Digital by day, film by night?

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Here are a couple of shots taken at an event last year on some friends' property near Nashville. The shots were made on print film, then cropped square to make album covers for a music video I shot. <br>

Despite the additional weight to carry on my hip all day, I can see I could have done as well with a DSLR during t he daylight hours, but as evening set in, spot lights were employed. Since I would not choose to use slide film for this situation, perhaps next time if I use digital, wouldn't I be better off using the DSLR only until later, then switching to say ISO 400 film when the spot lights come on. Or might digital's DR be good enough to handle this scenerio? </p><div></div>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>And the potential problem situation for digital-</p><div></div>

[silverpixel]

<p>The dynamic range of modern digital cameras is quite adequate for most situations, especially CCD sensors. Where it falls short of my expectations is in the appearance of washed-out highlights caused by improper exposure technique or excessive scene contrast, as occurs often on a stage. Film compresses several stops of detail into the shoulder of its characteristic curve, and mimics our eye's response better. I find that 100 ISO film works surprisingly well for stage work, as I expose for proper highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. That way I avoid the grain of high sensitivity film and the noise of non-CCD digitals. You'll be in a tough spot if you need detail in your print from shadow to highlight from a high-contrast scene regardless of capture technology, so I suggest you try them both and see which one's limitations you prefer.</p>

[mountainvisions]

Not that I shoot a ton of stage stuff for pay or play, but my experience and technique is similar to Mike Ws statements above.

 

<P>

If you expose for the highlights you really don't need a super high ISO film or sensor setting. However, smaller venues usually lack quality lighting or lights that always fall square on the performers, so there might be a place for a higher ISO film/sensor setting.

<P>

 

 

 

<p>I prefer the limited DR of slide in spot lit scenes. The reason is I HATE muddy murky shadows. And print film gives that.</p>

<p>On the flip side, digitals biggest flaw is shadow noise.</p>

<p>You might try some Provia 400X or if EI 400 is enough try some Provia 100F at EI400. The 100F is from experience, the 400X I have never used (came out just when I stopped shooting film regularly), but it's on the list to try very shortly. I just need an occassion to shoot enough rolls to justify the push processing cost.</p>

<p>Other option is black and white. Something like Ilford Delta 3200 (it's not 3200 ISO, but has a wide latitude for exposure, I believe it's actually ISO 1000 base). I used that all this weekend at EI 3200 on the 645N. I haven't processed it yet (just got home at 1:30am this morning). My understanding is the grain structure on the 120 is actually a bit different at 3200 than on 35mm. However, a lot of people like the grain on 35mm at higher EI. Since it's the first time I shot this film I'm simply throwing it out there, not endorsing it. Do an image search though for the film though, and you'll see it's pretty versatile at anywhere from EI 800-6400 (or higher). Definitely a good film to toss in the bag for available light.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>In this situation I used fill flash to help with opening up the shadows and evening out the exposure somewhat. I used to use a slide film years ago doing some stage events over a period of years that worked fairly well, a kodak tungston slide film, ISO 320- but I've forgotten the exact one. It worked pretty well because I could expose just for the subject being lit. There were no off-lit areas of importance. My experience is that slide film otherwise tends to block up shadowed areas, and is less suitable for flash and these types of situations, which is a reason wedding shooters often use print film.</p>

<p>I can't recall the above film, it may have been something easy to find, maybe Kodak Gold 200 or Fuji Superia Xtra 400, which is especially good for mixed lighting. I just got to thinking, since I will shoot a lower number of keepers during this kind of affair, digital would otherwise be advantageous. I am just leary of its dynamic range.</p>

<p>My K200D has a CCD sensor, and that is what I'd use because it is more compact. A non-CCD is noisier and has less DR?</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Great thread Michael. Just signing on to see what I can learn :)</p>

[mithrandir]

<p>I keep hoping that in a few years, Pentax will reward its loyal followers with hot-swap sensors designed for different environments. It would be like changing film in the old days to get a sensor just right for the situation. It would also allow a particular body to evolve as the technology improved.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Javier, I recall seeing a very interesting example you posted regarding film's superior DR or latitude, in a high-contrast situation. Maybe that helped to get my thoughts going when I went through these shots. </p>

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>A non-CCD is noisier and has less DR?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For example Nikon D3X has CMOS sensor, I wouldn't call that noisy with poor DR.<br>

CCD vs CMOS is an old debate and has really nothing to do with current dslr cameras. In astro / scientific field things may be different.<br>

Interesting exception (there's always one) is <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/">Fuji S5 Pro</a> that has Super CCD sensor with great dynamic range.</p>

<p>Digital works fine for band shots but I recommend that you shoot RAW for white balance, noise control and recovering highlight data.<br>

I have nothing against good jpg's "straight from the box" but in high contrast / low light situations post work can really make a difference.</p>

<p>35mm Delta 3200 has pretty huge grain. About the biggest there is actually.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My understanding is the grain structure on the 120 is actually a bit different at 3200 than on 35mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know about different (as in different emusion) but 10x10 wet print from 6x6 Delta looks something like 35mm Tri-X. Grain is not really a huge issue with MF. Scanning and sharpening may accentuate the grain though.<br>

Neopan 1600 looks much sharper and has smaller grain. Highly recommended in 35mm if you need the speed.</p>

<p>I've only shot Provia 400X in 120 myself, it looks very good for the speed. I've also seen 35mm 400X pushed to 800 and the results looked very usable.</p>

[jtk]

<p>It's amazing what Lightroom can find in highlights and shadows, assuming RAW. </p>

<p>JPEG's a poor way to shoot in contrasty light, doesn't begin to reveal the potential in a Pentax RAW file.</p>

<p>Scanning doesn't "accentuate the grain" assuming Nikon scanner and Nikonscan or Vuescan using light grain reduction...which doesn't affect detail resolution. Similarly, sharpening doesn't accentuate grain if done carefully ( especially effective with Lightroom IMO).</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I'd much prefer color, as I use the results to make album covers, and it is a figuratively "colorful" event. A fun atmosphere. </p>

<p> But yes, I agree with shooting RAW to better deal with higher contrast conditions. Maybe next time, continuing to use both film and the K200D as it gets late, but switching to RAW, and taking some similar shots with each. This would provide me with usable material, and also comparative experience. I remember last year just leaving the DSLR in the car, favoring the film body to use during the event, due to its being so much lighter to have on me all day. But I did wind up actually using less of the shots I took to give away, and for the covers, than I would for other occasions. An advantage there for digital, during daytime for sure. As it was, I only shot 3 rolls anyway, so the waste was not a huge deal.</p>

<p> </p>

[silverpixel]

<p>Just like to correct my goof above, obviously should have typed CMOS instead of CCD - both times. Thanks for pointing out, Michael and Kari.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Mike, assuming your "evening" shot is minilab scanned negative film (it looks like that), a Nikon or Minolta scan would be light years better. Many pocket digicams would do as well at 800iso as your film did at 400. If you worry about noise (who cares about noise in this sort of photo), fix it in post processing.</p>

<p>IMO your K200D should blow the socks off any film in daylight AND under those lights... shoot RAW at 800iso in both situations, why lower your results with JPEG...it once seemed economical, but no more: 4G SD cards are incredibly cheap, like $15 ...I've got a half dozen that cost me twice that last year :-(</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>...my post above should have been directed to Michael rather than Mike. OOPS.</p>

[mc2imaging]

<p>I've shot concerts outdoors during the day...</p><div></div>

[mc2imaging]

<p>and at night...</p><div></div>

[mc2imaging]

<p>My K10D has worked fine for both...</p><div></div>

[jtk]

<p>Nice work Matthew.</p>

[jgredline]

<blockquote>

<p>Javier, I recall seeing a very interesting example you posted regarding film's superior DR or latitude, in a high-contrast situation. Maybe that helped to get my thoughts going when I went through these shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael. Right now I am convinced that film will do a better job in situations where there is high contrast between shadows and light. The films DR is simply wider and I am not even speaking of medium format...Now I admit I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but these days when I am shooting film 70% of the time, I have gotten quite comfortable with films, even the ASA1600 films that do a superb job when dark. Now this is me because I am a shade tree photographer that in truth relies on luck most of the time. Pros will have a good understanding of externall flashes and all that stuff, stuff of which I know little about.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>I just saw matts post, proving my point about a pro and fill flash... :) Well done.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Fuji Frontier (mini lab) scans are very good quality depending on the software and operator. Drum scan or wetmount quality? No, but the scanner on the Frontier is AT LEAST as good of hardware as the scanner on a Nikon 9000. Like with many things in life, software is the limiting factor. I'd venture to say if you dumbed your $2000 Nikon down to the software level of most 1 hour labs, you would be VERY disappointed in the quality.</p>

<p>The issue is most people refer to mini labs and think "walmart/drug store" 1 hour but forget that professional labs use the same equipment. The difference is walmart/drug stores are built for speed while the pro labs are built for quality (and priced accordingly).</p>

<p>Anyway, even your drugstore with the right tech can produce a nice 12MP scan on a frontier just by changing the "print" output size. That said, most convenience mini labs only output in 8 bit JPEG, pro labs using the same equipment will output in 16bit tiff at 5000pixels for an added fee. My local pro lab charges about $10 a frame for that. Drum scans are actually a better deal at $35 for the base scan from 35mm, going up in price based on resolution.</p>

<p>The bottom line is your 1 hour lab CANNOT afford to give you 12MP scans from your film and stay in business. While the Frontier is probably 10X as fast as your home scanner, you might be able to process only 7-10 rolls an hour at that resolution. So this is why you generally get 2MP scans back on the CD.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Justin, great post! and I agree. I have two places I send my film to. Target and Pro specialties. However when i send my stuff to Target, I request either Maria or John to do my processing because they will scan it to 6mp and not use any filters or built in PP services. This of course is not the 1 hour service, but the 24 hour service and if they are not scheduled to work, longer yet...As for pro specialties, well that is a whole new level of performance. Of course it cost 4 times the money, but well worth it..Example, I sent my daughters graduation pictures there, my mothers retirement pictures there etc...In other words, things that are more than snap shots go there..For my street shooting, target is more than adequate because it is more about capturing the scene than quality...</p>

[jtk]

<p>fyi Nikon scans generate files of 125MP or more (depending upon 14 or 16 mb) from 35mm. Those genuinely 4000ppi scans can, if you print your own or use a professional lab (as opposed to prosumer), dramatically beat the best anybody can deliver from Fuji's tiny file...assuming the situation demands good quality. In addition, Nikon is likely to rival drum scans, as drum scanners aren't reliably well-operated. </p>

<p>But high quality isn't always as big a drive as low price and high convenience, as mentioned above by Javier and Justin. In this thread we saw an image that seemed ("night") to suffer from a minilab scan and, maybe worse, minilab C-41 processing.</p>

<p>One of the nicest things about DSLRs is that encourage photographers to step up to the plate and print their own or patronize custom labs, letting minilabs continue to die: better quality work results. </p>

<p> </p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>The scan does not look as good as the prints I got with the order, for sure. And the reduction in size for posting also reduces this lack even more. None of my postings look near as good as original files- but I don't bother to fiddle with them to try fixing them up, I just reduce and shipp'em through. </p>

<p>As Justin says, the results I get on my CDs are a crap shoot in terms of quality. Some stores seem do do better. I only resort to my Minolta scanner when Quality is more of a concern. The CD supplied is handy for e-mailing, where the file must be tiny anyway, and I don't need much reduction off the CD files.</p>

<p>I was not so concerned with the resolution quality here of the CD scan for my uses in this case, just the tendency for digital to blow out very strong highlights more than does film. This was recently illustrated very well by Javier with 2 side-by-side shots of the same scene using both film and a DSLR. </p>

<p>My K200D does have a slight tendency to underexpose, especially evident in lower light, and it seems to handle flash pretty well. So maybe this is a deliberate design effort to compensate for the highlight problem common in DSLRs. I will also try employing the expanded DR feature as well. </p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>As Justin says, the results I get on my CDs are a crap shoot in terms of quality. Some stores seem do do better. I only resort to my Minolta scanner when Quality is more of a concern. The CD supplied is handy for e-mailing, where the file must be tiny anyway, and I don't need much reduction off the CD files</blockquote>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<p>Thanks Javier. As Michael also said above... Definitely different output or final uses require different levels of processing. Even at home I'll often batch scan the snaps using a HP flatbed but if I like the image, I'll move up to a film scanner currently a Minolta Scan Dual and eventually either a Epson V750-Pro or a Nikon 9000. If it's sellable, I might send it out, although my scan dual has done a great job for $300 total. I do miss the lab though for the raw speed of getting my images from camera to computer....almost digital speed!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>fyi Nikon scans generate files of 125MP or more (depending upon 14 or 16 mb) from 35mm. Those genuinely 4000ppi scans can,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I'm assuming you mistyped this to mean 125MB from 35mm. That seems about right, my pro lab gives 100MB 5500ppi fluid mounted for $39 including cleaning and color correction. They use a Creo scanner. For larger formats the price is per MB.</p>

<p>There is no way a 35mm scan can produce 125MP. Not in reality. Even with the best lens, MLU, tripod, and Provia or Velvia you are looking at 25-30MP tops from 35mm.</p>

<p>The point of course is the Frontier is capable of a lot more than most people imagine, unfortunately it's software crippled most places.</p>

<p>Having run one at both a 1 hour and a pro lab I can tell you the difference is insane. I used to scan my negatives at the 1 hour for basically free (legit pricing loophole that I still use as a customer...$1.06 per roll!!!) at 8.5MP (not 12 like I noted before, looking at the files right now). Only downside is they were JPG but the file size was decent. About 6.5MB. Actually almost the same as a K20D JPEG (i think, probably about 0.5MB off meaning a bit more compressed) at the same resolution in fine mode.</p>

<p>On the flip side when I used the same setup at a pro lab, I produced 25MB tiffs from the same ppi.</p>

<p>That said, I'm not disagreeing, Mike Ks images most likely did suffer from 1 hour lab processing and scanning. I bet you if he took it to a pro lab and it was frontier scanned it would be much better. Or likewise, dropped $1000-2000 on a Nikon 8000-9000 or any of the other very good home film scanners (Minolta, Polaroid, etc). Heck, just buy a Creo at $22,000!!!</p>