Why Use Film in a Digital Age? ( Plus Some Tutorial Tricks ):

[fotografz]

In a recent thread titled "Using film to compliment digital", there were as many questions raised as

answered. I thought maybe a "tutorial" thread dedicated to listing more reasons to consider film, AND a

listing of tricks learned along the way by film users (contributions welcome please), could be of interest

to even digital shooters.

 

Sorry for the long post, but detail is important rather than glossing over it.

 

This is NOT meant to trigger a film verses digital debate. Those who have no interest in film at all need

not list their reasons on this thread. They are well documented already. This is just a few considerations

for those looking to expand the possibilities with their wedding work.

 

Personally, I am up to my eyeballs in digital capture ... from a 5D/1DsMKII, all the way up to a

Hasselblad H3D/39 ... all of which I use for wedding photography. Yet I still use film. Here's why:

 

Dynamic range, latitude: or whatever is the correct term here ( I could care less) ... exposed correctly,

modern neg films capture highlight and shadow detail in some situations that digital struggles with. I

find this especially true outdoors in contrasty conditions ( I personally prefer digital for dark indoor

conditions because of higher ISO abilities conducive to dragging the shutter ).

 

Skin Tone: Since we are usually shooting people at a wedding : -), this is an area really mastered by

modern films. We know good skin tone and texture can be tricky with digital in certain situations, and

we all see that in many post here on this forum.

 

Economy: IF you have confidence in your photography skills, you can use a film camera as back up,

which is a much less costly alternative than a second digital camera. At one time I used a Canon digital

camera and an EOS 1V ... once, due to my absentmindedness, my Canon digital became unusable. I

finished the wedding all on film with no problem or worry ( I also had a Leica M film camera in the bag

should the EOS have gone down). This is not a big economic consideration, but is a way to make the

transition to digital from film less costly, and keeps you versatile.

 

Film transferred to digital: obviously this requires scanning. Personally, I only scan what is going in the

album. I do not like lab scans because they are to small to begin with, and often sub-standard ( these

are fine if you need to upload a whole wedding to a internet hosting site ). Lab processing and machine

proofs are also usually fine because it is a mature technology. While I have a top scanner now, the

previous, much less expensive ones I started with, were fine once I became adept at it.

 

Scanned film on a computer screen: this can fool the eye. Film grain looks worse on a screen than it

really is. My tech savvy pals think it is because of the mixed conflict of screen resolution and grain.

Whatever the reason, in reality it doesn't print that way at all ... it's much better and less grainy.

 

Printing film on a digital printer: I print everything on a Epson 2400 (unless it's a 3rd party album maker

requiring other than ink-jets). If you scan correctly, and understand color/paper profiling, use the right

papers, and scan for initial maximum size/detail, the properties of film can be reproduced for the most

part pretty darn close to optical quality prints. It requires practice, but once mastered with various

profiles on your scanner set with different film defaults, it can be quick and beautiful.

 

Tutorial Tricks:

 

Attached is a 35mm film scan. Not a wedding shot or even one of any creative merit ... but chosen for

this post because it is an extreme example of outdoor daylight contrast with very, very bright highlight

areas coupled with inky shadows. It was shot on ISO 400 Fuji color neg film @ ISO 320.

 

I know from experience that this would have been a problem shot using digital. Either the shadows

would have blocked up, or the highlights would have gone missing of detail. The film handled it with no

sweat.

 

Unlike digital, neg film traditionally has more latitude toward the highlights, and to capture shadow

detail can be slightly overexposed while still preserving those highlights.

 

I scanned it at the highest resolution possible ... and the final file was 11"X16" @ 360 dpi = 128 meg,

16 bit Tiff file. A far cry from a 10 or 20 meg lab scan. Even though when printed I would size it down,

I start with max size to capture as much digital information as possible. BTW, respected professional art

printers recommend 360 dpi (not 300 dpi), for pulling normal sized prints on a Epson ink-jet printer

(180 dpi for huge prints like mural size).

 

Grain reduction: I do not use grain reduction programs. Most are to wholesale in application and

destroy as much as they fix IMO. Again, grain looks worse on a computer screen than when printed.

Instead, I use the "Scratch and Dust reduction" tool in PS ( Filter > Noise > Scratch & Dust ). I simply

lasso select any area that may be a problem and apply this tool.

 

For the attached scan I selected a few shadow areas and set the Scratch/Dust sliders to: Radius: 65

pixels; Threshold: 25 levels. This may vary for different shots. Simply enlarge the shot on screen and

play with the sliders to see the effect. Adjust until it just barely removes any offending grain but doesn't

go smooth.

 

Film has it's own charms, and I find it richer and with more impact and depth for certain shots at

weddings. I especially prefer film for B&W images. Many of you may want to consider it for this coming

season. Used film cameras are very inexpensive these days, they use your existing lenses and flash,

plus there are new and improved films now available (especially for scanning). Besides, the results can

actually be fun and interesting ... kind of: Back To The Future !!! : -)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<div></div>

[fotografz]

Here's a detail from the above scanned film shot. Detail and resolution at printed sizes are

still amazing with film IMO.<div></div>

[jason hinds - columbus, oh]

Marc...

 

It's funny that you post this now, because I have just started getting turned on to film again, and am hoping to complement my digital photography with it this wedding season. I was initially interested in shooting IR film, so I was focusing on Canon's FD line of manual focus cameras that do not have the IR sensor to count the sprockets (like all the EOS bodies do except the 650 and 1-series). However, with the price of film cameras at an almost laughable low point right now, if my little "test" works out, I may invest in some more serious film gear.

 

Anyway, the point is that there seems to be a renewed interest in film lately, and I'm sure there are other people out there that have been pondering this for a while as well. If anything else, it's good to have a film camera and a few rolls of film with you as an extra backup, and considering how cheap the gear is these days, you just can't go wrong.

 

Thanks for the post!

[nancy s.]

I have used a back up film camera from the get go for the reasons stated. Tho I no longer shoot weddings, I learned on film so it just made sense.

 

Both mediums have their place in photography because each media has its advantavges and disadvantages.

 

thank you for this very useful post.

[michelle a.]

I've been shooting film in conjuntion with digital at all of the weddings I've done so far. Although I've only used it once or twice with my child photography.<p> I find that my portrait clients are too excited to see their images to wait 1-2 weeks for all of their images to be processed from the lab, and then scanned by me. I think it has something to do with the "instant gratification" that we've all become so acustommed to. <p>I love film, I love digital.....

 

In fact I recently made a <a href="http://michelleamarante.blogspot.com/2007/01/looking-back-and-moving-forward.html">blog post</a> about this very thing....how much I have missed shooting with film, especially just for my own personal enjoyment.

[emmett_s]

Another Great Post Marc - Thank you again!

I find myslef getting so much more satisfaction out of film images lately. I look fwd to applying some of Marc's scanning tips.

[pete_s.]

Excellent post Marc. Thanks for posting.

 

Regards,

 

Peter

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

Having almost moved back to film for a couple of years long street project (using a G2 and TLR of all things!) and therefore having been thinking this through thoroughly recently...

 

The most important thing to do when shooting film for pro applications, and especially for scanning, is to have a good relationship with a good photo lab. The processing has to be of the top quality with clean chemicals otherwise you will end up with dirt and chemical artifacts in the emulsion not just on the surface. I've had experience with pro labs that are a disgrace to the name and some smaller labs whose routine for keeping the chemistry and rollers clean would shame many a pro lab.

 

If you know what you are doing and are experienced with B&W film then you will probably be processing it yourself to a reciepe/timing/temperature that you have found you liked through a lot of experimentation. To start along the road of learning B&W development and finding a combination you like and are adept at - is rather a lot to take on when you are already working as a pro. The other solution (not liked by B&W purists but then if you were a purist this wouldn't apply as you would have the above at your fingertips) is C-41 B&W films such as the Kodak and Ilford 400 speed offerings. Kodak say that there is less grain in their chromogenic 400 speed B&W than their 100 speed film. These films can be processed by your regular lab in regular chemistry at the regular price and the advantage of them for scanning is that you can use Digital ICE (Dust and scratch removal) which you cannot for B&W film. This will save a lot of time on the processing end. The films are said to have a creamy look which is perfect for wedding photography.

 

There are very few companies left making film scanners. The Nikon's seem to be the best affordable scanners but they have not been upgraded for a long while and are out of stock almost everywhere. It is a ridiculous fact that I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any future prosumer models of film scanners - period! It's ridiculous considering how many negs are still out there but the digital juggurnaut is making it a non profitable line of products for manufacturers. Whether or not this makes a difference now is up to you. Flat bed scanners however seem to be taking over from dedicated film scanners. Opinion is that the good ones are fine with medium format film but still iffy for 35mm? Marc uses both so his input would be valuable.

 

In the end I decided against film for the project as I would have had to learn B&W developing from scratch and find a suitible combo for scanning that would give me what I was looking for. The cost of a scanner would have brought me almost to the point where I could buy a 5D for the money. Although digital is not yet at the point where it can match the sheer range of types of camera (something sorely missing for serious street work - who can afford an M8 + lenses for a personal project?) it probably will be in 2 years time. To make an investment into film for 2 years only - for me - was not worth it.

 

What I might suggest that would need to be considered for a digi shooter going back to film in any way - the shooting of hundreds of frames with film, as seems to be the norm with digital, will be prohibitally expensive and the scanning would be a nightmare. Shooting film for a wedding might need a far more careful approach than some seem to take for digital weddings albeit exposure wise film is so so much easier than even RAW digital.

[jessica_smith9]

Very interesting post! Thank you for sharing.

[regas chefas]

Since I got my digital SLRs almost 3 years ago, I have shot very little film. I like the instant

gratification and free marginal cost of digital...but a couple of months ago, my wife was

hosting a baby shower, and my DSLR was in the shop and she needed the backup for the

shower, so I took my old Yashica-D mat camera (totally manual) out with some 120 B&W

film and wandered around San Francisco without a light meter for about 10 hours. The

results were great. No expectations.

 

Something that I miss about film is the, for lack of a better word, contemplative nature of

it. With digital, we shoot and shoot and chimp and shoot and it's very productive. But like

fishing, sometimes its more fun to sit on the shore and think about where the fish are and

catch one or two than to go out on a commercial trawler and catch tons of tuna.

[bernard_korites]

I went back to film a long time ago, for many of the reasons mentioned here, but also because of the safer and easier archivability of film.

[stephen dohring]

Hey Marc - 1st I want to thank you for your B&W conversion method you posted a while ago it is the only way I do it now. Not ignoring the other advantages of film you mentioned but in your picture example it might be faster to open two raw images at different exposures and "marry" the two toghether no? When I get some money I want a lecia with a nocitilux lens to carry with me. If anyone sees Joe Busslink's stuff they should know he does most everything on film with a master printer, and it looks like P.S. actually better.

[uk]

Good post Marc. Thank you.

 

I would add a small point on skin tone. Not only is the skin tone on film better, as you

point out, but I also find that it is more consistant. It's also true for the other colours.

 

That results for me is not having to adjust to hundreds of images for 'individual' colour

balance as the majority are more than acceptable. So image processing has a major

variable teken out of it. Processing focusses on cropping and light levels and emphasis

etc much as with B&W.

 

It's also quite surprising when shooting the half as many images with film than digital how

the required shots get covered, the trash rate is substantially different and more shots are

keepers thereby cutting the downstream work. That half sometimes becomes a third.

 

A final point is that the best of my sample albums contain some medium format shots.

They stand out from the remainder of the 35mm shots and the digital images I'm now

producing. It's a concern to me because these albums are a $900 add-on for the bride

(my prices are without album) and I dread anyone coming back and telling me they

spotted a difference when ordering and expect the exact same ..... During the sale, I now

talk about these issues with the B&G and respond to their requirements.

 

Thanks again Marc, good job. Look forward to watching this grow.

[susan_davis2]

I shoot film. I'm interested to hear from Marc or others who use film at weddings, do you shoot medium format or 35mm neg?

[think27]

Great thread Marc!

 

Joe Buissink is actually using digital as well now. I heard a funny story where Denis Reggie (I think it was Denis) locked Joe's film cameras in the trunk and made him use his digital cameras.

 

Interesting Marc about the lab scans of film. As a 100% film shooter I have noticed that my jpegs are no way as good as my prints! Never knew the reason why - especially because my lab prints from the files (don't even have to send them the negs) and the prints are terrific.

 

I've been doing some interesting experimentation with my assistant where we shoot some of the same scenes outside and inside - I'm using film and he's using digital. For the outdoor shots and one instance where the sun was coming through the window in the church and shining on the bride's dress - The film was very superior. The film had more detail in the dress and in the background.. However, indoors, I prefered the digital.

[robbie_caswell]

I recently purchased a mint EOS3 for $275 to back up my pair of 5D bodies. Will likely purchase another sometime soon.

 

As always, medium format tempts me...

[joe meadows]

Some good information here Marc,

 

As a long time film shooter I made the step 2 years ago where I acquired my 1st digital camera system. I had been having my film scanned since 1998 by Pro Lab and working with Photoshop since that time as well. As Marc point out the dynamic range of film vs digital is well documented. Like Marc I have used Hasselblad cameras for over 30 years, and not just for weddings, but on a professional commercial level as well. When I learned how to process Black and white film, Ansel Adams was my mentor, if only through his well written books which I have a complete set. This subject has been an integral part of photography since it?s invention. Ansel used a dual water-bath treatment to compress the tonal range. Where the development of the negative was stopped briefly, and the negatives were immersed and allowed to sit in plain water, before they were returned to complete the development process. What this accomplished was the blacks continued to develop with out over development of the lighter areas.

 

In my city, Seattle, most brides dream of an out door wedding on a bright Summer day which means most weddings involve combining fill flash with the background light. Considering the fast pace of weddings and the generally unreliable nature of TTL I shoot all my weddings with the camera in manual mode using a Norman 200B or Norman Studio strobe. And sometimes I have my Quantum T2Digital flash set to Auto indoors. I do have the TTL module and periodically use my digital camera indoors using aperture priority mode to pick up the ambient light, but this is rare.

 

I have wondered if the time proven system I had used for so many years was well past it?s useful time period. My lab had closed in 2004 and not wanting to send precious color film through the mail. I had begun to accept the fact that digital was not my only option, but the future. I found that shooting digital in RAW mode I could control the exposures just like with film. But what I could not completely control was the inherent limitation of the digital range. Selling my Hasselblad system was put on hold as well, for the same reasons Marc mentioned and considering the nature of this discussion.

 

I guess what all this debate boils down to is to understand the advantages of each process and deliver the best possible product to your customers you can.

 

Joe

[jairy hunter]

Thanks for posting this, Marc!

 

I recently bought a rangefinder (gasp!) to put the skills (right word?) I learned with DSLRs into practice.I learned in 1 year with digital what I should have learned in 20 with a film SLR and now I want to go back and use it. Using a rangefinder is kinda like using the Force.

 

Now, if I can just convince Wifey to let me convert the hall bathroom into a makeshift film darkroom....

[david_eicher]

Great post Marc. I know I am not going to give up my 4 medium format cameras anytime soon. I am looking at 3 to 4 more years of shooting hopefully and I will use digital, but only as backup for my weddings. I tend to stay with Fuji Pro 400H, but wondered what others like to use?

[fotografz]

Susan, I shoot both, but more MF than 35mm these days. I like 35mm B&W, and try to

shoot a few rolls at each wedding.

 

Regas, I agree with the "gone fishing" aspect of film. I prefer shooting film when on

vacation because the last thing I want to do is sit in front of a computer when I get back ...

to much like work :-)

 

Steve, yes the layering technique can increase the range of digital, but it's still work. The

film stuff is there out of the camera. Remember, I only scan the album selects, so time

isn't an issue. However, I shoot a majority of wedding stuff digital, and use film for it's

unique abilities ... or for fun.

 

Ben, IMO flatbeds are okay for MF, but not for 35mm. I use an Epson 4870 flatbed to scan

35mm contact sheets. Fast, and I have a digital record of them. Dedicated film scanners

are much better, and not that hard to get at auction or on used gear sites.

 

Flatbed scanning of lab prints or darkroom optical prints is fantastic BTW, some famous

photographers do that. I tried it, and it really works, makes retouching easy.

 

To be honest, for me the best thing that's happened to film is digital. Being able to scan at

will any neg I like is just as gratifying as shooting digital capture. A lot of people hate

scanning, but I don't. I scan film for friends all the time. But you have to have your settings

and technique down pat or it's just frustrating and time consuming. Too many people are

impatient in these days of instant need gratification, and never stay at it long enough to

get past that stage of learning.

 

Here's another time I went with film. It was "white hot" at this California wedding. White

everywhere, and direct sun blasting down (note the direction of the shadows). The neg film

didn't even break a sweat capturing it.<div></div>

[jaimie blue]

I was recently thinking about how much I miss shooting film, and what I personally miss the most is my b/w darkroom and the variety of papers from years ago. I loved the old Agfa line, Portrega Rapid and Bovira, and I miss Seagull Oriental, all the cool tones and the warm. I really miss printing in the darkroom when all my favorite papers were available. I miss shooting film and my former style of b/w.

[fotografz]

Hey David, hold onto them. Those totally portable Hassey digital backs will drop in price

and they make fab images. Film back, digital back, same camera.

 

Jaimie, my first weddings were all B&W and I made every print myself in the darkroom.

Drying screens all over the house. Swearing at the dry-mount press because a spot of dust

made an impression on a print I pulled 4 times to get perfect. But the albums were

something to see, analog silver-prints on double-weight paper, selenium toned to a deep

warm black with sparkling whites. : -)

 

Hey, just to keep it real ... digital is getting killer better. The MF backs are advancing

exponentially in latitude, and the 35mm stuff can't be far behind (I hope). Resolution is

mind-boggling from some of these MF digital cameras .... check this out: (sorry for the

bandwidth theft Mary : -) ...<div></div>

[pete_s.]

This is a lab scan straight from the Frontier machine (only resized). I took it a couple of days ago and had it processed and scanned at 3219x2154 pixels 8 bit which equals about 20 Mbyte uncompressed.

 

It's Ilford Delta 100, shot at the rated speed. Since I haven't received the neg yet I can't say if it is a good representation or not. The scene looked much less contrasty to me however. Maybe I should have overexposed it to get less contrast? Considering the film, the exposure, the processing of the film, the scanning and processsing in the scanner there are a lof of variables to the end result. I guess that is what Marc is trying to say too.<div></div>

[pete_s.]

This is a 100% crop from the image above. No processing done on this one either.<div></div>

[fotografz]

Hi Peter. I'd hazard a guess that you needed to plus compensate your exposure because

of the predominance of brights in your shot. The lab scan doesn't look half bad though,

and could easily be adjusted using the Shadow slider in PS.

 

The resulting size from your scan would produce an 7.18"X10.73" sized image @ 300 dpi.

resolution= 19.8 meg.

 

If it was 360 dpi resolution @ 8 bit the image size would still be 7.18"X10.73 but the file

size would be 28.6 meg.

 

360 dpi resolution for an Epson Inkjet printer @ 16 bit, with the file size of 7.18"X10.73,

and image would then jump to 57.1 meg.

 

Why the need for larger scans if you are just going to print at 7"X10" anyway?

 

More data. Same as with a digital camera. Detail resolution, better tonal gradations, etc.

Plus, the Lab scans the whole neg, so if you crop, the file gets even smaller.

 

I typically scan a 35mm neg @ 6300 dpi resolution @ 100% of a 35mm neg size. This

results in a 300+ meg RGB file @ 8976 X 5945 pixel size. OR a 25" X 17" print @ 360 dpi

printing resolution.

 

Of course this is not practical for wedding work. However, most desktop scanners are now

4000 dpi, and a 35mm neg should be scanned at as high of a resolution as possible to get

as much data as possible THEN reduced to actual print size.

 

Here's an example from a cull neg strip. The strip scanned for review, a select made then

scanned full resolution. Then cropped and sized for a wedding album select.<div></div>