Posted by Holger Streu on August 31, 2015 at 10:26 AM
On my recent trip to the West Coast, I encountered problems with my digital camera, ( 5D II – all L lenses ) which in the past I have not been paying much attention to.
Many of my pictures involved direct sun light with landscape situations. The high-lights were kind of lost. I compared some of my old slides from Bryce NP with lots of sun light and contrast, I was kind of surprised to see that the colors and contrast were very pleasing. ( kodachrome 64 - exposure +1 stop) It even looked more like 3-dimensional compared to digital.
It seems to me that color slides can handle bright light better. Also a noticeable absence of grain. (noise). I know it is a hassle with developing, but I am more concerned with quality. I was not able to get the colors look like the way I remembered them, with Photoshop. (Natural)
I would appreciate your thoughts, comments and opinions on this subject.
It seems to me that color slides can handle bright light better.
As a user of nothing but Velvia 50 for MANY years now I can't agree on this point. Typically, most slide films are very narrow on exposure latitude. So much so that I only shoot during sunrise and sunset cycles when the contrast is low. Most will state that slide film is about 3 stops, give or take a stop here and there. That means that is 1.5 - or 1.5 + of optimum exposure. Again, very narrow without filtration.
I do think Kodachrome that you mentioned seemed to have a better wiggle room overall of most all slide films, and I loved the old 25 & 64 for landscape and 200 for wildlife. All were excellent IMO.
However, now that I only shoot landscapes & Kodachrome is gone I've found Velvia 50 works best for my approach and style overall. I think most who are over a certain age shot film at one time or another. However, as costs escalated and availability of certain products were discontinued the masses went digital. There are MANY like myself still out there shooting only film or others who have split usage a bit between the two. And, of course many have moved to digital and never looked back.
For me I will remain with film and have no reason to change. So, if you are still interested in film usage you might take a look at the APUG site which is nothing but analog users in all formats from 35mm up to ULF as big as 20x24.
Another thought is if you're using digital is to seek out what is the cure for lack of exposure you're looking for overall. There are many things that can aid with those adjustments. Including certain folks have found using external meters that help, Joe Brady comes to mind, or many types of filtration I'm sure you're already aware of.
I very much agree with you that film does have it's own look that many of us do find very appealing. It's just a matter of taste in the end.
Posted by scott lanz on August 31, 2015 at 12:28 PM
Holger, I also don't share your experience with film vs digital, at least with regard to exposure latitude. I can't speak for Canon cameras, but with my Nikon D600 (w/ sensor replaced) and PS, my exposure latitude far exceeds what I could achieve with scanned film and PS. I will add, however, that in my experience with digital, it is easier to recover shadow detail in PS than to burn overblown highlights. For this reason, while the standard advise used to be to shoot to the right of middle on the histogram, I prefer shooting to the left and then recovering shadow detail. This also provides deeper and better color (again, to my eye). So, this may be an option for you in trying to control highlights in direct sunlight. I will add that I am comparing my results mostly with velvia 50, which is the film I shot the most. With Velvia, it is difficult to dodge significantly underexposed areas without experiencing grain, loss of detail, and color issues. The exposure latitude, speed latitude, and colors with digital at higher iso, compared to film, is amazing, IMO. But if you are shooting nothing but landscapes at slow speed, the advantages of digital are not nearly as significant, of course, and the results may be a matter of personal preference.
Posted by Holger Streu on August 31, 2015 at 3:38 PM
Paul & Scott:
Thank for sharing your thoughts on this subject.
I have been introduced to photography by my Grandfather, who gave me his Box camera back in 1960. Due to financial commitments, my picture taken was sporadic. The love and excitement remained with me every time I had a chance to take photos and develop them in the darkroom. I changed-over to digital in 2004 (hobby only) and realized the potential, opportunity and versatility the digital cameras could bring.
Just recently, I became aware that I was getting very lazy of composing my subjects. My mind-set was stuck with: take as many pictures (since they did not cost anything) and keep my fingers crossed for the best. Looking back at some old photos, I painfully became aware, that in those days my whole process was superior compared to the present.
Since my lenses fit all EOS film cameras, I purchased a Canon 1N RS in excellent Condition for little more than $125 on ebay. I am hoping that my excitement will return again as it was before.
Maybe it is just a preference, but I am sure will try to get my love for photography back again, not to mention (my opinion) richer and deeper satisfaction for the quality of film. I will keep my digital activity and maybe can combine them.
My mind-set was stuck with: take as many pictures (since they did not cost anything) and keep my fingers crossed for the best.
Holger, from my perspective I've seen this happen in the past. I referred to it as; "every road turnout photography". Meaning there have been times where images are posted daily with the same repetitive road turnout look.
With that all said I think there is a positive rhythm one can obtain no matter if it's film or digital. At times, I think it is easier to understand or feel that flow if you had shot film in the past. Might just take a bit longer for those who only have used digital and not gone through the heartache of misfired film & resulting costly processing. Seems to bring it to the surface faster with thoughts of taking time to analyze a bit of what you're doing when every shot is $$$$$.
Anyway, if you want a look at the analog world online you might visit APUG (Analog Photographers Users Group). There is no charge to be a member either, but subscribers do get access to features that non-subscribers do not. It is nothing like NPN for quality of image sharing, reviews, and solid critique. It is geared primarily toward discussion forums on gear, film, and processing overall.
Posted by Holger Streu on September 2, 2015 at 8:50 AM
Paul, thank you for the info.
I decided to take a break for a while from digital and going back, for the time being to film. I have noticed while taken photos with film that my thoughts geared more towards a creative direction. But I still have the routine to check the back of the camera for a preview.
Interesting: 5 DIGITAL photographers were given a medium format camera and 1 roll of film to shoot 1 day in Tokyo. All were from different countries. They miserably failed! Some of them said that they enjoyed it, learned a lot and would try it again.
Even though I am making more digital images rather than 4x5 these days, I make a solid attempt to apply the same workflow as I do with 4x5.
I always use a tripod. I take my time. I look at every inch of the viewfinder (or screen) image. Even though pixels are cheap compared to a 4x5 sheet of film, I save a ton of time when I download the images--much less culling.
Basically, what I'm saying is that a photographer can recall their 'film past' and use that for digital work, and a person who's never used a film camera, can learn to work in a considered way.
On the topic of dynamic range with color tranny film...
A lot depends upon the how carefully the film was developed. Kodak, and the Kodak licensed labs had very exacting specs for development of Kodachrome. This ensured that colors were accurate and the dynamic range of the film was maximized. In my experience, Kodachrome 25 and 64 had a better range than Velvia, especially in the high values, but a different color palette.
In my own work, I find that Astia 100F has a dynamic range of a bit over 4 stops. (Dealing with the sometimes yellow cast was an issue, though.) It is my preferred tranny film, with Velvia 100 coming in a close second.
Back in the earlier days of prosumer film scanners, the D-max of those scanners was not particularly high. Even with a decent exposure that retained detail in the non-black shadows and in the non-pure white high values, the scanners simply couldn't resolve the detail. So, unless we had access to a drum scanner, we were out of luck. With my current scanner I can pull the details from Zone III to about Zone VII out of a well exposed 4x5 Astia chrome, and 8 stops out of a B&W neg. My scanner has a D-max of 4.0 @ 1800 dpi.
Even though I really like the results I can obtain with my Nikon, there's nothing like a well exposed 4x5 chrome on the light table. Once Autumn begins, my 4x5 will be more in the mix than it has been of late.
Regardless of the capture method, the main idea is to put the head and heart in gear before pushing the shutter release, and have fun at the same time!
--P
Posted by Holger Streu on September 3, 2015 at 5:35 PM
<div style="background:#eee;border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px 10px;">"Regardless of the capture method, the main idea is to put the head and heart in gear before pushing the shutter release, and have fun at the same time!"</div>
Well said, Preston, will keep that in mind!
Thank you, you gave me a lots of info and considerations in my future trials. I want to go back to B&W for a while in order to get out of the bad habits I developed with digital. When my creative self returns, most likely, that time, I want to combine
both options. I have been scanning old slides and negatives to see were I went wrong. Besides I do ENJOY developing my B&W again. It is something of an accomplishment and satisfaction. Besides I do like the way they look.
Discussion
7 repliesOn my recent trip to the West Coast, I encountered problems with my digital camera, ( 5D II – all L lenses ) which in the past I have not been paying much attention to.
Many of my pictures involved direct sun light with landscape situations. The high-lights were kind of lost. I compared some of my old slides from Bryce NP with lots of sun light and contrast, I was kind of surprised to see that the colors and contrast were very pleasing. ( kodachrome 64 - exposure +1 stop) It even looked more like 3-dimensional compared to digital.
It seems to me that color slides can handle bright light better. Also a noticeable absence of grain. (noise). I know it is a hassle with developing, but I am more concerned with quality. I was not able to get the colors look like the way I remembered them, with Photoshop. (Natural)
I would appreciate your thoughts, comments and opinions on this subject.
As a user of nothing but Velvia 50 for MANY years now I can't agree on this point. Typically, most slide films are very narrow on exposure latitude. So much so that I only shoot during sunrise and sunset cycles when the contrast is low. Most will state that slide film is about 3 stops, give or take a stop here and there. That means that is 1.5 - or 1.5 + of optimum exposure. Again, very narrow without filtration.
I do think Kodachrome that you mentioned seemed to have a better wiggle room overall of most all slide films, and I loved the old 25 & 64 for landscape and 200 for wildlife. All were excellent IMO.
However, now that I only shoot landscapes & Kodachrome is gone I've found Velvia 50 works best for my approach and style overall. I think most who are over a certain age shot film at one time or another. However, as costs escalated and availability of certain products were discontinued the masses went digital. There are MANY like myself still out there shooting only film or others who have split usage a bit between the two. And, of course many have moved to digital and never looked back.
For me I will remain with film and have no reason to change. So, if you are still interested in film usage you might take a look at the APUG site which is nothing but analog users in all formats from 35mm up to ULF as big as 20x24.
Another thought is if you're using digital is to seek out what is the cure for lack of exposure you're looking for overall. There are many things that can aid with those adjustments. Including certain folks have found using external meters that help, Joe Brady comes to mind, or many types of filtration I'm sure you're already aware of.
I very much agree with you that film does have it's own look that many of us do find very appealing. It's just a matter of taste in the end.
Holger, I also don't share your experience with film vs digital, at least with regard to exposure latitude. I can't speak for Canon cameras, but with my Nikon D600 (w/ sensor replaced) and PS, my exposure latitude far exceeds what I could achieve with scanned film and PS. I will add, however, that in my experience with digital, it is easier to recover shadow detail in PS than to burn overblown highlights. For this reason, while the standard advise used to be to shoot to the right of middle on the histogram, I prefer shooting to the left and then recovering shadow detail. This also provides deeper and better color (again, to my eye). So, this may be an option for you in trying to control highlights in direct sunlight. I will add that I am comparing my results mostly with velvia 50, which is the film I shot the most. With Velvia, it is difficult to dodge significantly underexposed areas without experiencing grain, loss of detail, and color issues. The exposure latitude, speed latitude, and colors with digital at higher iso, compared to film, is amazing, IMO. But if you are shooting nothing but landscapes at slow speed, the advantages of digital are not nearly as significant, of course, and the results may be a matter of personal preference.
Paul & Scott:
Thank for sharing your thoughts on this subject.
I have been introduced to photography by my Grandfather, who gave me his Box camera back in 1960. Due to financial commitments, my picture taken was sporadic. The love and excitement remained with me every time I had a chance to take photos and develop them in the darkroom. I changed-over to digital in 2004 (hobby only) and realized the potential, opportunity and versatility the digital cameras could bring.
Just recently, I became aware that I was getting very lazy of composing my subjects. My mind-set was stuck with: take as many pictures (since they did not cost anything) and keep my fingers crossed for the best. Looking back at some old photos, I painfully became aware, that in those days my whole process was superior compared to the present.
Since my lenses fit all EOS film cameras, I purchased a Canon 1N RS in excellent Condition for little more than $125 on ebay. I am hoping that my excitement will return again as it was before.
Maybe it is just a preference, but I am sure will try to get my love for photography back again, not to mention (my opinion) richer and deeper satisfaction for the quality of film. I will keep my digital activity and maybe can combine them.
Holger, from my perspective I've seen this happen in the past. I referred to it as; "every road turnout photography". Meaning there have been times where images are posted daily with the same repetitive road turnout look.
With that all said I think there is a positive rhythm one can obtain no matter if it's film or digital. At times, I think it is easier to understand or feel that flow if you had shot film in the past. Might just take a bit longer for those who only have used digital and not gone through the heartache of misfired film & resulting costly processing. Seems to bring it to the surface faster with thoughts of taking time to analyze a bit of what you're doing when every shot is $$$$$.
Anyway, if you want a look at the analog world online you might visit APUG (Analog Photographers Users Group). There is no charge to be a member either, but subscribers do get access to features that non-subscribers do not. It is nothing like NPN for quality of image sharing, reviews, and solid critique. It is geared primarily toward discussion forums on gear, film, and processing overall.
Paul, thank you for the info.
I decided to take a break for a while from digital and going back, for the time being to film. I have noticed while taken photos with film that my thoughts geared more towards a creative direction. But I still have the routine to check the back of the camera for a preview.
Interesting: 5 DIGITAL photographers were given a medium format camera and 1 roll of film to shoot 1 day in Tokyo. All were from different countries. They miserably failed! Some of them said that they enjoyed it, learned a lot and would try it again.
Even though I am making more digital images rather than 4x5 these days, I make a solid attempt to apply the same workflow as I do with 4x5.
I always use a tripod. I take my time. I look at every inch of the viewfinder (or screen) image. Even though pixels are cheap compared to a 4x5 sheet of film, I save a ton of time when I download the images--much less culling.
Basically, what I'm saying is that a photographer can recall their 'film past' and use that for digital work, and a person who's never used a film camera, can learn to work in a considered way.
On the topic of dynamic range with color tranny film...
A lot depends upon the how carefully the film was developed. Kodak, and the Kodak licensed labs had very exacting specs for development of Kodachrome. This ensured that colors were accurate and the dynamic range of the film was maximized. In my experience, Kodachrome 25 and 64 had a better range than Velvia, especially in the high values, but a different color palette.
In my own work, I find that Astia 100F has a dynamic range of a bit over 4 stops. (Dealing with the sometimes yellow cast was an issue, though.) It is my preferred tranny film, with Velvia 100 coming in a close second.
Back in the earlier days of prosumer film scanners, the D-max of those scanners was not particularly high. Even with a decent exposure that retained detail in the non-black shadows and in the non-pure white high values, the scanners simply couldn't resolve the detail. So, unless we had access to a drum scanner, we were out of luck. With my current scanner I can pull the details from Zone III to about Zone VII out of a well exposed 4x5 Astia chrome, and 8 stops out of a B&W neg. My scanner has a D-max of 4.0 @ 1800 dpi.
Even though I really like the results I can obtain with my Nikon, there's nothing like a well exposed 4x5 chrome on the light table. Once Autumn begins, my 4x5 will be more in the mix than it has been of late.
Regardless of the capture method, the main idea is to put the head and heart in gear before pushing the shutter release, and have fun at the same time!
--P
Well said, Preston, will keep that in mind!
Thank you, you gave me a lots of info and considerations in my future trials. I want to go back to B&W for a while in order to get out of the bad habits I developed with digital. When my creative self returns, most likely, that time, I want to combine
both options. I have been scanning old slides and negatives to see were I went wrong. Besides I do ENJOY developing my B&W again. It is something of an accomplishment and satisfaction. Besides I do like the way they look.