I like film...(open thread)

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Excellent.

 

Thank you!

[Steve Ricoh]

Very nice shots Philip! I agree that scanners definitely play an important role. Most consumer grade scanners are not able to scan well through the denser parts of a negative.

Memo to self, myself, when does the rendering of analogue film cease to be analogue once scanning and digitisation becomes part of the process to display images for viewing? Doc Henry keeps reminding us to print with chemicals, and he's correct I'm sure, but it does somewhat limit the size of your audience, unless you're an Elliot Erwitt (or one of the other 'great' photographers) who have the audience, the followers, to make a photo exhibition worth while.

[Doc Henry]

Fog in Kodak TX400 after my fog series with Ilford HP5

 

 

 

Leica MP-Summilux 50 Asph

 

 

Rural Courville for Wayne

 

 

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!

 

Best

Henry

 

 

 

[stray cat]

I've recently been interested in light, and trying to take its picture:

 

 

communication breakdown 2017

M6TTL, 35mm summaron (1958), adox silvermax 100

[philipus]

Both were shot with my TTL and using the built-in meter with the ISO set at whatever EI I said. I know you employ a very elaborate and precise metering approach, but I never use a handheld meter. Even when I shoot 120 film I rely on my Hasselblad's meter. 

 

On the one with the building I'm quite sure I aimed the camera such that the sky didn't affect the meter reading.The circular metering field's diameter is approx 2/3 of the vertical height of the relevant frame, if I remember correctly.

 

But my apologies if my post was unclear. It wasn't my intention to discuss whether the photos look overexposed. Clearly they don't, even though they were overexposed at the time of shooting by 1 resp 2 stops. 

 

The point I am making is simply that most colour negative films are very forgiving. I don't believe that it is right to say that scans of such film always will be degraded in terms of colour, sharpness etc if the film was not exposed at box speed. This is certainly not my experience. 

 

Just a few more examples, below. And I should say that, all depending on the scene and how one wants the photo to look, it can be useful to crush/blow the histogram's tails, just a little bit. But that is an 'artistic' decision in most cases. I say most cases because there are images where the dynamic range of the film-scanner combo is exceeded, for instance the one below with the lady in the yellow dress. where I could not have lifted the shadow over the stairs without blowing the baseball hat, for instance. That range is a bit beyond what colour negative film stock can handle. 

 

Vista 200 at EI100

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!

 

Vista 200 at EI50

 

Vista 200 at EI100

 

 

 

Philip - i think you are now getting into the question of whether the scenes are really overexposed. To my eye, they are not. There are no highlights that show undue stress and the green in the grass is properly exposed (which is a sign of proper exposure b/c greens in brightly lit foilage tend to require less exposure than most other colors.)

The key question to figure out to see whether we are talking apples and apples or apples and figs is how did you meter the scene??

Did you use the in-camera spot meter, and incident meter reading from a hand held device, an in-camera average meter reading, or, what i use for C41 film, a hand held average reading with a spot meter (adjusted as appropriate). Each of these metering methods will likely give you a different exposure reading. I often will take an incident meter reading to compare what i have come up with according to my average reading with my spotmeter and will be surprised at how different the reading is. Nonetheless, i always will trust my average reading with my spot meter. It will tell me exactly what zone each point in the scene is. And if the shadows that i want good detail dip below EV -2, i will generally increase the exposure to retain the detail, even at the expense of some color saturation in the highlights.

This apples-and-apples level setting really needs to be established to avoid us talking past each other. The fact that we all get good results suggests to me that we are not far apart.

 

[philipus]

In my view, never. The fact that I have chosen to scan film rather than wet print it does not make an image cease to be a film image. A scan will retain the qualities of the film (just as a digitised one will).

 

I'm no purist and in fact I don't even know how to print in the darkroom, though I might someday learn how to do that. But currently I see no need for it. I love using a hybrid workflow and tweaking it to the best of my abilities to get the images I like.

 

 

 

Memo to self, myself, when does the rendering of analogue film cease to be analogue once scanning and digitisation becomes part of the process to display images for viewing? Doc Henry keeps reminding us to print with chemicals, and he's correct I'm sure, but it does somewhat limit the size of your audience, unless you're an Elliot Erwitt (or one of the other 'great' photographers) who have the audience, the followers, to make a photo exhibition worth while.

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Love this one Phil, from the nice gradation of the sky to the straight and messy lines. 

 

I've recently been interested in light, and trying to take its picture:

 

 

communication breakdown 2017

M6TTL, 35mm summaron (1958), adox silvermax 100

[A miller]

Both were shot with my TTL and using the built-in meter with the ISO set at whatever EI I said. I know you employ a very elaborate and precise metering approach, but I never use a handheld meter. Even when I shoot 120 film I rely on my Hasselblad's meter.

 

On the one with the building I'm quite sure I aimed the camera such that the sky didn't affect the meter reading.The circular metering field's diameter is approx 2/3 of the vertical height of the relevant frame, if I remember correctly.

 

But my apologies if my post was unclear. It wasn't my intention to discuss whether the photos look overexposed. Clearly they don't, even though they were overexposed at the time of shooting by 1 resp 2 stops.

 

The point I am making is simply that most colour negative films are very forgiving. I don't believe that it is right to say that scans of such film always will be degraded in terms of colour, sharpness etc if the film was not exposed at box speed. This is certainly not my experience.

 

Just a few more examples, below. And I should say that, all depending on the scene and how one wants the photo to look, it can be useful to crush/blow the histogram's tails, just a little bit. But that is an 'artistic' decision in most cases. I say most cases because there are images where the dynamic range of the film-scanner combo is exceeded, for instance the one below with the lady in the yellow dress. where I could not have lifted the shadow over the stairs without blowing the baseball hat, for instance. That range is a bit beyond what colour negative film stock can handle.

 

Vista 200 at EI100

29937408186_52e52e90db_b.jpg

 

Vista 200 at EI50

28975701604_fd9a18a02f_b.jpg

 

Vista 200 at EI100

29888594531_ff42742ef2_b.jpg

Philip - the issue i am having (with myself) is that I am not following how you can say that this scene was overexpose just because you added one or two stops of exposure compensation to the spot meter your camera. I frankly dont know how an in-camera ttl meter reads light values from a large spot taking up 2/3 the vertical frame when there is a whole range of EVs within that spot. Is the meter so smart that it precisely averages all of the EVs within the spot. Or, do the brightest EVs dominate, or vice versa? I have no clue. This makes me think that your workflow of adding a couple of stops is just your way of "rigging the system" to get the proper exposure....? Edited August 2, 2017 by A miller

[stray cat]

In my view, never. The fact that I have chosen to scan film rather than wet print it does not make an image cease to be a film image. A scan will retain the qualities of the film (just as a digitised one will).

 

I'm no purist and in fact I don't even know how to print in the darkroom, though I might someday learn how to do that. But currently I see no need for it. I love using a hybrid workflow and tweaking it to the best of my abilities to get the images I like.

 

 

Thanks a lot Philip. I also agree fully with your comment about a film image retaining its "character" and "identity" when it has been digitised. Four or five years ago two friends and I held a group exhibition of portraits where we decided we'd use medium format film. At the exhibition I was interviewed by a fellow from one of the major Melbourne newspapers who asked why, if we scanned the negatives, we didn't "cut out the middleman" and just shoot with digital. I tried to explain it exactly (though not as well) as you've so eloquently put it, but to no avail - the review came out questioning why we used an "antiquated" process! But the fact is that we were exhibiting digitally rendered prints of film photographs - the grain, the character of the film - was all still in the prints. I couldn't understand how the interviewer, a well-respected Melbourne journalist, didn't get that.

 

It's a bit like often people compare analogue playback of music with taking pictures with analogue cameras (not thinking of anyone specifically here, Henry!). Here we are talking about different steps in the processes. To my way of thinking (and I'm sure it's far more complicated than this) you should compare the way (i.e. the technology used) the music was captured. Music recorded using analogue gear - to tape, using Neumann microphones, with drums and other instruments close-miked in a studio - will sound vastly different to music recorded via direct injection to a desk using ProTools or whatever. Played back, much of the "character" of the analogue recordings will be retained, even when played back using digital devices. The direct injection stuff will never sound that way, no matter how hard it tries. This is, I think, the real comparison between digital vs analogue as it applies to music and photography.

 

Sorry if I'm ranting. You raised an excellent point Philip and it's just my long-winded way of saying I agree!

Edited August 2, 2017 by stray cat

[Steve Ricoh]

I've recently been interested in light, and trying to take its picture:

 

 

communication breakdown 2017

M6TTL, 35mm summaron (1958), adox silvermax 100

You have a great eye for composition and lighting, Phil, it seems so effortless for you.

[stray cat]

Philip - the issue i am having (with myself) is that I am not following how you can say that this scene was overexpose just because you added one or two stops of exposure compensation to the spot meter your camera. I frankly dont know how an in-camera ttl meter reads light values from a large spot taking up 2/4 the vertical frame when there is a whole range of EVs within that spot. Is the meter so smart that it precisely averages all of the EVs within the spot. Or, do the brightest EVs dominate, or vice versa? I have no clue. This makes me think that your workflow of adding a couple of stops is just your way of "rigging the system" to get the proper exposure....?

 

Adam (and Edward) I think you're right - it's personal ways of "rigging the system" to achieve results. I employ a similar technique with colour film to Philip, using the in-camera meter and overexposing the metered result. Probably, at least much of the time, carefully spot-metering and deciding whether or not to compensate exposure, will turn up a not-too-dissimilar result. I think the key here is avoiding underexposure with colour negative film - something that I think we're all agreed on.

[stray cat]

You have a great eye for composition and lighting, Phil, it seems so effortless for you.

 

Steve - thank you so very much. Your comment here means a lot to me. 

[Doc Henry]

I've recently been interested in light, and trying to take its picture:

 

 

communication breakdown 2017

M6TTL, 35mm summaron (1958), adox silvermax 100

 

Phil , well framing, well composed

Great picture by the eyes of the master

Nice black and contre jour

Thank you

Henry

[Doc Henry]

Adam (and Edward) I think you're right - it's personal ways of "rigging the system" to achieve results. I employ a similar technique with colour film to Philip, using the in-camera meter and overexposing the metered result. Probably, at least much of the time, carefully spot-metering and deciding whether or not to compensate exposure, will turn up a not-too-dissimilar result. I think the key here is avoiding underexposure with colour negative film - something that I think we're all agreed on.

Phil ,  in film (I don't speak in digit because it's still special),  when you overexpose ,with too much light

color as b&w ,  you lose all details and  the picture is lost

but when you underexpos. as you said you can keep these details and a little correction can give a fine

picture.

Agree wiith me Phil ?

Best

Henry

[Fotoklaus]

Rolleicord Vb, Tmax 400, D76

 

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!

[Doc Henry]

Both were shot with my TTL and using the built-in meter with the ISO set at whatever EI I said. I know you employ a very elaborate and precise metering approach, but I never use a handheld meter. Even when I shoot 120 film I rely on my Hasselblad's meter. 

 

On the one with the building I'm quite sure I aimed the camera such that the sky didn't affect the meter reading.The circular metering field's diameter is approx 2/3 of the vertical height of the relevant frame, if I remember correctly.

 

But my apologies if my post was unclear. It wasn't my intention to discuss whether the photos look overexposed. Clearly they don't, even though they were overexposed at the time of shooting by 1 resp 2 stops. 

 

The point I am making is simply that most colour negative films are very forgiving. I don't believe that it is right to say that scans of such film always will be degraded in terms of colour, sharpness etc if the film was not exposed at box speed. This is certainly not my experience. 

 

Just a few more examples, below. And I should say that, all depending on the scene and how one wants the photo to look, it can be useful to crush/blow the histogram's tails, just a little bit. But that is an 'artistic' decision in most cases. I say most cases because there are images where the dynamic range of the film-scanner combo is exceeded, for instance the one below with the lady in the yellow dress. where I could not have lifted the shadow over the stairs without blowing the baseball hat, for instance. That range is a bit beyond what colour negative film stock can handle. 

 

Vista 200 at EI100

29937408186_52e52e90db_b.jpg

 

Vista 200 at EI50

28975701604_fd9a18a02f_b.jpg

 

Vista 200 at EI100

29888594531_ff42742ef2_b.jpg

 

Philip  thanks for this demonstration.

 

I agree with you. In addition film is "tolerant" and can correct your mistake 

 

These three pictures with half light and half shadow are beautiful and all details

with color are still keeping

The Vista is a nice color film

Best

Henry

Edited August 2, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Wayne]

It is very interesting how everyone's experiences differ on this topic, I find. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I virtually always expose all my colour negative, except Ektar, 1 or even 2 stops over, and regardless of whether I shoot 135 or 120 film. In my workflow, I see no degradation at all in colours, sharpness etc, but I get benefits in terms of scanning (using the type of scanners I have). So I think it may be a workflow and scanner thing to a large extent; there are just so many ways to process colour negative scans, the medium itself is so malleable and different scanners treat images quite differently that it is difficult to give hard and fast rules. As with so many other things in life, whatever works and is satisfying enough, seems to be the closest one can get to a principle. Again, all just my opinion of course. Just a few examples to show what I mean. These were inverted in ColorPerfect without any other adjustments than clicking the Restore Settings button to find a colour impression I like, and then adjusted in Adobe Camera Raw. Clearly more accurate colour can be achieved but, for me, this is good enough.

 

36275573966_5196ed98dc_b.jpg

Superia 200 at EI100

 

36150952332_a04cbac571_b.jpg

Superia 400 at EI100

 

 

I typically use reflected light metering for both color and B&W......And I struggle.  However, on those occasions when I do take incident light readings, additional exposure- over the reflected reading- is always called for. Does this tie in with the discussion on color film and box speed?

[Doc Henry]

I took this picture in Marseille (South France) but I hesitate to show you

specially for Phil and Philip

 

and in contre-jour

 

Cemetery

Marseille

All of us will go one day to the sky

 

 

Kodak Portra160-Leica M7- Summilux 35 Asph

 

 

 

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!

 

Best

Henry

[Keith (M)]

I've recently been interested in light, and trying to take its picture:

 

 

 

communication breakdown 2017

M6TTL, 35mm summaron (1958), adox silvermax 100

 

Very well seen & taken (I'd like to think I would hopefully have spotted an opportunity like that!)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Keith (M)]

On the Marlborough Downs close to the southern escarpment - a view of trees being used as shelter-belts.  

Hasselblad 500C, 80mm Planar, Portra 160.

 

Sheltered

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!