Frustrated with film's dynamic range vs. digital - Help!

[stuny]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While in Palm Springs last month I made a new friend with a New York gent who was carrying the most beautiful M3 I've ever seen.  He had been looking for one this good for over two years and was justifiably proud of it.  I also got a chance to try it, taking a photo of him and his significant other.  What a sweet camera.

A couple of weeks later he told me that compared to his digital experience the relatively limited dynamic range of film has him frustrated.  Later, I mentioned to him about exposing digital for bright detail, and film for dark detail, as well as the Zone System, but that's all I've got since i stopped using film in 2004.

What would you suggest I tell my friend?

[pgk]

47 minutes ago, stuny said:

What would you suggest I tell my friend?

That film and digital are not easily comparable. The extreme highlights and shadows on film suffer from reciprocity law failure resulting in a 'spurious' tonality. But this can be pleasing to the eye though, unlike the sometimes blocky tonality of digital in these areas. So the problem is that whilst film may not have the extreme dynamic range of digital, it can handle the extremes of its dynamic range in a different way. IMO its horses for courses and comparing the two is ultimately disappointing because they don't work in the same way. I'd tell him to enjoy film for what it is. After all, with an M mount camera he could always add a digital body (finances permitting) and easily enjoy the best of both worlds depending on subject matter and contrast.

[Advertisement]

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

[Aryel]

Might be easier if your friend is happy to share some of the images he feels frustrated about as well as how he meters his shots...

Do you know what type of film he is using? Slide, c41, black and white? and which film? They all differ... In general, for black and white there is quite a bit of room to play if he is processing his own film (i.e expose for the shadow and develop for the highlights).

[spydrxx]

I'd tell him that each has its place and that digital images are an evolution of what film could produce, that we're lucky to have both simultaneously and choose that which suits our mood. I'd also point out some of the incredible photographs seasoned photographers have produced with film, and to not get discouraged, but rather challenged to learn the best techniques to bring out the richness film  can deliver.

[stuny]

26 minutes ago, Aryel said:

Might be easier if your friend is happy to share some of the images he feels frustrated about as well as how he meters his shots...

Do you know what type of film he is using? Slide, c41, black and white? and which film? They all differ... In general, for black and white there is quite a bit of room to play if he is processing his own film (i.e expose for the shadow and develop for the highlights).

Color which he scans after processing, but that's all I know for now.

[StS]

If black and white is an option, my suggestion would be to try Ilford XP2, if not known, this is a b/w film developed in C41 with a very high dynamic range. A yellow filter on the lens typically works well for black and white.

Kodak had an excellent BW400 with similar properties and a "built-in yellow filter", unfortunately, it was discontinued about a decade ago.

Another film I like is Kodak Portra 400 (and 800). Both work very nicely for portraits and scan very easily.

Stefan

[Erato]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

AFAIK, black and white negative film provides the greatest Dynamic Range(11 to 13) on the recording medium. And the digital projector provides the best outcome upon the reproduction medium(9 to 12). The standard monitor should be able to reproduce the Dynamic Range at around 8 to 10 in terms of EV / f-stops. Some professional monitors would be an exception nowadays.

On the further note, fundamentally, differentiation can be made amongst three situations. Subject contrast is less than, equal to or greater than the dynamic range of the recording medium.

• If subject contrast is less than the dynamic range of the recording medium, elbowroom is available in the case of correct exposure. If the average value between the brightest and darkest points is used for exposure metering, average brightness can be shifted in both directions without losing detail.
• If subject contrast is equal to the dynamic range of the recording medium, precise exposure is required because any shifting inevitably leads to a loss of detail.
• If subject contrast is greater than the dynamic range of the recording medium, the range of tonal values can no longer be imaged. Correct exposure is no longer possible.
• If the average value between the brightest and darkest points were used for exposure metering, detail would be lost in the dark as well as the bright areas. Depending on subject and image impact, the photographer would then have to decide which tonal values are most important and adjust exposure if necessary.

[hansvons]

Stop exposing at box speed. In most situations, a stop of more light makes all the difference. Even two stops more light won't hurt less than underexposing by ½ stop. Modern cine film stock provides ample DR, around 12-13 usable stops. Just give it light. I have no experience with Kodak's C41 film stock, like the Portra flavours. But I assume that at least the slowest emulsion (ISO 160, if I recall correctly) will provide tons of DR at ISO 100.

[fotomas]

For me it's always the other way round: I'm blown away to see what a negative film can take and get frustrated with digital in high contrast situations, where I only can decide what to let go (shadows, highlights or both).
It might be true for slide film in standard developing. But even this you can overexpose and do a pull-developing and you get a much wider range.
BW film you can easily adjust via developing, like Ansel Adams did with the zone system. This also works for color film, if the film is suitable.

Here an example taken on Portra 400 NC that impressed me very much. Standard C-41 developing and raw scan without PP. As you can see an extreme light condition. The only lamp in the room is in the picture and shining into the lens.

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!

And here an detail from that picture:

You can even see the glow filament in the bulb.

But without more information and sample pictures it's impossible to find the reason what went wrong for your friend. Maybe just bad scans or prints?

Edited December 26, 2022 by fotomas

[lmans]

Film and digital in my thinking are two different animals. Much easier to manipulate a digital to learn ok somewhat like film than other way around. I would say that your friend, while wanting a Film m3, perhaps should return to digital

[williamj]

I have two points, first is how is he measuring light with the M3 and second who is doing the scanning for him, but my best advice is to shoot film at blue hour or golden hour at first until you get the hang of it.

First, I assume he has used a digital camera so the camera has adjusted to fractions of a stop usually over multiple parts of the scene. He may be using HDR. The M3 has obviously no light meter so comparing the two is hard unless you know how he is going about doing his exposures. It could be a long learning curve, but he won't regret it.

Second, if it is colour film, usually people have it developed and scanned at the same place. The scanners do not know what you want when they make the scan, so they guess. A colour negative has a lot of information but if one part of the scene was bright and one part was dark, the scanner won't know where to put the emphasis. So sometimes they emphasis the dark part and blow out the light part or get detail in the light part and underexpose the dark part. The only way to beat them is to ensure that your photos don't have excessive contrast or to scan them yourself, and that's another learning experience.

That's why my best advice is to shoot film at blue hour or golden hour at first until you get the hang of it.

[stray cat]

Stu, it's an interesting question, and thanks for posing it.

There's always something to learn with photography, and if your friend is coming from a digital background and being frustrated with his film experience in comparison, it may well be that there is a void in his knowledge of the photo-chemical nature of film photography. He may simply be quite comfortable with his digital knowledge and perhaps on a far lower level of knowledge with film. We don't know.

If it is important to him, I'd suggest to him that he does as much reading as he feels comfortable with regarding the process of film photography - starting with the choice of materials through exposure through post-processing. It may be that he is not really all that interested and is happy to continue with digital photography, albeit that his beautiful M3 doesn't produce pictures that he regards in the same light. I'm absolutely certain, though, were he to spend the time and really explore the potential of film and its particular qualities, that he'd find both mediums satisfying - even if for different reasons.

His frustration seems to be with dynamic range. There are many film photographers out here in the world, myself included, to whom the dynamic range of film is more than adequate for us to express whatever it is we wish to express in our pictures - and has been for many, many, many years. Perhaps he needs to ponder whether the real or imagined greater dynamic range of digital that he perceives is actually adding anything important to his pictures? If it is, then he's probably always going to be happier with his digital output and he'll still be the lucky owner of a superb film camera. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[250swb]

Too many variables, the 'New York gent' has to understand there is a learning curve beyond reading the camera manual and other reading is necessary, so buy a book. Then lesson one, learn how to use a light meter and buy a roll of C41 film. Repeat lesson one twenty or thirty times before attempting anything fancy.

The learning curve is similar with digital to get beyond the basics of being a happy snapper, the difference is that the basics can be achieved in digital by letting the camera control your photography and you can remain a happy snapper indefinitely, with film the photographer needs to take control of both camera and film, there is no shortcut.

Edited December 27, 2022 by 250swb

[pgk]

13 hours ago, fotomas said:

Here an example taken on Portra 400 NC that impressed me very much. Standard C-41 developing and raw scan without PP. As you can see an extreme light condition. The only lamp in the room is in the picture and shining into the lens.

You can even see the glow filament in the bulb.

I would say that this is a good example of high intensity reciprocitylaw failure in which extreme overexposure of the highlights has resulted in spurious tonality which is 'technically incorrect but vey acceptable visually'. Using a digital sensor the lamp would be completely blown out.

[jaybeuff]

On 12/26/2022 at 11:32 AM, fotomas said:

For me it's always the other way round: I'm blown away to see what a negative film can take and get frustrated with digital in high contrast situations, where I only can decide what to let go (shadows, highlights or both).
It might be true for slide film in standard developing. But even this you can overexpose and do a pull-developing and you get a much wider range.
BW film you can easily adjust via developing, like Ansel Adams did with the zone system. This also works for color film, if the film is suitable.

Here an example taken on Portra 400 NC that impressed me very much. Standard C-41 developing and raw scan without PP. As you can see an extreme light condition. The only lamp in the room is in the picture and shining into the lens.

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!

And here an detail from that picture:

You can even see the glow filament in the bulb.

But without more information and sample pictures it's impossible to find the reason what went wrong for your friend. Maybe just bad scans or prints?

Same.  Film to me always has a wider exposure latitude.

[frame-it]

On 12/26/2022 at 10:30 PM, stuny said:

What would you suggest I tell my friend?

as @hansvons suggested, overexpose by 1/2 or 1 stop.

is your friend:

developing himself or at a lab?

scanning himself or at some lab?

even if the film is developed at a lab, he should get a nice scanner and scan himself after really learning how to do it properly.

[MarkP]

Tell him film is crap.

Then buy his M3 😁.

I’d make an offer myself but just got a beautiful 1962 M3 earlier in 2022 for my 60th birthday.

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by MarkP

[MarkP]

Seriously though, as already discussed they are different media. Many of us came to digital following decades of experience with film.
At times I’m frustrated with the acuity I can get with digital but not with film. At other times with the lack of dynamic range I want from digital, doing all I can to protect highlights (film is of course much more forgiving for overexposure), especially in our very harsh Australian light. 

[wizard]

Am 26.12.2022 um 19:47 schrieb hansvons:

In most situations, a stop of more light makes all the difference. Even two stops more light won't hurt less than underexposing by ½ stop.

Fully correct if you are using negative film. However, don't rely on that rule when exposing slide film, or the results will not be good. Slide film is extremely critical regarding correct exposure, and usually requires exposing for the highlights, quite similar to digital sensors.

Stu, if your New York gent is primarily using color negative film, I would recommend to him that he sets his lightmeter to half the ISO value indicated on the film's package, that is, to ISO 100 if he uses ISO 200 film, or to ISO 200 if he uses ISO 400 film, and so on. In practice, the reading obtained from the lightmeter will then correspond to one stop overexposure, which will provide much better results, and in particular more usable dynamic range. If the results are still unsatisfactory, he could try 1,5 or even 2 stops overexposure, which should still work.

Best,

Andy

Edited January 2, 2023 by wizard

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Erato]

On 12/26/2022 at 9:30 PM, stuny said:

What would you suggest I tell my friend?

The black and white negative holds the greatest dynamic range at around 11 to 13(EV / f-stops) when compared with slide(reversal) or color films.  

If your friend is eager to keep his exquisite M3 with him, he may choose to use black and white negative film.

Or an exceedingly well-exposure measurement is a must-have skillsets while dealing with color/slide films.