- Location
- Milwaukee, WI USA
- Name
- Luke
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Film Transition from Digital to Film - Tips
- Thread starter nicodemus3d
- Start date
-
- Tags
- film film photography
Gubrz
O.* Gonzo's & Bentley's Dad
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Name
- Eliot
NO! I kept waiting for just the right day so I wouldn't waste the film! Lol!!! Now I'll have to, since you called me out on it! Haha!
Eliot@iPad
Lawrence A.
Hall of Famer
- Location
- New Mexico
- Name
- Larry
Henry Horenstein's "Black and White Photography: A Basic Manual" has a lot of good information -- for the beginner and for those brushing up on basics. Most of the information is for regular black and white film, though, so it may be less helpful is you are shooting the C-41 black and white films that are developed in the same chemistry as color.
I agree that sticking to a film until you really know how it works is a good idea.
Before I started developing my own film, I shot a lot of slide film while I was learning. There is not much exposure latitude, and the lab doesn't have a way of making your poorly exposed shots better in the printing. You pretty much get what you metered for. It is a once through process -- exposure and development, and the film itself is your final product. It is a minority opinion, most film beginners being given 400 black and white to get going, but I think shooting slides right off can teach you a lot about how your meter works.
I agree that sticking to a film until you really know how it works is a good idea.
Before I started developing my own film, I shot a lot of slide film while I was learning. There is not much exposure latitude, and the lab doesn't have a way of making your poorly exposed shots better in the printing. You pretty much get what you metered for. It is a once through process -- exposure and development, and the film itself is your final product. It is a minority opinion, most film beginners being given 400 black and white to get going, but I think shooting slides right off can teach you a lot about how your meter works.
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI USA
- Name
- Luke
As long as I resurrected this old thread (and possibly have people reading it again), would it do any good to test shoot a scene (using center averaged metering on both cams, and same ISO, aperture and shutter speed) with a digital camera? Are the exposures likely close enough? If I shoot a scene at ISO100 at f8 at 1/60 on my digital and review the shot and the exposure looks good, will it likely be OK on film, too (assuming the film camera is suggesting similar parameters)?
Archiver
Top Veteran
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
It's funny, I've been pondering a return to film over the last month. I used to shoot a fair bit in 2006-2010, but stopped after I bought my Sigma DP1 and Leica M9. As much as I love the M9, it's just a bit too heavy to carry on a daily basis, especially if I'm out walking most of the day. The last few years have seen some amazing cameras released, like the Fuji X100, Ricoh GXR and GR, and Oly EM-5, but I've been really hankering for the full frame look in a much smaller package.
The Sony RX1 is more than I am looking to spend at the moment. Same with the A7/A7r/A7s, and native lenses are few on the ground. And do I really want to buy into a new lens system? RF lenses work reasonably well on the Sony A series, but not the best. So what's a guy to do?
So I've dug out my film cameras, and now have the Zeiss Ikon, Contax T3 and Fuji Natura Black on the table. I've learned so much more about rangefinder shooting in the last four years, thanks to the M9, and I'm looking forward to seeing how that plays out with the Ikon. The Contax T3 is a beautiful pocket camera, a touch shorter than the Ricoh GR but creates a full frame 35mm f2.8 perspective. And my loyal Natura Black, which has been interstate and overseas with me, will handle what it used to: low light wide angle shooting.
I had a look in the fridge, and I've discovered rolls and rolls of film that I never shot. I've got a whole box of Provia slide film, oodles of old Kodak Portra 400 UC, lots of Fuji XTRA 400, and even some Ilford HP5 and Delta 100. So I don't have to buy film for a while, either!
I'm not giving up digital for personal work, but I want to get film back in there. It will be quite exciting to see how my current knowledge of light, composition and setting plays out with a medium I loved to use.
The Sony RX1 is more than I am looking to spend at the moment. Same with the A7/A7r/A7s, and native lenses are few on the ground. And do I really want to buy into a new lens system? RF lenses work reasonably well on the Sony A series, but not the best. So what's a guy to do?
So I've dug out my film cameras, and now have the Zeiss Ikon, Contax T3 and Fuji Natura Black on the table. I've learned so much more about rangefinder shooting in the last four years, thanks to the M9, and I'm looking forward to seeing how that plays out with the Ikon. The Contax T3 is a beautiful pocket camera, a touch shorter than the Ricoh GR but creates a full frame 35mm f2.8 perspective. And my loyal Natura Black, which has been interstate and overseas with me, will handle what it used to: low light wide angle shooting.
I had a look in the fridge, and I've discovered rolls and rolls of film that I never shot. I've got a whole box of Provia slide film, oodles of old Kodak Portra 400 UC, lots of Fuji XTRA 400, and even some Ilford HP5 and Delta 100. So I don't have to buy film for a while, either!
I'm not giving up digital for personal work, but I want to get film back in there. It will be quite exciting to see how my current knowledge of light, composition and setting plays out with a medium I loved to use.
Gubrz
O.* Gonzo's & Bentley's Dad
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Name
- Eliot
hmm.. thats an interesting question! *cough bump cough*
i would think it might be CLOSE?
but even between 2 diff digital camera manufacturers the numbers get mooshed around a bit, dont they?
Archiver
Top Veteran
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
This is a VERY interesting question, and one that might be worth investigating with a number of digital cameras. Using the film camera as a baseline, shoot the same scene with each camera using the same shutter speed, aperture and ISO. Process using default settings, and ask the lab to do no colour correction to your scans. It's intriguing to think of how they might compare.
KillRamsey
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Hood River, OR
- Name
- Kyle
I want to say I've actually done that, Luke, and yes it was basically the same exposure. Only differences were the color tones of ektar and the softer old glass. But the exposure was pretty much the same.
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI USA
- Name
- Luke
I'm assuming I can trust the film cameras meter. I'm thinking of doing it more to have the digital camera show me how badly blown out the highlights are (or how crushed the shadows are) for difficult scenes. With the cost of film (and developing), I'm not going to be bracketing exposures.
hmm.
Film and digital sensors respond rather differently.
The very idea of a "blown highlight" is a bit peculiar if you are considering film - or at least, negative film (slide film is more like digital from that perspective)
Much earlier on in the thread I made the point that digital photographers generally set their exposures to ensure that highlights aren't blown, but that for film you generally want to set your exposures to capture the maximum shadow detail.
If you start shooting film as if it were digital, you will probably end up rather underexposing it.
Now, you're saying, he just said if you use the digital camera as a meter it'll be "close enough" - and it will, if you use the digi as a more-or-less averaging meter. But (despite the way you constantly talk down your own skills as a photographer), I bet you have learned how to use the metering on your digital cameras to best effect, even when in smart or average modes, by cheating the lens a bit before actually taking the shot so as to get what you "know" will be a better exposure. But if you start doing that, and then set your film camera to the exposure indicated by the digital, you may start to run into trouble, especially if you are using Ektar which can be a little bit more pernickety than most negative films in tricky lighting.
However, having said all that ... negative film has terrific dynamic range. It'll also tolerate 2 or 3 stops overexposure and a stop and a bit underexposure without leaving you with scrap frames. Plus if you're scanning only, pretty much everything can be rescued in Lightroom.
Film and digital sensors respond rather differently.
The very idea of a "blown highlight" is a bit peculiar if you are considering film - or at least, negative film (slide film is more like digital from that perspective)
Much earlier on in the thread I made the point that digital photographers generally set their exposures to ensure that highlights aren't blown, but that for film you generally want to set your exposures to capture the maximum shadow detail.
If you start shooting film as if it were digital, you will probably end up rather underexposing it.
Now, you're saying, he just said if you use the digital camera as a meter it'll be "close enough" - and it will, if you use the digi as a more-or-less averaging meter. But (despite the way you constantly talk down your own skills as a photographer), I bet you have learned how to use the metering on your digital cameras to best effect, even when in smart or average modes, by cheating the lens a bit before actually taking the shot so as to get what you "know" will be a better exposure. But if you start doing that, and then set your film camera to the exposure indicated by the digital, you may start to run into trouble, especially if you are using Ektar which can be a little bit more pernickety than most negative films in tricky lighting.
However, having said all that ... negative film has terrific dynamic range. It'll also tolerate 2 or 3 stops overexposure and a stop and a bit underexposure without leaving you with scrap frames. Plus if you're scanning only, pretty much everything can be rescued in Lightroom.
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI USA
- Name
- Luke
I was pretty sure about all of that stuff.
I guess I'm just a bit paranoid since there is no chimping. As it is now, I take a shot of a white dog, I review the shot and realize that I forgot to dial in some negative exposure compensation and then re-shoot. But now I can rest assured that with the forgiveness of negative film, even when shooting a photo of that little white dog, I can use the exposure suggested by the gf670 (and not use negative exposure compensation) and I'll still be able to count all his hairs (and if not, Lightroom can bring them all back from the negative).
That sounds great.
I guess I'm just a bit paranoid since there is no chimping. As it is now, I take a shot of a white dog, I review the shot and realize that I forgot to dial in some negative exposure compensation and then re-shoot. But now I can rest assured that with the forgiveness of negative film, even when shooting a photo of that little white dog, I can use the exposure suggested by the gf670 (and not use negative exposure compensation) and I'll still be able to count all his hairs (and if not, Lightroom can bring them all back from the negative).
That sounds great.
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI USA
- Name
- Luke
KillRamsey
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Hood River, OR
- Name
- Kyle
Luke when you get tired of this thing please mail it to Boston.
Archiver
Top Veteran
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Archiver
Top Veteran
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I've seen a lot of overexposed Fuji Pro400H that takes on a lovely creamy cast. The highlights are creamy and pink, and the shadows are very slightly blue. It seems to be a common practice with wedding photogs who still use film to overexpose Pro400H. It's also been said that Pro400H is more of a ISO 320 film, rather than 400, so it's best to rate it at 320 to compensate. Same kind of thing, I guess.
In my own experience, trying to expose for highlights with Pro400H leads to underexposed images and lots of white grain in the shadows. In my upcoming experiments, the aim is to avoid this and expose for shadows, and overexpose if necessary.
Last night I was doing a few sums, and to shoot two rolls of film per month will cost up to AUD$1000 per year. This is assuming:
- one roll of film (Ektar, Pro400H or Portra 400) = $14-18
- dev, scan and print = $20+
Yes, film is that expensive in Australia. Of course, I could always shoot the much cheaper, but quite nice, Fuji XTRA 400, which I actually really like, but I figure that if I'm shooting film, I might as well make the money and experience count.
$1000 is only assuming I shoot two rolls per month and buy the film as I go. There's already a good stash of film in the fridge, which I hope is still viable and won't be too spotty. So that only leaves dev/scan/print for another year, which practically halves that cost. By the time the fridge runs out of film, I may have stopped my film experiment, or I will budget to maintain or expand. We'll see!
I've also been giving keen thought to subjects. After all, if it's going to cost me the price of a good lens or another small digital camera per year to shoot a reasonable amount of film, I want to make it count.
One roll = 38 exposures if I use the right camera. Therefore two rolls per month = 2.45 images per day, or 18-19 images per week. That's not bad. And I most likely wouldn't shoot that many in a week if I'm not out and about, so I could theoretically shoot half a roll when I go out.
And then, I would use film for fun, but specifically for things I would want to see in that way. Good images of people, landscapes and architecture would be the main focus, whereas I use digital to shoot anything. It's surprising how you narrow things when you consider the limited resources of film!
In my own experience, trying to expose for highlights with Pro400H leads to underexposed images and lots of white grain in the shadows. In my upcoming experiments, the aim is to avoid this and expose for shadows, and overexpose if necessary.
Last night I was doing a few sums, and to shoot two rolls of film per month will cost up to AUD$1000 per year. This is assuming:
- one roll of film (Ektar, Pro400H or Portra 400) = $14-18
- dev, scan and print = $20+
Yes, film is that expensive in Australia. Of course, I could always shoot the much cheaper, but quite nice, Fuji XTRA 400, which I actually really like, but I figure that if I'm shooting film, I might as well make the money and experience count.
$1000 is only assuming I shoot two rolls per month and buy the film as I go. There's already a good stash of film in the fridge, which I hope is still viable and won't be too spotty. So that only leaves dev/scan/print for another year, which practically halves that cost. By the time the fridge runs out of film, I may have stopped my film experiment, or I will budget to maintain or expand. We'll see!
I've also been giving keen thought to subjects. After all, if it's going to cost me the price of a good lens or another small digital camera per year to shoot a reasonable amount of film, I want to make it count.
One roll = 38 exposures if I use the right camera. Therefore two rolls per month = 2.45 images per day, or 18-19 images per week. That's not bad. And I most likely wouldn't shoot that many in a week if I'm not out and about, so I could theoretically shoot half a roll when I go out.
And then, I would use film for fun, but specifically for things I would want to see in that way. Good images of people, landscapes and architecture would be the main focus, whereas I use digital to shoot anything. It's surprising how you narrow things when you consider the limited resources of film!
The motto "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" (sometimes "Expose for the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves") has been the photographer's standby almost since the dawn of time
Of course like lots of "general rules" there will be exceptions, and slide film is generally seen to be very singular in it's demand to be shot within it's fairly narrow latitude, and the general advice is to meter for the most important mid- or highlight tones.
And then again there are those are adamant that Ektar needs to be shot like slide film
But just like the endless (heated, stubborn, pointless) arguments and debates around the "best" camera/lens/sensor/PP and all the bollocks about sharpness, noise, 100% crops and whether the newest camera is better than the one that's 6 months old ... and all the rest of the nonsense one sees on forums about digital photography, so you will find endless (heated, stubborn, pointless) arguments and debates about the "best" (or often "the correct") lens/film/metering technique/exposure/grain/lack of grain/developer/tanks/agitiation technique/fixer/washing/printing/enlarger and so on and so forth on the various film-orientated forums.
So you'll always find someone who'll think their way of doing film photography is the best or most correct way, sometimes contradicting decades of "best practice"
