistinguishable (quite apart from the greater pleasure of using film and film cameras) - they are worlds apart.

 

As for pgk's opinion that those of us who grew up with digital are simply 'used' to the way digital blows highlights (in the ugliest possible way - though I noticed it's described here as "the way digital 'doesn't' handle extreme overexposure" ie: user error ) - anyone who values the aesthetic beauty of what they shoot will never accept those shortcomings of a digital sensor. I intentionally avoid situations that will cause it when shooting digital, or underexpose a whole image in order to save the highlights (with concurrently higher noise), but with film I can shoot into the sun without a second thought.

[pgk]

Reciprocity failure refers to the WHOLE picture being underexposed due to a very long or short shutter speed (or flash duration) - getting onto the ends of the H&D curve only affects those PARTS of a picture (highlights and shadows) that push beyond the linear part of the curve, and can happen at ANY shutter speed.

 

I have to say that you are probably right although I have always referred to this phenomenon as High Intensity RLF. It is extreme non-linearity though (see below).

 

As for pgk's opinion that those of us who grew up with digital are simply 'used' to the way digital blows highlights (in the ugliest possible way - though I noticed it's described here as "the way digital 'doesn't' handle extreme overexposure" ie: user error ) - anyone who values the aesthetic beauty of what they shoot will never accept those shortcomings of a digital sensor.

 

The problem is that they are not shortcomings! The digital sensor actually handles extreme overexposure far more correctly than film in a technical sense (but not perfectly). Film provides spurious information which some of us usually accept as being aesthetically more pleasing. But I have shot transparencies which show the sun as being slightly darker that the surrounding sky - which clearly wrong. However, what we accept as pleasing is not written in stone and with digital becoming the norm I suspect that it may well change - there are after all no laws about what we find aesthetically pleasing.

[wattsy]

However, what we accept as pleasing is not written in stone and with digital becoming the norm I suspect that it may well change

 

I doubt that I will ever think to myself "I love the way the sky in that shot bands like some weird duotone rainbow and how the rest of that rich blue sky has blown out to white. As for highlight detail, who wants that when you can have the shiny parts of a person's face just disappear altogether.";)

Edited March 1, 2011 by wattsy

[plasticman]

The problem is that they are not shortcomings! The digital sensor actually handles extreme overexposure far more correctly than film in a technical sense (but not perfectly). Film provides spurious information which some of us usually accept as being aesthetically more pleasing.... However, what we accept as pleasing is not written in stone and with digital becoming the norm I suspect that it may well change - there are after all no laws about what we find aesthetically pleasing.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this one - futile to debate the matter if you prefer the way that digital handles highlight transitions over the graceful way that film does.

As for me, some supposed "technical" rationalization that concludes that digital handles extreme over-exposure better than film is contradicted by thousands (tens of thousands?) of examples that I've seen with my own eyes.

 

I also don't agree that blown highlights with fringing and banding will ever be seen as more aesthetically pleasing than the same highlights shot with film - what you maybe mean is that people will cease to care(?) or notice, which is another discussion altogether.

 

(PS: yeah, Ian beat me to it).

[pgk]

The point I was making is that there are now photographers shooting imagery who have never used film and to them, the things that you/we/I think are awful are the norm and I assume are or soon will be accepted as part and parcel of digital imaging. I'm not defending this, merely pointing out that an idiosyncrasy of film which is as a result of non-linearity is probably acceptable fundamentally because we are used to it. You are welcome to disagree..... its not such a big deal.

[Xmas]

The problem is that they are not shortcomings!

Eeeeeeek how do you spell denial then?

But it is important to note that 35mm was never about quality, e.g. if we examine the Contax II that Lancolet Vinng was using in 40 to photograph HMS Exeter, patched up after II Falklads battle, v the 5x4 plate. The WWII vintage film had gulf ball grain. The Contax II was more spontaneous more immediate than the 5x4.

M9 ditto compared to the MP, the MP might suffer a bit on film speed v a Nikon or Canon DSLR as well, a different 'problem', the M9 battery life less convient than a Canon, ditto.

The digital sensor actually handles extreme overexposure far more correctly than film in a technical sense (but not perfectly). Film provides spurious information which some of us usually accept as being aesthetically more pleasing. But I have shot transparencies which show the sun as being slightly darker that the surrounding sky - which clearly wrong. However, what we accept as pleasing is not written in stone and with digital becoming the norm I suspect that it may well change - there are after all no laws about what we find aesthetically pleasing.

 

The people who instrument(ed the) nuclear weapons probably would still use POTA and film today, cause they would still want detail in the high lights.

trinity + bomb - Google Search

 

If you want accuracy you can scan & plug in a non linear to linear function, (cant do that for digital the information is not there), if you wet print one burn and dodges the shadows and high lights for aesthec.

 

When digital dynamic range improves this may change, film may not be commercially available, Leica may go bankrupt, the Earth may be hit by medium asteriod.

 

Texting is becoming the norm for communication but it will be a while before our voice box dissappears, and operas singers need to find a new profession...

 

Noel

[pgk]

Texting is becoming the norm for communication...

 

Noel

Noel

 

Are you sure its texting? What about posting..............

 

Oh yes. And whilst I might agree with you, 35mm or its current equivalent is most certainly about quality now - just look at the endless discussion on the web about topics such as noise, sharpmess and err, burn out!

[davidrc]

[quote=

I don't buy the BS about analog cameras forcing a more contemplative approach that results in more "keepers" than my M9. I've loaded my M9 with a miniscule memory SD card replicating 36 exposures, never chimping, not changing my ISO setting from 400 and viewing/printing my results 1 week later. I've discovered that this process has made me a better and more contemplative photographer without an analog camera.

 

You could not be more right if you tried.... the considered approach works every time with any camera.

[earleygallery]

Leica missed a trick. The M9 should have a 'sealed' memory, so users have to send their camera back to Solms for the images (36 maximum) to be downloaded and sent back on a CD.

 

Their users would become significantly better photographers, thus more enthusiastic, and more eager to buy additional lenses etc.

[Xmas]

Noel

 

Are you sure its texting? What about posting..............

 

Oh yes. And whilst I might agree with you, 35mm or its current equivalent is most certainly about quality now - just look at the endless discussion on the web about topics such as noise, sharpmess and err, burn out!

 

Hi

 

The people who use cam phones etc dont care about quality, the people who buy Canon DSLR dont get a focus scale and depth of field with many lenses, Ive had to explain about simplest of things in steet to DSLR owners... Not that I'm good at explaining. The compact Dcamera and DSLR users are like the P&S users of 2 decades ago, they just want prints then or now web pages, (to post as you suggest).

 

In 50's photo club people were using microfilm or KB14 and adjecency developers to do 20x16 close to 120 cameras, in quality, but the press were use HP3 in Promicol, for door stepping outside the residence of famous and great. HCB Super-x for street shots.

 

Quality of sensors, MTF of lenses, boketh, are just dialogue items.

 

Noel

[plasticman]

The point I was making is that there are now photographers shooting imagery who have never used film and to them, the things that you/we/I think are awful are the norm and I assume are or soon will be accepted as part and parcel of digital imaging... You are welcome to disagree..... its not such a big deal.

 

Fair enough - I was disagreeing in part because I pretty much exclusively used digital cameras before discovering film, apart from a very brief time at university when I used my dad's OM1n to shoot and develop some rolls of b&w and also shot some Kodachrome on vacation a couple times. It's a fallacy to think that the "film look" is simply something that 'old-timers' cherish for the sake of nostalgia.

[miklosphoto]

Interesting thread.

Now, I've gone through all this myself too.

I recognized some of you on this thread and probably you will recognize me too, I started a thread couple of weeks ago about my dilemma whether or not to sell my M9.

Anyway, just wanted to add one remark to this thread. Most of you were comparing BW film to digital converted to BW. I think that is apples to oranges. Here is my opinion:

1. BW film is extremely forgiving, it is much easier to correctly expose it. - winner: film

2. BW film development is a piece of cake, all you need is a changing bag, a sink and the recipe. - winner - film

3. BW film is dirt cheap, $50 for a 100" box, the rest is free of charge if you develop it yourself -> see 2. winner: film

4. BW film has all it's characteristics which make it unique, in it's look, texture, tonal range - digital does not have it, I am sorry, I do see the difference even in scanned BW compared to files from M9 (BTW scanning BW is super duper easy too) - winner: film

5. Now, all that said, I am too converting M9 files to BW if I think they are better photos that the same in color. And they are great photos not because they are on film or dng. They are great photos because of the composition, theme, subject, you know what I mean. - winner: photography

6. I love color negatives (my favorite used to be Portra NC, but I like the new Portra too, and Ektar 100 in certain situations is magical), BUT, the workflow from M9 is so much easier here. And the M9 color dng is really unique, when I compare to to CR2 or NEF. - winner: dng

 

My conclusion is that it is just fine to shoot film to satisfy your process and aesthetic needs. I do that. And it is fine to use an M9, to have beautiful color images straight from the camera (I shot 5D and D700 before, the raw files from those cameras had never been just right straight from the camera - they always need some enhancement).

 

So at this point, I take the best of both worlds.

[freusen]

Reason for still using film (again)?

 

No, there is no reason to use film, but I do.

____________

FrankR

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sm23221]

What holds me back a bit about film is that once your camera is loaded with BW film, it cannot easily be changed to color until the roll is finished. If one always shoots in RAW then it is easier to either retain the color version or convert to BW. I wonder how many good shots have been sacrificed because of this limitation. (Do not interpret this response as a reason NOT to use film).