My film photos sucks

[hirohhhh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, willeica said:

How do you identify that they are 10 times better? What makes one photo 'better' than another one is often a matter of personal taste. 'Oppenheimer', this year's Best Picture at the recent Oscars, was shot on film and I have not heard anyone say that digital would have been 10 times better. To stretch the issue a bit further, I have never heard anyone say that Carter Bresson's images would have been better if he had been able to use digital. Are you confusing a perception of better 'image quality' with 'better photos'? 

What you are saying is not uncommon since the 'digital turn' as many people today confuse perceived 'better IQ' with 'better photos'. This forum is full of it, particularly when a new camera appears and suddenly your old camera cannot take photos as good as those which the latest model can capture or at least in your head that is the case. The digital v film argument is a subset or offshoot of that debate. There is a huge personal element in all of this, of course, and you need to satisfy yourself about what is important to you and what pleases you the most. Anything else is a distraction.

William 

Exactly, it's my personal opinion, based on my personal taste that my digital photos are 10x better than my film. So, I didn't say that digital is better than film 10x. I was talking only about my photos. I guess my success rate on digital is much higher, so I ended up liking more my digital photos, printing them, most of my 4-5 star photos are digital, very few are film, and so on.

[Mikep996]

I enjoy shooting/(darkroom) processing/printing (B&W) film but I have to admit that if my digital results were 10x better (or ANY better), I wouldn't shoot film at all. 

[Hunter Wells]

Dear me,,, all this talking  seems more important than taking photographs,, whose interested in what other people have for dinner,, aka, take photos of,, there is no one size fits all answer...

I get personal satisfaction from being my own judge  and wouldn't dream of criticism,  or even wasting time giving an amateur opinion on others peoples photographs,,,, the world will be a better place when people stop pontificating on forums and stating the obvious,  and keep themselves to themselves ,

There's nothing new in photography, just recycled garbage..

It's in the eye of the beholder, , just remember the eye sees what it wants to see,  the clever camera sees everything..

[Mute-on]

On 3/5/2024 at 7:41 PM, hansvons said:

I'm wondering what in your digital images is 10x better. 

However, I cannot corroborate that; quite the opposite. I find it depends a lot on the genre (ruling out AF, etc, as you use M cameras for both film and digital). Action-driven photography, like shooting on the street or events, or even worse sports, can be more challenging on film since you can't machine-gun an action. Similar things can be said about unstaged family photos. But when shooting more static subjects that require only a good eye and sense for the moment, I find shooting on film more focused and thus, the hit rate increases.

Maybe something in your workflow is off? I find digitalisation, the process from the negative to a ready-edited photo, the biggest bottleneck. But it doesn't need to be. I'd say, for my part, I've figured it out and enjoy the process a lot, as the results are always more tangible, particular, and timeless than the digital equivalent would be.

 

I can relate to that very much. I find 30-40 great prints in a year is a pretty good yield. I'm in the same ballpark for prints.

I don't do wet printing and have my workflow digital from the negative onwards, as I grew up with that in the nineties and 2000 as postproduction in filmmaking was already digital. I like the process so much that I stopped ordering prints and purchased a large format printer that will hit my doorstep next week. 

 

That is precisely how I do it. Digital for journalistic shoots or campaigns that need a quick turnaround (I also use B&W film for that, depending on the timing) and film for the rest, which is about my research of subjects in a more extended series over the years. Below are two images from my series Beach, shot on Kodak 5207 250D Visison3 on a 35mmSummicron ASPH, home dev in Fuji C41 and scanned with the Sigma70mm Macro mounted to my SL2-S and the indispensable Valoi Easy35. I use Capture One for conversion and editing because I want complete control and speed. The print version is 70cm x 50cm, roughly resolving 5K. The images below are 2K large. Click to enlarge. 

 

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!

 

 

I have no idea if it’s to do with the medium (I suspect it is) but the colours in these are just spectacular to my eyes. Lovely. 

[willeica]

5 hours ago, hirohhhh said:

Exactly, it's my personal opinion, based on my personal taste that my digital photos are 10x better than my film. So, I didn't say that digital is better than film 10x. I was talking only about my photos. I guess my success rate on digital is much higher, so I ended up liking more my digital photos, printing them, most of my 4-5 star photos are digital, very few are film, and so on.

Then you are following my advice. If you accept it is a matter of personal taste, why are you raising it here? What you deem to be a 'success rate' is very much a personal thing. My favourite photographs of my own are divided between film and digital images, but I have never calculated percentages for them. I have to say, though, that as regards my favourite photographs by other photographers most of them were taken on film before the advent of digital. In general, to my mind, digital has given us 'more' rather than 'better', which makes it more difficult to recognise the really good ones. Also, to my mind, nothing in digital beats the colours of properly exposed Kodachrome and Fujichrome (particularly the 50 ISO variety of the latter). Maybe I was using colour transparency film for so long that something got stuck in my brain about what is outstanding colour. 

It is very much personal, as we both seem to agree.

William 

[hirohhhh]

7 minutes ago, willeica said:

Then you are following my advice. If you accept it is a matter of personal taste, why are you raising it here? What you deem to be a 'success rate' is very much a personal thing. My favourite photographs of my own are divided between film and digital images, but I have never calculated percentages for them. I have to say, though, that as regards my favourite photographs by other photographers most of them were taken on film before the advent of digital. In general, to my mind, digital has given us 'more' rather than 'better', which makes it more difficult to recognise the really good ones. Also, to my mind, nothing in digital beats the colours of properly exposed Kodachrome and Fujichrome (particularly the 50 ISO variety of the latter). Maybe I was using colour transparency film for so long that something got stuck in my brain about what is outstanding colour. 

It is very much personal, as we both seem to agree.

William 

I'm raising it here because I became somewhat frustrated upon returning home with mediocre results from shooting with film. I wanted to see if it's just me or if someone else can relate and perhaps offer advice. You've obviously been shooting film much longer than I have. For me, it's only been a few years. Despite all the frustration, I love film and I love my film cameras, so I'm not giving up. I just wish it worked better for me because, in the end, the photos matter the most. The experience along the way is also important, and I personally feel better shooting film. However, ultimately, the photos are all that remain, and my film photos simply aren't that good.

But I'd say it's mostly because I shoot much more with digital. I'd normally shoot a roll a day, maybe two, if I'm really into a zone. But with digital, on an average day, I can shoot 150-200 photos, and of course, some of them will be good, even though I wasn't as focused while shooting as I am when shooting film.

Edited March 20, 2024 by hirohhhh

[Mute-on]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, hirohhhh said:

I'm raising it here because I became somewhat frustrated upon returning home with mediocre results from shooting with film. I wanted to see if it's just me or if someone else can relate and perhaps offer advice. You've obviously been shooting film much longer than I have. For me, it's only been a few years. Despite all the frustration, I love film and I love my film cameras, so I'm not giving up. I just wish it worked better for me because, in the end, the photos matter the most. The experience along the way is also important, and I personally feel better shooting film. However, ultimately, the photos are all that remain, and my film photos simply aren't that good.

This is actually a very interesting experience. I have only recently moved to digital on Leica M (but have used other digital cameras for decades). I also feel better shooting film. That is to say, I just enjoy the experience of using a film M camera more than my M262. As for the resulting images, I am satisfied with the tone and colours I get from the M262. I would say my photos from each medium are as good as each other, for my purposes, but not the same. 

However, moving from film to digital, or vice versa in your case, a few factors will inevitably change the resulting photos, which you may perceive as ‘not as good’. Most significant amongst these is the choice of film stock.

The major attraction of film is that there is a huge array of film available, each of which can give very different results. It’s like having access to a range of different digital sensors in the same camera. Yes, I’m aware that different results can be generated in post-processing to emulate various films, but they are never quite the same and require that one spends some, often significant time (and money), well, post-processing. I do wonder whether your disappointment with your film photos is a consequence of the look you are getting with your chosen film stocks. For example, I’ve most recently been shooting Kodak film (last 8 years) after growing up with Fuji. Having tried Portra 160 and 400, and Ektar 100, I discovered the following:

1. I don’t like Portra 160 - a little too muted/pastel for my taste

2. I do like Portra 400, but at box speed rather than overexposed by one stop. Colours become slightly too muted with overexposure for my taste

3. Ektar is a revelation. Shoot at box speed in good light. Colours are nicely saturated and warm, which I like.

Then there is the example of Kodak 250D, above, which appears gentle but still saturated in a very unique and appealing way to my eyes. If you really want your film photos to more closely resemble digital OOC, I suspect Ektar might be more to your taste. Of course they key here is to experiment with as many different film stocks as possible to find your own preference.

 Other factors that will inevitably affect your results, other than composition, are exposure and film processing.

As you are likely aware, colour neg film is generally exposed for shadows, or more properly the mid-tones, and highlights can be left to take care of themselves, so to speak. Digital, like colour slide film, requires that you protect the highlights, leaving the shadows to take care of themselves (or to be lifted in post). Having said this, I doubt your dissatisfaction is a result of exposure differences between film and digital, assuming you are achieving proper exposure for each. 

Between exposure and film processing, I suspect the culprit is the film processing, which could be the film development itself, or the scanning, or both. I would consider trying a different lab, or if you are developing and scanning yourself, try a good lab. Experiment with different lab scanners (Fuji Frontier and Noritsu) as they each produce slightly different results. 

All the best with your journey. With practice, your film (and digital) photos can only get better overall … 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, hirohhhh said:

...I love film and I love my film cameras, so I'm not giving up. I just wish it worked better for me because, in the end, the photos matter the most. The experience along the way is also important, and I personally feel better shooting film. However, ultimately, the photos are all that remain, and my film photos simply aren't that good...

In what way(s), for you, does the experience of shooting with a film camera differ from that of shooting with a digital camera?

In answering please be as accurate in your reasoning as you can manage.

Philip.

Edited March 20, 2024 by pippy

[Anbaric]

14 hours ago, Hunter Wells said:

the world will be a better place when people stop pontificating on forums and stating the obvious,  and keep themselves to themselves

Welcome to the forum!

[hansvons]

10 hours ago, Mute-on said:

Then there is the example of Kodak 250D, above, which appears gentle but still saturated in a unique and appealing way. If you really want your film photos to more closely resemble digital OOC, I suspect Ektar might be more to your taste.

Thanks for the kind words. These colours result from weeks of creating a telecine-copying negative-based workflow with an SL2-S, a macro lens for scanning, and Capture One as the editor. I don't use third-party plugins like Negative Lab Pro because I want complete control. And here is why and how (a bit lengthy and wonkish, apologies!).

First, negative stocks do have a personality. However, as with anything else that reacts to an environment, the environment is pivotal for the results. The environment corresponds with not only the exposure, the subject's colours, and the contrast but also the light's features, including kelvin and tint. This is why a particular stock's personality is hard to pinpoint, and many of the attributes one reads are personal experiences at best, but mostly copy-paste assumptions from the internet. 

With negative film, we have a flexible, condensed record of the lensed environment that shows the image inverted under an orange mask with a particular gamma curve (contrast). When we scan the negative information, we transfer an image's colour and contrast information into a digital file. This file contains a transformation curve, which can be linear (no alterations), logarithmic (e.g. Cineon-based scans), or gamma-based (adding contrast, thus taking away information, e.g. sRGB is gamma 2.2). The best would be linear, as this won't alter the negative's information. A logarithmic curve would allow for more information in a given bit size, stretching out the negative's gamma. Still, it will require a transformation back to linear.

Ok. In converting from a negative to a digital positive, we have a lot of room for corrections, similar to a digital raw workflow. We can control contrast, black-and-white balance and saturation, not to mention doge-and-burn techniques. Additionally, we have to deal with the negative's texture, the grain, the acutance and an image's overall sharpness required for a particular print size. 

In cinematography, the transformation from the negative to a digital positive is called the telecine process. These parameters are customisable, some at the operator's fingertips, some under the hood. Typically, the neg-to-positive transformation is handled with a LUT. I did the same and designed an ICC file based on a negative linear transform curve (basically an inverted straight line). This ICC file works as my selected camera in Capture One, transforming the orange-masked negative to a blue-masked positive. 

The next step is to remove the mask and set the right black-and-white point. That can be achieved with WB and the Levels tool having set to independent RGB channels. The rest is tweaking colour casts, mainly from the shot's environment light and the desired contrast, which I base on different gamma curves applied with the curves tool. 

With all that said, within a stock's particular restraints, it's easy to create anything from soft pastel to super-gritty on any proper negative (like on a digital sensor). But the secret lies in the way and personality of particular stocks, how they record colours, contrast, and texture. It is hardly possible to mimic this with a digital sensor. 

Below is a shot with an inverted, linear curve right off the negative and with the same inverted, linear curve but with a gamma curve of 2.4 added and the green colour cast neutralised, resulting from green leaves in a forest. 

 

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!

 

 

[Anbaric]

18 hours ago, hirohhhh said:

Exactly, it's my personal opinion, based on my personal taste that my digital photos are 10x better than my film. So, I didn't say that digital is better than film 10x. I was talking only about my photos. I guess my success rate on digital is much higher, so I ended up liking more my digital photos, printing them, most of my 4-5 star photos are digital, very few are film, and so on.

What is it about the digital photos you prefer? Is it just that you like (e.g.) the colours and the lack of grain, or do you find some features of film limiting (e.g. ISO range), or are you less willing to experiment and 'waste' film shots and can't review the results in the field, which is reducing your number of keepers?

[aesop]

On 3/20/2024 at 8:07 PM, Mikep996 said:

I enjoy shooting/(darkroom) processing/printing (B&W) film but I have to admit that if my digital results were 10x better (or ANY better), I wouldn't shoot film at all. 

       ...yup, but I would first consider ramping up or improving whatever techniques or processes I am employing with film, because we all know that the medium isn't the issue. Also, if there is going to be any sort of real comparison, then "spray and pray" and/or other tech crutches should be kept to a minimum with digital (ceteris paribus and all the rest of it). The less said about post the better. 😉

[sometimesmaybe]

over the last two years i find my tastes have changed from chasing absolute IQ to focusing more on aesthetics. it's a tad trite i know, but i finally realised that good image quality doesn't equal a good image...

my current workflow includes both digital (mainly monochrom) and 135 colour film. i find digital to be really useful as it allows me and my subject an opportunity to get 'warmed up' and get some immediate feedback on the light, composition and poses. once we're both 'warmed up', i switch to film to get that analogue look.

the images below are from the m246 monochrom and kodak colorplus

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!