Myth # 480

[Filip Plesha]

I agree with David.

A poem on a piece of paper is just as much as art as

large format photography. what is important is that you are true to your

vision,and that you have enough tools to present your vision

to others the way you want to.

 

But i must say that film sometimes has the ability to transfer

subjectivity in a strange poetic way.

I remember this shot from Gladiator. The shot with the hand over the

wheat field in golden light. I remember how powerfull that shot looked

to me. I can't imagine how deminished the effect would be if that

was done with something like DV.

It's because for that kind of photography,film is really enhancing the mood.

With warmer,softer tones,and a bit of texture that grain gives.

It is difficult to explain.

[Tenolian Bell]

I'd like to be able to compare this with a proper drum-scanned 35mm or APS original though.

 

Phil

I just found out drum scanners can scan film up to 8000 dpi at 24 bit. True resolution, that means before any interpolation or sharpening. That is insane.

[Jarin Blaschke]

As someone who worked at a professional lab for some time, overwhelmingly from what I have seen - digital prints hide a lot of fine detail that traditional C-prints retain, regardless of the original information. Even if the original material was a drum scanned 8x10" negative. Actual fine, low-contrast texture melts into a strange smooth tonality with a digital, lightjet print. Much subtlety of color information is also lost.

 

A large clothing company once rejected several hundred lightjet prints, furious that the lab assumed that those were what they wanted, as opposed to their usual C prints. The lab had their own agenda of phasing out traditional printing. The lab then had to do the job a second time in the darkroom after already spending a week scanning, color correcting, retouching and printing the same images a week prior.

[Filip Plesha]

Jarin it doesn't have to be like that. If there was some loss in qualitty no matter what the source was thenthe problem was in the laser printer.It usually works at some 300 to 400 dpi.And because of that nobody scans at 8000 dpi to get small prints because the laser recorder is limiting the resolution anyway.

 

If the material was scanned at 5000dpi or over that and printed at something like 1000dpi it would have to look as good as or better than a manual optical print. But this is theory,nobody does that in practice.

 

But the bottom line is that,it is possible to get wonderfull prints if the standard was higher than today,it is not to blaim digital technology on its own,just the standard they use it at. Kodak professional laser printers work at 400dpi,this is the reason for loosing some of the fine details.

 

Tenobell:

 

Yes drum scanners can scan at that resolution,but not just drum scanners.Imacon Flextight 848 can allso scan at true 8000 and in 16 bit per color (48-bit images).And imacon is a CCD scanner. And it costs a fortune for small people (17 000 $)

It is debatable if this 48-bit potential is fullfiled by any scanner,but it does make a difference over 8-bit color (24-bit images)

 

Anyway,it is not insane. In cinematography 4K scanning is about equal

to 5000dpi. I have seen some tests with imacon at 8000 dpi.You can actually dig out more detail than with 4000dpi or 5000 dpi.But only if you had state of the art lenses and a good tripod.And of course a fine grain film.

 

You could say that 8000dpi is made for best combinations of those three.

But it is not insane at all.

 

In cinema world 8000dpi would be a bit over 6K (6600 pixels actually) for

a frame of 35mm film.For newer filmstocks 6K would probably pull out more detail than 4K (i mean real image detail) specially if you are dealing with films like

5212 or 5245.

[Matt Wells]

In some respects comparing digital and film photography is like apples and oranges.

 

Both systems present different challenges and at different points. It is just that with film the photographer has to really understand light and the technology of how film works. Basically the challenges are more complex and demand greater experience to achieve a really well exposed negative.

 

I love the challenge of film and when you get it right the rewards and excitement just gets better and better :)

 

Matt

[Matt Wells]

Oh, although the commercial applications of digital are obvious, it just does not do it for me.

 

Digital photography just seems to be a hollow experience.....where the only real challenge is composition. Anyone can compose a reasonable photo, snap it digitally and then manipulate it in photoshop.

 

And in the end you don't have a tangible negative, but a load of 1's and 0's.

 

I'm getting married next year - Digital phtotgraphy has been BANNED and any professional weilding a digital camera and PC has been overlooked in the quest to find my wedding photographer.

 

An interesting aside to this is that all the professionals originating digitally seem to have the most cheesy portfolios you ever saw, whereas the pros who originate purelly on film seem to have the most taseful and, well, basically better photos.

 

I am sure that this is because when you know each shot is costing you nothing you just snap away at anything and even if there is anything decent you have to wade through so many shots to find it.

 

Matt

[Filip Plesha]

Matt...

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

The feeling of getting your images from the lab and seeing them for the first time

is wonderfull.

And working with film helps you understand light better.

You really pay attention to the light around you and in time

your eye becomes a sophisticated lightmeter..

 

Allthough i prefer film for anything i do,i must say

that digital photography is not as "holow" experience as digital video

is vs. MP film. you can get deep apealing colors just as with film.

Digital photography has mooved away from being so destinguishable

from film like it used to be in 90's

 

If you don't have a digital SLR your self (i think Canons are best),try downloading

some sample files from Canon websites. The images are gorgeous.

 

 

The problem with digital is not that it wont perform good enough for consumers.

Today you can print 4x6 prints for consumer photography and it will look as good as film or better because cheap labs use cheap scanners

and stupid enhancement filters.

Digital can look as good as film for most aplications. But only LOOk as good.

 

The problem with digital becomew apperant if you are doing high-qualitty work

with special attention to detail. Technically film has the resolution digital can only dream of today. It has more lattitude. It has natural and deep colors etc.

But not at the consumer level or the level of some professional work.

You see those differences if you make large prints on good papers with

good printers,and good scanners (most important) if you are making digital prints.

 

There are differences,but they are not so huge that you can look at the image

and say: god look how dull the image looks,it must be digital.

 

I'd put it like this.

high-end digital CMOS images look beautifull,film looks ultra beautifull.

[Rob Belics]

stupid enhancement filters

I have to laugh about that. I read this one dv forum and it seems they have, and want, filters for everything. "I want to shoot some panoramic scenes using anamorphic lenses on my xl1 and I was wondering if there was a 'Lawrence of Arabia' film look filter for that." "Does anybody know where to get a Matrix filter?".

 

Cracks me up.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Here are some "beautiful" sample images from the Kodak DCS Pro14n digital camera:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...8.3.18.16&lc=en

 

At 14 megapixels, the KODAK PROFESSIONAL DCS Pro 14n Digital Camera is the industry's highest resolution digital SLR. The DCS Pro 14n offers a full-frame 35mm-size CMOS sensor, variable-resolution RAW and ERI-JPEG files, ERI-JPEG picture protection, F-mount lens compatibility, even free firmware and software upgrades, so you always have the latest advancements.

[Jason Rodriguez]

And by the way,what do you consider as "finest films"?

Can you name one?

For me it's Fuji Provia 100F and Velvia 50. While digital doesn't give the nice color "pop" that Velvia can deliver, I simply prefer the cleaner, sharper images. And yes, it may have to do with crappy scanning, but then again, I don't have the $$$ to get everything drum scanned.

 

To each his own-if you like film, then like film, there's nothing wrong with that, but digital isn't a "poor man's art" medium either.

[Filip Plesha]

No,ti isn't poor man's art. It is just another tool.

 

I have a little proof of what i was talking about (film grain vs. scanner noise)

today i wanted to try a new laboratory (opened this morning).

Since you can only be sure that they have clean fresh chemicals

the first they they open i rushed to give it a try. (of course this goes for

one-hour labs,i know the pro labs do everything by the book,but i'm not rolling in money so i like to test everything) Anyway,they have a brand new fuji frontier 340.

So i left a role of portra 160NC. And when i got the scans back

they were really ugly. The film looked grainy as hell. The same film that

had so much fine grain on other high-qualitty scanners.

 

Most of the grain you see is actually noise,electrical noise.

 

And as for velvia. you should have no grain problems with velvia if you use a good scanner. It's grain is much softer and invisible than in negative films.

 

You don't have to pay top dollar for good scans without grain.

You will if you go to some pro lab that uses expensive drum scanners

or high-end CCD scanners.But you can get grain free images on

some minilab scanners if you don't want to pay much,you just have to test them all.For example,for the scan i posted here i payed only 12$ for scanning

one role of film.And it looks decent.

The only problem is the resolution. You can't really get much resolution

from those scanners,but it is still more than with digital cameras.

[PhilPowers]

We are ALL missing a very important point here. Everyone is arguing about their DSLR being as good if not better than a 35mm film neg which has been scanned and then Photoshoped and then injeted! Well that may be the case in fact ive read many times on forums about people selling their RZ67 because they get better results on the computer straight from a DSLR. This maybe true. But if they were good enough to capture a fantasic picture straight to film and then not need to scan but simply to go to print on photographic paper, you remember like Ansel Adams back in the days b4 anybody could call themselves a photographer, you know when you had to know what you doing. Then there is NO comparison Film Rules!! end of story.

 

We would be wise not to forget the masters of the neg so quickly!

 

There is no way that a DSLR could even come close to a exhibition print straight from 5x4. God knows if it could I would sell all my film stuff tomorrow

 

digital is not a poor mans tool but it is a for people who don't know how to do what they want with film so just do it with a computer after they have taken the photographs. Is this art?? Who knows? but it sure isn't skillful.

 

As a ex image retoucher by trade I know - I love photoshop but it is responsible for killing the art of photography bit by bit.

[PhilPowers]

We are ALL missing a very important point here. Everyone is arguing about their DSLR being as good if not better than a 35mm film neg which has been scanned and then Photoshoped and then injeted! Well that may be the case in fact ive read many times on forums about people selling their RZ67 because they get better results on the computer straight from a DSLR. This maybe true. But if they were good enough to capture a fantasic picture straight to film and then not need to scan but simply to go to print on photographic paper, you remember like Ansel Adams back in the days b4 anybody could call themselves a photographer, you know when you had to know what you doing. Then there is NO comparison Film Rules!! end of story.

 

We would be wise not to forget the masters of the neg so quickly!

 

There is no way that a DSLR could even come close to a exhibition print straight from 5x4. God knows if it could I would sell all my film stuff tomorrow

 

digital is not a poor mans tool but it is a for people who don't know how to do what they want with film so just do it with a computer after they have taken the photographs. Is this art?? Who knows? but it sure isn't skillful.

 

As a ex image retoucher by trade I know - I love photoshop but it is responsible for killing the art of photography bit by bit.

[Filip Plesha]

Phil...

 

I agree. The best way to copare the two formats is

by printing them on the same paper,film directly,optically,

and digital with the best laser printer available (i mean,laser based

photo paper expoure system).

Film would win out.

 

Bad scanning deteriorates film a lot.

but you can't generalize this for all scannings.

You CAN scan film and print it out with a laser on a photo paper

and get results as good as optical printing.

But you need to use the best possible scanners (drum scanners) and use

a high standard. Photo paper can resolve many times more than

400dpi that labs use to expose it.

At a consumer and avarage professional level,any film scanning and laser printing

will not do justice to film.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I think this may well come down to the same problem as apples-and-oranges comparisons of hi-def and motion picture film. Hi def looks rough lasered onto film. Film looks soft TK'd onto hi-def. Forcing one to be output like the other means you end up with the disadvantages of both.

 

Either looks better in its native format, which should be fairly obvious, but seems to be often-overlooked.

 

Phil

[Filip Plesha]

This is true. But consider that film put through 4K cineon format and back onto film can look just as good printed as any negative printed.

 

And it can't really stay at that what you said because

sooner or later both film and HD will find themselfs in the same enviroment,

and that is digital cinema.

[Tenolian Bell]

We are ALL missing a very important point here. Everyone is arguing about their DSLR being as good if not better than a 35mm film neg

We would be wise not to forget the masters of the neg so quickly!

Yes certainly the original point I was trying to make is being missed. I wasn't trying to raise another tireless film vs digital debate.

 

What I realized from my conversation with the fashion photographers everything is falling into its most usable market. There are places where film is not a benefit and where digital by its inherent abilities is more of an asset. And in those work flows digital thrives, and will continue to improve.

 

At the same time there are work flows where film is an asset and digital is less so, and in those places film thrives and will continue to improve.

[Matt Wells]

I think the MAIN point here is that quality is NOT the issue.

 

I, and many others, shoot film because I like the experience of shooting film.

 

I like it because of the challenges it represents.

 

Some people, often people who are unfamiliar with film photography, like shooting digital because of the experience that offers.

 

But they are two different experiences. You are either forming and manipulating your image IN the camera (especially if you shoot reversal) or you are manipulating your image, chiefly, on a computer and on the lcd screen.

 

With film you are essentially blind and thus this is the skill and challenge which attracts me (and many others); with digital you can see everything and this does not excite me, although it may excite others, especially if you are a roving newspaper photographer.

 

It's apples and oranges!

 

Matt

[Tenolian Bell]

With film you are essentially blind and thus this is the skill and challenge which attracts me (and many others);

I don't agree. Whenever Rodriguez makes this arguement, its obvious to me he doesn't know very much about shooting film.

 

The truth is film works under predictable and repeatable laws that govern focus, lighting, and exposure. To expose film is to work within the very laws of physics, electromagnetic energy, mechanics, and chemistry. Once you master these laws you have a great deal of control over the final image.

 

I think what you are really trying to say Matt is that to be a great film photographer you actually have to master the skill. In our instant "I want it right now" culture very few people have the patience to practice and learn.

 

Which to a degree is ok. Sometimes I just want to snap a picture and be on my way. Sometimes I don't want to have to deal with focus, lighting, and exposure.

 

But I vehemently disagree with shooting film as blind. I'm not guessing at all. Most of the time I've ploted everything about the shoot before the set is constructed.

 

Because of these laws if given the proper amount of information: a good cinematographer can decide what lens to shoot, how to will light the scene. The quality, quantity and source of light, what the F stop will be, and what the depth of field will be. All of this on paper before stepping foot on set.

[Filip Plesha]

tenobell

 

No matter how predicatable film is and no matter how

skillfull you are,it is stilll blind shooting. You know how the image

is going to look like,but you don't see it.

I guess it is just a figure of speech.

 

You can always predict how bright certain parts of the image will be,and what is the latitude going to be (what parts are going to be blown out etc.) but film,no matter how briliant it is,is not an identical copy of reality. You can always

get suprized (pleasantly i think) after the processing when you see what look

did the film give to the image in various light conditions.

Every film has its unique tone scale,and it renders things differently.

 

Sometimes it is like a desease for me. You try out a new film,then shoot a couple of rolls, and you get an idea of its unique look,and then you start wondering how would things around you look on a piece of that film.

I always get tempted to shoot my own street and house, with every new film i try.

It is just that i know my surroundigs so well,its colors,textures and light conditions in different times of year,and day,and i just get currious how would this new film

render some well formiliar scenery.

And no film will give you a compleatly objective image of reality. Every film,

still or motion picture has its own character.

 

This is where the excitment and mistery comes from.

Not from the lack of skill.

[John Pytlak RIP]

You can't always judge the final quality of either film or digitally originated images on the set. What looks good in the viewfinder or field monitor may hold unwelcome surprises on a big screen. In a sense, you are "shooting blind" in both cases, and must rely on your skill and mastery of the technology to know that it's a successful wrap.

[Guest colour1]

... In our instant "I want it right now" culture very few people have the patience to practice and learn.

 

It's about instant feedback. Why wait for the results when you can see it now - this is the aspect of Rodriguez's point I can understand. For him I don't really think its lack of patience - it's simply because he can do it.

[Filip Plesha]

Even if i was using a digital SLR, LCD would not change much for me

when whooting outdoors. I'd use the optical viewfinder so i can see

what I am focusing,set everything right,and then snap the shutter,and move on.

Why do i need to stop and look at the image?Why "now" ?

Perhaps only to see if the exposure is right,but why would i need to check that

if i set everything as i want it. If the film is fresh and there is nothing wrong with it i know i'll get the images the way i want them.

I think looking at an LCD makes some people feel better knowing that the

shot is ok. But using a consistent,tested professional film,you can always

know that your shots will be exposed well if you do everything by the book.

I never had any problems with exposure if i set the exposure the way i want it.

(i don't count the old days of learning how to photograph :D )

So that makes me feel better.

 

Why do you need to have instand feedback?It's not like you are going to

get an instant high qualitty enlargement on a pro photo paper to enjoy

the images. You won't sit back and enjoy them on that small LCD.You are just going to check them if you are insecure. But if you know how to use your film camera,you won't feel insecure.

[Tenolian Bell]

Shooting blind is a pretty definitive statement and not a good one when dealing with a medium that requires sight.

 

Sure there can be surprises especially when shooting a new film stock with unfamiliar characteristics. It may crush the blacks a little more than you thought, or a little more magenta in the skin tones than you thought, or saw into the highlights more than you thought.

 

There's even the possibility of human error such as hair in the gate, or some other failure in the film chain before you see the print.

 

The other quirk of today's society is we like to take complex topics and whittle them down to simple phrases that fit on a t-shirt. I've had many many coversations about shooting film blind with Director's and Producer's. Those who have little to no knowledge of shooting film wonder how do you know what you are going to get back.

 

Especially director's, many are obsessed with monitors, they will trust the monitor and what it shows more than they just the DP. I've seen some take the shooting film blind seriously as in no one literally knows what the final product is going to look like because you have to wait to see it.

 

I've had to explain several times, why shooting film is not really shooting blind. I mean in the context that you have to wait to get it back from the lab, you literally can't see the film until then, I guess you can call that part of it blind. But the whole scope of shooting is not a blind process at all. And many take this statement as it says, shooting blind, or guessing.

 

Overall I would say when you know the film stock, you've shot it under many circumstances and know what it is capable of. When you know your equipment, you've tested it and know it functions correctly. When you know your lab and trust they will deliver you a quality negative and print, 90% of the time the process is predictable and repeatable.

 

Otherwise Rodriguez would be correct why shoot film if you didn't know what you were getting in the end.

[Matt Wells]

When I say shoot blind I mean you have to construct the image you want in you head and adjust the lighting, aperture etc etc to achieve that. You can't see it in the flesh until it has been processed.

 

I understand tenobell's point though.

 

The other thing I like about film is that it is so tangible. In a world where everything is becoming increasingly virtual and digital, not real, it is easy to understand why many people like something simple.

 

OK I know the chemisty behind film technology is not necessarily that simple - but the film photographic process is so desparately simple - I could make a camera in my office with some card and matt black paint, load it in a changing bag and go and take a picture!

 

A guy who works for me went to a sale at the weekend and saw a super8 camera for sale - £1.50. knowing my interest he bought it. I am now going to buy 1 roll of Kodachrome 40 in an effort to make a film for less than £15:

 

budget:

Camera £1.50

Film: £10

Stamp (to mail film to Kodak): 0.42p

TOTAL £11.92

 

Matt