Remind me why I'm learning on film?

[discpad]

Bruce: What planet are you from?!

 

Bruce Rubenstein just wrote:

 

"You need digital image files to do these things. Anyone who tells you that it's practicle to shoot film and then scan it, just hasn't done it. Getting good quality scans of hundreds of pictures is incredibly time consuming. Even if you get the film scanned at the time of developing, the scans will require more post production time to adjust than a digital image straight out of a digital camera."

 

Actually, you must be stuck in the 1990's, as there are fewer and fewer optical (analog) minilabs still in production.

 

Instead, the workflow through Fuji Frontier, Noritsu 3300, and Agfa D-Labs is (are) develop the film, run it through a high speed scanner where it reads the DX codes on the edge of the film strips, provide the corrections and allow for operator adjustment. Then, the data is burned to a CD as well as being fed to the LED or laser printer for color output. These scanners can easily chew through a roll of 35mm film in under a minute, and are designed for production. Typically, lo-res scans are 1024 x 1536 pixels, which yields a sharp 4x6" print at 300 pixels per inch (PPI); while you can also crank it up to High, which typically yields 2048 x 3096 pixel images, enough for an 8x12 inch print. One example of this is the Fuji SP2500 scanner, which you can see by searching eBay item 7587648946 at

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7587648946

 

Note that this is equivalent to a 6 megapixel dSLR... But a 35mm frame can easily yield four times that, at 4096 PPI with grain removal. [Also note that even at 2048 PPI, a 6x6 medium format frame from a Holga yields a 23 megapixel image... Top THAT with your $8,000 Canon 1Ds Mark II!]

 

In fact, if you shmooze the lab, you can get "soup & scan only," i.e. no prints: Labs don't like this because they make less money.

 

Granted, these scans are only really good for proof prints up to about 5x5 or 5x7, meaning that for the album they may need to be re-scanned on a desktop scanner.

 

----------

 

Lauren,

 

You're lucky: You have a nice Pro lab, so talk to them. Most likely they have a digital minilab, along with an optical package printer and one or more high quality desktop scanners.

 

The key when you shoot a bunch of color print film is to use the "quick & dirty" scanning for a "Picture CD" of JPEG's. You use these for the first pass, to choose the best shots; then you send only the neg frames you want big enlargements from back to the lab.

[discpad]

Lauren,

 

Les touched on an important point: Are you planning on taking photographs or snapshots?!

[zane1664879013]

> Back to the original question - learning a digital workflow is encouraged but not required.

 

So, for a person just entering this competitive job market, digital skills are optional? You don't think that would reduce job offers by an order of magnitude - or more?

 

For the photogs who run their own businesses - who among you would hire a beginner who brings no knowledge of digital technology?

[discpad]

Zane wrote: "For the photogs who run their own businesses - who among you would hire a beginner who brings no knowledge of digital technology?"

 

If the so-called beginner is willing to learn, has the aptitude, and she doesn't have bad habits that are hard to break... The answer is YES!

[laurenm]

Les, I haven't studied enough photographers to name one off the top of my head, but when I do search around, there are many I aspire to be like (to shoot like). I do want to be a photographer, not a snapshot shooter.

For those comments on needing to learn digital for wedding work, I have worked as a second shooter at weddings so have some experience with it. However, my whole question here which was maybe worded poorly and shouldn't have even mentioned weddings is: which is better to use now in order for me to really learn photography and to someday be a good photographer. I actually feel comfortable enough now with a dig cam to pull off a wedding if I had to and I'm sure the clients and guests would be happy with the results but that doesn't mean the results are fantastic.

I guess I'm understanding from all this I could go either way for learning. Meanwhile, the pro I've worked for has offered to sell me some medium format bodies which I'm kind of psyched about.

[laurenm]

and I have saved on prints by sending film out, negs are scanned, I get negs back and digital files and can choose which to make prints while at same time seeing the ones I goofed on.

[blakley]

Lauren,

 

If you're learning, the most important thing is to be able to see the effect of your mistakes, without any "automatic correction" or interpretation.

 

I've always thought, for this reason, that the best medium for learning is color slides.

 

They have the following advantages:

 

1. They're direct positives, viewed using regular old light. This means that the color you shot, including any filter effects, is what you see (modulo the film's color palette. My favorite neutral-palette film is Ektachrome EPN, which is what biologists used to use to document the colors of animal and plant specimens accurately). If you take one shot with no filter, one with a warming filter, and one with a polarizing filter, you'll be able to SEE the difference, and no post-processing will be trying to "correct" it for you.

 

2. They have an acute sensitivity to correct exposure. You'll be able to SEE the difference one stop makes - again without any post-processing "corrections". You might be able to see the difference a THIRD of a stop makes.

 

3. They're cheap (compared to other film products), because they don't require a printing step.

 

4. They can be individually labelled with exposure details and other notes, so you can go back later to look at them and you won't have to guess at what you did.

 

They have one additional advantage as tools for learning digital:

 

5. They respond to exposure errors the same way a digital sensor does. With slides and digital sensors, there's a lot of detail in the shadows (even if you can't see it at first, you can still recover it by boosting the curve), but if you put too much light on the subject, the highlights burn out. Negative film is the opposite - there's a lot of detail in the highlights (which are essentially "shadows" on the negative) and the shadows block up.

 

You mention that your SPECIFIC problem is that when you shoot with film, you get inconsistent results. This problem occurs because you'r e not metering carefully enough and you don't have enough experience using settings and accessories like filters. Slide film will SHOW you what effects this has, and you'll learn to avoid the mistakes that correct those effects.

 

If you can't see your mistakes, you can't correct them. Using print film makes it hard to see mistakes because the lab will try to correct them for you on the print (you'll try to correct them yourself, too, if you print your own film). Using digital makes it even HARDER to see mistakes, because the camera will try to correct your mistakes when it converts RAW to JPEG, and then your software will apply some random transformation when it puts your pixels on the screen, and then your printer will apply another random transformation when it puts your pixels on the paper (all this is why companies can make money selling color-calibration gadgets).

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

I looked at Dan Schwartz's home page. Nothing about wedding photography. Another hobbyist blowing smoke out his...

[laurenm]

Thanks Bob. what about if I ask the lab to not correct the photos? are they really able to not correct them or does some correction go on anyway?

If I tried some slide film just to see the differences, how much would I need to practice with it? meaning would a couple rolls, 100 pictures, or I could use it for years beofre being able to get correct exposures?

 

Bruce, thanks for checking up on him but for what I'm asking, learning PHOTOGRAPHY in general, not just for weddings, I don't really feel it matters what kind of photography someone does or doesn't do. I'm not taking any advice as set in stone anyway...

 

Plus, I really can't afford a decent digital and all the supplies that go with it right now.

[discpad]

Bruce wrote: "I looked at Dan Schwartz's home page. Nothing about wedding photography. Another hobbyist..."

 

That's right: I don't post Bar Mitzvah/wedding photos. But, I do work those events from time to time. However, I'm a professional IndyCar and NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series photographer; but because of licensing (NASCAR) and copyright (open wheel magazine) restrictions, I don't post anything until at least the end of the given season.

 

To see samples of my IndyCar digital and film photography:

http://users.snip.net/~joe/03indy.pdf

 

To see samples of my NASCAR photography (not linked from the home page):

http://users.snip.net/~joe/05dover/

 

There's more to life than just weddings...

 

-----------

 

Lauren: The key is to use the best tool for the job. This means you'll be carrying both medium format AND dSLR cameras if you want to assure you have the best tool to shoot with.

 

By the way, you mentioned that the pro you work with is interested in selling you his medium format gear... What is it? How good is the glass (which ultimately determines how good the image is)?

[colin_thomas5]

Lauren,

Unless your camera needs repair, you won't get any better results by using a different camera, digital or otherwise. If shooting something like a wedding, keep the experimentation to a minimum for now, save that for personal photo essays, they are a great way to learn, take notes on what youve done on each exposure, the conditions, lighting, etc. Use the camera you have now, learn with it, play with your lighting, study your prints and refer to your notes and in time you will get a better idea of what your results will be before you even take the shot.

[zane1664879013]

> ...what about if I ask the lab to not correct the photos?

 

That would be the way to go for prints, but it all depends on how well your lab follows directions. When I ask my local Ritz, they cheerfully write down the instructions on the envelope, but about one roll in four gets "adjusted" anyway.

[laurenm]

Thanks Colin, yours is a very good answer probably for my current level.

Zane, my local Ritz has been good about it (perhaps depending who is working) good to know.

Dan, the offer is for either Bronica SQ-A or Mamiya 645E both with 80mm f2.8 lens

[blakley]

It doesn't take too many rolls, Lauren. It does take good notes - so you know what your settings were for each slide, what filters you used, etc...

 

I'd start without filters and shoot a roll in which you bracket every exposure -1 stop, metered exposure, and +1 stop. Shoot half the roll outdoors in daylight (best if it's an overcast day) and the other half indoors in tungsten light. Keep notes on aperture & shutter speed for each shot. Take a look at the slides on a light box; it will teach you a lot about exposure and about color temperature.

 

Then shoot another roll with a sequence of shots (maybe environmental portraits outdoors) at the recommended exposure but at a wide range of apertures - i.e. if you're using ISO 100 film in full daylight, something like 1/60 @ f/16, 1/125 @ f/11, 1/250 @ f/8, 1/500 @ f/5.6, 1/1000 @ f/4, 1/2000 @ f/2.8 with a 35mm or 50mm lens - focus on the same point in every shot. Again, take a look at the slides.

[laurenm]

Thanks Bob, I will give it a shot (lol). Its hard to make myself take notes as I keep wanting to just take pictures but I really have to.

[discpad]

Lauren, some MP3 players have a voice recorder built in, as do some dSLR's. If not, a tiny voice recorder is all you need to take notes.

[laurenm]

cool idea dan!

[inspiration point studio]

Lauren, by now, you'll probably find out there is no right answer to your question, because both systems can deliver great wedding photos, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. If you find yourself leaning towards a digital camera because it gives you almost instant feedback, and you feel you are learning faster, spending most of the time composing a good picture rather than thinking about f stops, by all means, adopt that system. The ultimate goal is to make nice pictures and improve on them. The gear is just some tools you use along the journey, and tools will change, that's a given. As always, both systems are easy to learn, but difficult to master.

 

Another thing is don't think of going into digital as going to the dark side. Learning digital is no different from learning how to shoot medium and large format, or black and white. Once you have found yourself mastering one format, you will try another one. That's the fun part behind photography.

[jtk]

One reason you might want to learn on film is that the current digital technology is essentially like DOS, very temporary. The next phase of digital will be more like traditional film process because that's more the way the human mind works. Our brains make leaps of imagination and generalization that are entirely impossible with current applications...but semi-intelligent, more visual systems are just around the corner and will much more closely emulate film, leaving histograms and digital-think in the dustbin of history, just as

Xerox's MacWindows concept did with DOS :-)

[laurenm]

thanks again for the additional responses! Yes, I now know there is pretty much no right answer :(

 

I forget who asked me who's photography I aspire to imitate...

One thing I want to do is take the first picture posted on this forum

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FAZ3

 

but without the PS.

I want to be able to do that right from the camera (or things like that)

[blakley]

You'll need a diffuser or soft-focus filter to get that effect out of the camera.

[discpad]

That first photo was done with extensive Photoshop retouching.

 

By the way, thanks for the lead on the http://www.ATNcentral.com website! :)

[laurenm]

Thanks Bob. I guess I want to be able to acheive a desired effect on my own instead of using PS. then again, I guess the tools are just different in the end....

back to reading and re-reading my keep it simple book!

[laurenm]

ha ha! your welcome Dan. Though most clients don't know or care, I aspire to not take photos that need photoshop or at least so much that they look it. (though for my work right now, thank god for it!)

[dave_cheng1]

In my opinion most wedding photographers switch to digital becuase of the advantage of shooting faster and getting more frames. There is little to do with what being preferred by customers. It was a unforgettable experience for me to shoot shoulder to shoulder with another guy shooting in digital. I could not see the 500 images the guy produced. But I was told they were mostly 4x6's. I shot with a pentax 67II. So mine can be easily blown up to 24x36. Unfortunately I recorded only 3 rolls of 220.

 

If you shoot in studio, or outdoor but not during the actual wedding where you have plenty of time to shoot slowly you will get better images from film. But during actual wedding speed and volume is the key to revenue. You will want to shoot in digital.