The Advantages of Negative Film

<p>There is an excellent article in the April, 2008 "Popular

Photography" regarding the adavantages of negative film. In

particular, its 3-stop exposure lattitude advantage over digital. The

article shows how to use that advantage to get better results from

shooting under high contrast conditions that will overwhelm any

digital sensor. The article is "Gimme Me A Break" by Russell Hart.

Well written and practical, it shows why negative film stills

continues to be a valuable medium and how to use its inherent

advantages better. Has anyone else read this article? What are your

opinions regarding the advantages of color and B/W negative film?</p>

 

<p>Here is a photo I recently shot with a roll of Kodak Gold 200, an

often maligned consumer grade negative film. What is even more amazing

is that the roll was four years past expiration date (always

refrigerated however) when shot and processed. The range of shadow

detail and highlights I was able to capture with this film is amazing.

I have a new found respect for negative film!</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.abqstyle.com/index.htm"><img

src="http://abqstyle.com/jemez/pics_13.jpg"><br>Albuquerque Photo

Galleries</a></p>

April 2006. (I agree, film is the only thing I use.)

The Fuji SuperCCD sensor in the S3 Pro has 12 stops of lattitude, due to the large and small photosite sizes...

 

And it works Very Well for weddings, when you have to pick up the shadow details in the black tux (like satin on the pants leg) while holding highlight detail of the lace and soft folds in the white bridal gown...

 

Beyond that, Kodak 160NC or Fuji Pro160S is the way to go...

T did not realize that the Fuji S3 Pro excels at dynamic range. However, for someone like me who is a hobbyist, paying over $1500 for a camera body to do something that most $5.00 rolls of film can easily do is hard to justify. Film is the best value for someone looking to get top quality results without breaking the bank.

Well one system to consider would be shooting negative film, home scanning to produce proofs, and then sending the winners in for custom enlargements. Now since this is negative film the question is what is better for custom high-end enlargements, negative-film-drum-scan-Lightjet/Lambda-printing or negative-film-optical-enlargement...as they would both be continious-tone C prints.

 

Of course with slides positive images just roll out of the processing tank with no proofs needed...

<i>an excellent article in the April, 2008 "Popular Photography"</i>

I think you must have meant 2006

 

I agree film is more economical for smaller quantities, especially when you already have film cameras as I do. Eventually however, as the # of pixel wars die down, other specifications such as dynamic range, color purity, sensitivity range, offload speed and other factors will be the fuel for further wars. This will all mean two things: digital quality vs cost will get better for the new equipment purchaser; and equipment puchased now will rapidly become obsolete.

 

As for me I'm sticking to film for a few more years.

I shoot color negative film mostly, a split between amateur emulsions and Porta NC, I also shoot slide film occationally - especially in my stereo camera. Once in a bind I loaded print film in the stereo camera with still prints as the result - I don't know when I'll get around to printing onto color print film so I can view those in the stereo viewer. (Yes, I am aware that stereo digital cameras are now available.)

For non-portraits the amateur films are more versatile.

personally, i don't consider the advantages of one over the other. i use film because i love the whole process - choosing the appropriate film, shooting, developing, printing, etc. for me, it's as much about the process as it is the final image. and the digital process doesn't interest me as much. i always think people get too hung-up on which one is "better."<div></div>

My own experience consists of shooting MF digital and film. The dynamic range of digital greatly exceed that of film, either negative or slide. Head to head shooting of both usually gives the advantage to digital in terms of detail and dynamic range, although I do get more pixels with film. They both have their place in today's photography.

I agree, it isn't which is better, but rather which does the photographer have to be better?

i use fuji velvia 100f and i really like the color saturation, or if you like negs try kodak ultra color. i shoot partly digital slr.

Marko

"The dynamic range of digital greatly exceed that of film"

 

Is that true?

Andre,<BR>

I was wondering about that myself. I had always heard the opposite.

Thanks man,

I will check that out. I spend most of my time being a lawyer, so the time I spend shooting pictures has to be satisfying. Sometimes that is digital, sometimes that is film. I recently shot a wedding for a change in subject matter. It was a lot of fun, and I would do it again. I shot it in film. Next time, I think I would shoot it with digital, just for the conveneice (I like to play with PS, but hate to scan in hundreds of negatives). But when I shoot for self-gratification, or "artistic" purposes, I deliberate whether to use 35mm, MF, LF, or Digital, and even with digital, a digital SLR or a point and shoot. Each one allows me to do different things, and it is part of the joy of being a photographer. A writier doesn't say I only like to use a word processor, and not a typewriter, or a pen. Any writer will tell you that each writing process has its own feeling and impacts the final product. Same thing goes for a painter, he doesn't say "I like the fan brush, and only the fan brush, it is the best brush." And if he did believe this, then he would have a distinct style reflecting that philosophy. So it seems to me that the equipment used is a direct function of the photographers vision and style, and of course budget. If the photographers thoughtfulness produces something worth looking at, then there you go. If not, hopefully it at least makes you some money. No equipment will turn a bad photographer into a good one. The thread has kind of turned a little warm-fuzzy, so I'll add, when I use film, I am a lot more conscious of the shot as it will be printed on the film. When I write with a typewriter, (an old royal) I deliberate a lot more, as the letter will be on the page. And not only that, but it takes a lot more fnger joint grease to press those keys. When I can just delete an image, or shoot it in RAW and manipulate the heck out of it, I shoot differently. So I think about this before I choose which camera to shoot with, or before I sit down at one desk or the other to write.

If you made it this far im my little digression...you need to either get back to work, or get up, grab a camera and take a walk or something. HA.

Best,

Alok

D.P.

 

very interesting and a gorgeous foto. I'll let the resident experts ponder the advantages/disadvantages of neg film. I'm just a film guy per se.

 

What I've come to learn is that no one thing single-handedly makes a great foto. IMO its a congruence of factors, of which film is a key ingredient. The glass, shutter speed, subject matter, THE LIGHT, and of course the film - if and when they work in congruence, then you have an improved chance of a good shot.

Sure you'd expect a $30000 digital back to have a nice dynamic range but what does that have to do with photographs ordinary people can take, I don't see the relevance.

<I>paying over $1500 for a camera body to do something that most $5.00 rolls of film can easily do is hard to justify. </i><P>A Canon Dreb 350 and 50mm doesn't cost $1500. Also, when your local lab stops processing C-41, have you checked the price on setting one up in your basement? Also, any time you want to have a contest with 35mm Gold 200 and my 10D we'll put some money down and see who wins. Otherwise this smells like more of that 'emotional support group' stuff for film shooters. If that was my shot I'd do a Panorama sweep with my 10D and have a 20x50 LightJet on my wall. Try that with a roll of Gold 200<P>

 

<I>

Film is the best value for someone looking to get top quality results without breaking the bank</i><P>Actually, print film is for people who require a part time mini-lab rat to think for them and make color corrections, then blame digital users because they don't need all that lattitude :-) I don't need a lab to think for and require 50 odd gallons of photochemicals sitting in a back room reservoir.<P>I don't think anybody will argue that print film has enormous lattitude, and given I've analyzed and printed a zillion frames of the stuff over the years and set up a few hundred custom film channels I'm probably it's biggest technical defender on photo.net. Long before we had a digital camera forum I was in heated debates with slide film users over the merits of print film.<P>We've got a couple of problems here though before we all get on the print film bandwagon. First, Pop Photo belongs in the bottom of a bird cage along with the National Enquirer given both have the same validity. I vividly recalll Pop Photo several years ago proclaiming Kodak Ektar 125 as superior to professional film emulsions like VPS and other portrait films because it had more vivid colors. Pop Photo even went on to encourage photographers to use garish crap amatuer emulsions like Gold 400 because the grain was finer than NHG. So much for Pop Photo being worthy of anything.<P>Next, while color chromogenic print films have more extreme lattitude than a dSLR, you can't print all that information at one time. While clouds and other objects at the extreme end of the brightness range tend to lose detail with dSLR capture, color neg film sucks at shadow detail and gets it butt handed to it vs any modenr dSLR in that dept. <p>Next, print film is highly un-linear in nature requiring a pretty good profile on your scanner to compensate for that integral shaped compression on the highlights. Digital capture on the other hand is linear, and unlike a color negative, my results don't change from lab to lab. I realize this is a conceptual leap for most film users, but a film scaner *is* a digital camera, so it can't produce information that couldn't be taken with a standard digital camera in the first place. It's just sampling films' version of it.<P>Next, color negs trade off lattitude for density range, and slide film does landscapes 1000x better than color negs. I'd shoot a wedding with NPH long before using slide film. However, that landscape would look a helluva lot better shot on Astia (or Reala) with better color density and not require cheating with the saturation in tool to make it look real. <P>My conclusion is therefore that print film is only convenient for formal portraiture, and dropping it off at Walgreens because the girl stocking shelves and running the mini-lab is a better judge of color/density than you are. She's certainy got 50 I.Q. point on any Pop Photo editor, that's for sure.

Hey Scott, I didn't mean to upset you. I think we are different types of photographers. You obviously demand the highest quality, and are willing to pay for it. I want the best value for my dollar. Frankly, I consider $1000 or more too much to pay for any camera body. Especially when I can purchase high quality film cameras on ebay for less than $100 that provide results that are reasonably the equal of the best digital slr. I take great pleasure in creating a beautiful photo with a 30 year old Minolta I paid $50 for, a lens I paid #35 for, and roll of film that should have been thrown away a year ago! It satisfies both the cheapskate and the artist in me. I am perfectly content with getting 90% of the performance you get from pricier equipment for 1/10th or less of the price. I stopped obsessing over equipment years ago, and found that I enjoyed shooting photos alot more. However, when top quality digital slr's are available for around $250, I'll be first on line to buy one. Till then, this cheapskate sees a better value in film.

A scanner is a digital camera, but the data on film isn't the same which is in the scene. Also, the scanner makes typically a multi-minute exposure using its own light source, which is quite different than making a field exposure using a non-scanning digital camera.

 

In any case the quality of a photograph cannot be quantified - the only thing that matters is how the viewer reacts to it.

Someone said that digital shooters do not rely on mini-labs...

 

Well, most digital shooters are sending in their files for lab prints. And the lab prints are laser (or LED) exposure of C photo paper which is then wet processed. In other words the labs will go to any length for fundamental quality as long as there is economy-of-scale. Of course these C prints are continious tone...

 

So photo paper and chemicals are resurgent and those of us who want to compete with high-end labs that have $500,000 laser printers are thinking about...$800 optical enlargers. For instance scan negatives to make proof images and then only the winners go to the optical darkroom.

I believe a $400 Epson R1800 is easily the match of type C prints in image quality. I believe the Epson has a wider gamut (capable of more saturated colors than the conventional print), and deeper blacks. However, the type C prints are more durable and resistant to scratching.

 

So no need to invest a lot of money to get top quality prints at home from digital files. The control doing it at home allows is critically important.

<p>I typically have my negatives processed at Walmart or some other mini-lab. I find that mini-lab processing of negatives is a reliable process that produces consistent results--especially if I am using popular films by Fuji or Kodak. It is only in creating prints where the quality can be "hit or miss." I use the prints simply as a catalog of the negatives.</p>

 

<p>I use a Nikon Coolscan V (a $500 investment worth that produces results equal to the finest digital camera from negatives and slides in my opinion). to scan my best negatives (as done with the landscape image shown above). Working this way gives me greater flexibility in producing final print size and quality. I have produced excellent, consistent results using consumer films like Kodak Ultracolor 400, Kodak Gold 200 and Fuji Reala. Plus, I get one-hour processing--almost as fast as digital!</p>

 

<p>Here is another sample image using these techniques and Kodak Ultracolor 400 film. For all practical purposes, to my eye, this is as visually satisfying as the digital output from the top Digital SLR's. And, I save a ton of money on equipment!</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.abqstyle.com/index.htm"><img src="http://abqstyle.com/flowers/pic27.jpg"><br>Albuquerque Photo Galleries</a></p>

Ilkka wrote "Sure you'd expect a $30000 digital back to have a nice dynamic range but what does that have to do with photographs ordinary people can take, I don't see the relevance."

 

Nope: A $1600 Fuji S3 Pro has their unique "SuperCCD SR II" design with small interstitial pixels will also turn the trick, and quite nicely, too. Go to:

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductS3.jsp and click on the technical description box (Flash popup) on the right.

 

Cheers! Dan

Dan Schwartz wrote: "A $1600 Fuji S3 Pro has their unique "SuperCCD SR II" design ..."

 

Unless you've shot with the camera and have some images to show, quoting a manufacturer's hype about their products is hardly a convincing argument. I believe Fuji's "unique" pixel technology was de-bunked years back. The really curious thing is that all this time later, marketing geniuses are still trying to convince us why digital is so superior to film.

Russ,

 

I think you're confusing the hexagonal configuration on the S1 Pro (and I had one from spring 2001 through last August) & S2 Pro (which I bought in February 2005) with the R+S pixel configuration in the S3 Pro.

 

Point 1: No, the original SupperCCD design was NOT "debunked" in any meaningful manner by anyone knowledgeable in digital imaging. Yes, there were a few attempts by arm-waving Internet "writers" (and I use that term loosely); but (A) In my own testing with real-world TIFF (S1 Pro) and CCD-RAW (S2 Pro) files; and (B) in reading through the *incorrect* analyses in the arm-waving "debunking" articles by these "writers," I have found that indeed, the Fuji SuperCCD technology -- And more importantly, the engineering and math behind it -- work as advertised.

 

Incidentally, just liie with their Pictrograph digital printers, Fuji's IP lawyers tightly locked up the SuperCCD design in patents.

 

2) As to the R+S dual pixel design in the S3 Pro, I have to rely on the thousands of wedding image files I have seen when I was moonlighting in a commercial color lab, from several professional photo studios that upgraded from the S2 Pro to the S3 Pro. One of the very toughest scenes to photograph is a bride and groom, where the image file has to hold the folds and lace in the bridal gown .AND. the black satin pants stripe on the black tuxedo pants leg... And, the S3 Pro was equal to (and, depending on the photographer, sometimes better than) Portra 160NC or NPC.

 

[in fact, had I not ditched 35mm film for a medium format Mamiya 645AFd system & lenses, I would have traded in my own S2 Pro for an S3 Pro. However, for my NCTS (NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series) shooting -- Where I still need digital for deadline work -- I would have to turn OFF the Hi Mode (R+S pixel) recording anyway, to keep from bogging down the CF write speed.]

 

Next time you go to B&H (or your own city's camera store), take along your CF card and shoot some RAW samples in both normal (R pixel only) and Hi mode (R+S pixels); then bring the card back home and open the files in ACR 3 (Photoshop CS2), and see for yourself. Oh, and be sure to convert the RAW files into 16 bit/channel, and then move the Shadow/Highlight sliders around to accentuate the shadow &/or highlight detail...

 

Then judge for yourself.

Printers like the Epson R1800 have my attention but inkjet prints are not continuous tone but have white spaces between the ink drops.

 

However, high-end inkjet printers have artistic applications that could be explained. Well the R1800 uses the same ink as the high-end Epson inkjet lab printers and so the question is, is the high-end inkjet printer result fundamentally different from the low-end inkjet printer result.