Jump to content

Quote of the decade about film vs. digital


Messsucherkamera

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How do you manage? I used to shoot raw and would expose as close to the right as possible without blowing highlights. Some can be clawed back with a raw converter but there are limits. It also introduces changes to the image that need to be addressed with some other aspect of the raw converter. What's the trick to being able to use a digital camera like a film camera?

Pete

 

I used color reversal film (and sometimes Agfa's Scala B+W reversal film) and had Ciba prints made for many years. After Ciba when I went hybrid (drum scanning reversal film and printing back to analog paper via the Océ) I still used color reversal film 80% of the time over negative film.

 

As Adan already explained quite well, reversal film is similar to issues of highlight retention just like a digital sensor. Expose for the highlights (unlike with B+W negative film where the adage was always expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.) We can easily work the shadows in post with digital files (and if scanning reversal film, too.)

 

In addition, I'm also very, very particular about the quality of ambient light. As we know, light is the key to photography (photo-graphy; 'writing with light.') But I think that whole concept sometimes gets lost today and with digital and post processing people tend to overlook the variations, subtleties, and overall qualities of natural light.

 

I normally never photograph in harsh light (midday, midsummer, bright sun, etc..) Light is so important to me that I personally only work on days (when dependent on ambient light) that have diffuse light. I seek out the time of the year that gives me the best light to do work and to fulfill projects. It may sound weird but I won't take a photograph in bad (ugly) light; if the light's ugly I just don't photograph. Many photographers have the same philosophy and the quality of light is extremely important to them, too. And it often defines their work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As Adan already explained quite well, reversal film is similar to issues of highlight retention just like a digital sensor. Expose for the highlights (unlike with B+W negative film where the adage was always expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.) We can easily work the shadows in post with digital files (and if scanning reversal film, too.)

 

I read that most of the "bits" of the 0-255 are in the right half of the histogram so the thinking is that by not exposing as far to the right as possible most of the information of the image is lost, and in compensating by boosting the gain to work the shadows, noise is increased.

 

In addition, I'm also very, very particular about the quality of ambient light. As we know, light is the key to photography (photo-graphy; 'writing with light.') But I think that whole concept sometimes gets lost today and with digital and post processing people tend to overlook the variations, subtleties, and overall qualities of natural light.

 

I normally never photograph in harsh light (midday, midsummer, bright sun, etc..) Light is so important to me that I personally only work on days (when dependent on ambient light) that have diffuse light. I seek out the time of the year that gives me the best light to do work and to fulfill projects. It may sound weird but I won't take a photograph in bad (ugly) light; if the light's ugly I just don't photograph. Many photographers have the same philosophy and the quality of light is extremely important to them, too. And it often defines their work.

 

I agree, and it's been nice not having to consider these points since moving back to film. But some don't want to hear that...:(

 

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I'm also very, very particular about the quality of ambient light. As we know, light is the key to photography (photo-graphy; 'writing with light.') But I think that whole concept sometimes gets lost today and with digital and post processing people tend to overlook the variations, subtleties, and overall qualities of natural light.

 

I'm also very very particular about the quality of ambient lighting. OTOH sometime I have to work with what's available whether I like it or not, but in general if the light is ugly I don't make photographs.

 

Your claim that the "whole concept gets lost today and with digital and post processing people tend to overlook the variations, subtleties, and overall qualities of natural light" paints with quite a broad brush, don't you think? People who use film aren't any way superior in this regard. I know of many people using digital cameras who are very much in tune with the quality of ambient light, and also many using film who are clueless about light quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your claim that the "whole concept gets lost today and with digital and post processing people tend to overlook the variations, subtleties, and overall qualities of natural light" paints with quite a broad brush, don't you think? People who use film aren't any way superior in this regard. I know of many people using digital cameras who are very much in tune with the quality of ambient light, and also many using film who are clueless about light quality.

 

You've misquoted me. I didn't say the "whole concept gets lost today and with digital and post processing people tend to overlook the variations, subtleties, and overall qualities of natural light" as you wrote. But instead I said this:

 

"But I think that whole concept sometimes gets lost today and with digital and post processing people tend to overlook the variations, subtleties, and overall qualities of natural light."

 

This is absolutely not about any perceived 'superiority' of film users (which is something I am very adamantly against ever proclaiming; see some of my other posts), but simply that today a lot of people have seemed to forgotten about the properties of light and the fact that film and sensors have a limited tonal range in respect to the human eye. And I believe it is true that many people have become somewhat dependent on post processing and working around issues of blown highlights and noisy shadows rather than concentrating on light and its properties, and the limits of film and sensors. Digital is pretty impressive these days but it's not infallible magic, either. And neither is film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've misquoted me. I didn't say the "whole concept gets lost today and with digital and post processing people tend to overlook the variations, subtleties, and overall qualities of natural light" as you wrote.

 

Apologies.

 

And I believe it is true that many people have become somewhat dependent on post processing and working around issues of blown highlights and noisy shadows rather than concentrating on light and its properties, and the limits of film and sensors.

 

Nothing new there. Long before digital there were techniques that mitigated highlight, shadow and tonal range problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that most of the "bits" of the 0-255 are in the right half of the histogram so the thinking is that by not exposing as far to the right as possible most of the information of the image is lost, and in compensating by boosting the gain to work the shadows, noise is increased.

Pete

 

Getting a bit off the original subject (and - BTW - I tend to agree with the tenor of Messsucher's original quote: If I wanted pictures to look like "Tri-X", I wouldn't fiddle around with processing digital files. I'd shoot Tri-X.)...

 

But anyway: The right half of the histogram doesn't contain more "bits." By definition, it contains half the brightness values (128-255), and the left side contains the other half (0-127). Both halves are equal.

 

Or, put in "bit" (binary) form, the left half of the histogram charts the values 00000000 to 01111111, and the right side charts the values 10000000 to 11111111. 128 permutations of 1s and 0s in each half.

 

It is definitely true that if you underexpose one stop, you are throwing away the right half of the histogram as "usable data space" - IF a correct exposure would have still held the important highlights. Trying to expose for specular reflections of the sun on car chrome at the expense of everything else in the picture is a losing game.

 

The key phrase you use is "as far to the right as possible" - with the unspoken continuation "...without blowing highlights." If one is blowing highlights, one is exposing TOO far to the right. At some point, if the light is tricky, one has to make a creative decision: "What is more important in this particular picture, shadows or highlights?"

 

Film wasn't any different. Especially slide film, but also negs. Below is a 2001 picture (M4-P, 28 Elmarit, on Ilford Pan F) that roughly approximates the lighting of my earlier M9 tree shot (this shot had more natural fill light). I had to make a call on exposing for the kids or for the strong highlights (sun and fountain spurts). I exposed for the highlights, and then worked really hard in post-processing ("boosting the gain") to lighten the three boys, whose skin originally was just as dark as the girl's arms at right. Still ended up with some blank, detail-less shadows in the jeans and hair, and some highlights with tone but not much detail (specular reflection on taller boy's hair, sun reflection on wet pavement.) Didn't quite capture the sun's disk, either.

 

Using the M9 I would have gotten comparable results using comparable techniques. Which is why I simply use the M9 like a film camera.

 

Unlike CalArts, I like dramatic contrasty lighting. Which is a good thing, since Colorado has only about 10 "diffuse" days a year. ;)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apologies.

 

I'm certain that we probably both see this in pretty much the same way and no doubt agree on the gist of it all. And you're quite correct that despite the medium (film or digital), one either wants to understand and make an effort working with light and the tonal range of the medium, or otherwise doesn't care about it so much (or perhaps doesn't find it to be an issue.) And you're right that this has existed from the very beginning.

 

 

Nothing new there. Long before digital there were techniques that mitigated highlight, shadow and tonal range problems.

 

That's definitely the case, but I believe digital has certainly made those types of corrections more effective and much easier to access overall. The toolbox is a lot bigger these days. I currently have a lot more latitude than I did when using only reversal film and doing straight E-6 processing and printing out on Ciba reversal paper. I can drum scan reversal film and do a lot during the scan (with good software) and then edit in PS with so much more flexibility. Plus I can print out to either RA-4 paper or go inkjet, etc.. For me at least, it's made the whole process a lot more elastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, I'm also very, very particular about the quality of ambient light. As we know, light is the key to photography (photo-graphy; 'writing with light.') But I think that whole concept sometimes gets lost today and with digital and post processing people tend to overlook the variations, subtleties, and overall qualities of natural light.

 

 

I think it is just the opposite for many users. With film the inherent contrast and other characteristics of the emulsion determine how that light quality will be depicted. Sometimes it is not recorded as you want it to look. Of course when making analog color or b/w prints this can be adjusted somewhat if you are good at printing. With original transparencies you have no control after the fact.

 

However via scanning or shooting digitally the image can be adjusted in numerous ways to better represent whatever quality of light you saw or want to express. (Color, contrast, localized adjustment, etc.) And of course this can be important if you are trying to compress or expand the brightness range to fit a given type of paper or viewing condition. This is not to imply that one should be sloppy when shooting.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is just the opposite for many users. With film the inherent contrast and other characteristics of the emulsion determine how that light quality will be depicted. Sometimes it is not recorded as you want it to look. Of course when making analog color or b/w prints this can be adjusted somewhat if you are good at printing. With original transparencies you have no control after the fact.

 

 

I probably wasn't very clear nor articulate in what I meant about light. In my original post I was relating the issue of light with my own personal high percentage of reversal film use over negative film. What I learned with E6 film was the necessity of proper exposure techniques since there was no control after the fact, as you pointed out. And to understand the range that reversal film can tolerate given specific lighting conditions. It made me very keen about the properties of light.

 

But now that I scan reversal film and edit in PS, I have a much better latitude and can 'correct' a lot of potential issues (although I still like to keep the pixel stretching at a minimum for obvious reasons.) The corrections are so much easier to do as a digital file and go beyond what I could have ever done with only an analog film frame and analog print.

 

Nonetheless, those decades worth of experience with reversal film has personally helped me a lot in making images from a digital sensor which records light more like reversal film does. And from that E6 film use comes the constant observation of ambient light and what I need to achieve with what I personally want from an image. I still feel that overall, that observation of light has somewhat taken a backseat with many digital users who know that a lot can be corrected in post processing. I can very well be wrong and perhaps it is an over generalization, but that's been my own observation.

 

Anyway, that's all I was initially trying to convey. And as I mentioned previously, digital (including hybrid) is a godsend as far as I'm concerned in respect to working with the image. It's not a film versus digital thing whatsoever. Liking film (for various subjective reasons) is another thing altogether.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certain that we probably both see this in pretty much the same way and no doubt agree on the gist of it all. And you're quite correct that despite the medium (film or digital), one either wants to understand and make an effort working with light and the tonal range of the medium, or otherwise doesn't care about it so much (or perhaps doesn't find it to be an issue.) And you're right that this has existed from the very beginning... I believe digital has certainly made those types of corrections more effective and much easier to access overall. The toolbox is a lot bigger these days. I currently have a lot more latitude than I did when using only reversal film and doing straight E-6 processing and printing out on Ciba reversal paper. I can drum scan reversal film and do a lot during the scan (with good software) and then edit in PS with so much more flexibility. Plus I can print out to either RA-4 paper or go inkjet, etc.. For me at least, it's made the whole process a lot more elastic.

 

+1 to all of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...