Moving from Digital to Film

[pierre_fermat]

<p>Hello All<br>

I have been shooting landscape and portraits with my canon 350D/50 1.4/70-200 4L IS/17-40 L. I also use ND grads and polarizers. As an amateur, my shooting style is the typical 'compose -> figure out exposure->shoot->check image/histogram->recompose/shoot' loop. It does take me few shots to nail the the image of my mind's eye. I typcially shoot at ISO100 as my 350D gets a bit noisy.<br>

The advantages of FF for me are obvious - ultra wide and nicer bokeh. However, I cannot afford a digital FF. Used EOS-3 type cameras have excellent features and are cheap. However, the possibility of shift from digital to film makes me nervous. I only find two kinds of articles in the web - digital to large format film and film to digital. I need your help in figuring out some of the following aspects:<br>

1.How do/did you transition from the 'digital loop' mentioned earlier, to a more accurate/tigher loop in film? Is it just practice, or did you use some interim techniques? how did you wean off the immediate gratification/verification mind-set? Did you carry your ex-dslr to shoot and verify soem basic exposure aspects,then record the image in film?<br>

<br />2. I understand that films deal better with highlights. If so, how did it affect your exposure techniques? I guess, for safety I can shoot 'to the right' and control the highlights later. Any specific do's and don'ts for portraiture and landscape ?<br>

3. Choice of film for a beginner - slide or print? Speed? Which ones for portraiture and which ones for landscape? Can you please suggest me something cheaper to start with, and progressively better as we go further. Some typical do's and don'ts for film purchase/storage/handling for a digital user...<br>

4. Lab - what should i look for when I drop off my film to a lab. I don't plan to invest in a scanner. I read that nikon coolscan does a good job.<br>

5.Post processing. I shoot RAW and do some basic processing (sharpening, white balance,curve) in aperture. Aperture is also my central repository of images. I occasionally get them printed. How did your workflow change with film? Did you now have to do something explicit, that you had taken for granted in digital? I realize that I have to import my processed film into PS , convert it to 'positive' and then start my post workflow. Any tips for asset managing the films?</p>

<p>6.Anything else i missed!!<br>

Thanks for the patient reading. I am a bit anxious about it, and just trying to come up with a detailed plan to cover things end-to-end.<br>

Best<br>

Pierre</p>

[dave_s]

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Fermat">Pierre</a>, you're going to get a huge long thread full of answers. As a first step, just burning some film, and learning from experience. You're going to have to do it sooner or later anyway.</p>

<p>If you want foolproof black-and-white, buy a couple of rolls of Ilford XP2 (a C41 chromogenic film) and expose it at an EI of 200. In color, you have many choices-- you can read for days about this on photo.net. </p>

<p>The limiting step nowadays is finding a lab (convenient and reasonably priced) that gives you good developing and scans. I send mine by mail to <a href="http://www.northcoastphoto.com/">North Coast Photo</a> and ask for their enhanced scans. </p>

<p>Someone will inevitably suggest you should develop and scan (or print) your own. I suggest you leave that for later, until you find whether you really get into film. Why complicate things?</p>

<p>Answers to two specific questions: 2. I'm not sure film in general does better with highlights. Some negative films have a lot of topside exposure latitude, like the aforementioned XP2. If you make negatives, you'll usually choose your exposure settings to preserve shadow detail, which means giving generous exposure. 3. If starting out with film, negative film is more forgiving than reversal film. </p>

[danield]

<p>Hi Pierre</p>

<p>The desire to go full frame from a crop factor digital is something many have, including myself, but costs force us into finding alternative solutions. Not sure if film is the right one though, but anyway, here's some answers to your questions:</p>

<ol>

<li> Obviously there is no instant feedback when shooting film but EOS meters do a pretty good job. If you don't find yourself dialling exposure compensation too often on your digital, then there's no real change to consider. Otherwise, with a film camera one can follow some classic rules like find the midtones, meter those with spot or area metering, shoot. Optionally, use bracketing for key shots. But one does have to consider taking the shots more carefully.</li>

<li>Negative films deal better with highlights than digital - but have lower resolution and higher grain. You should not underestimate that. Positive (slide) films have less dynamic resolution than digital and are even more tricky to expose, but give nice colours and higher-ish resolution. With negative film you can almost not care for exposure, with positive film you have to be really careful - and forget about high dynamic range scenes. Films also have specific color responses, and there are films that are better for portraiture and films that are better for landscapes, etc.</li>

<li> Negative film like Reala 100 or Kodak UC 400 for general use. Fuji NPZ for portraits. Fuji Velvia or Sensia slide film for landscapes. Some of these are no longer manufactured. There's a lot of material about these on the net.</li>

<li> Labs save time for chemical processing, so use any good ones you can find (mail or drop-in). But labs are pretty c**p at scanning. Buying a film scanner is an expensive business - good ones cost more than a used full frame camera. Film scanning at home is a very, very tedious work too, and you'll grow out of it pretty quickly. You may be able to build a DIY film scanner cheaply using your 350D and a dedicated macro setup, search on Google.</li>

<li> It sounds like you are expecting to digitize your shots, there are many hurdles on that path long as a trip to Tipperary. It's worth figuring out how you will be doing that first. Depending on the scanner you use (other than very cheap knock-offs) you will end up with some kind of RAW file. From then on the process is pretty similar, although for negative inversion it's best to use dedicated software such as VueScan. Do not underestimate the amount of color balancing and post processing you will need to do for every shot. Also, do not underestimate the impact of dust and grain on the quality of the image.</li>

<li> From my experience, if you don't have the budget to get a full-frame digital, then invest in a crop-factor ultra-wide (Sigma 10-20?) and hold on until you can move up. Otherwise film is nice and has its niche uses, but for casual day-to-day shooting it's just not worth the effort.</li>

</ol>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Otherwise film is nice and has its niche uses, but for casual day-to-day shooting it's just not worth the effort.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps not for you.</p>

<p>There was a time when film was the only option for casual day to day shooting and it seemed to work o.k. then.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Thou dost worry too much. Just go out shooting, develop and print/scan your results and analyze them. You probably will see things you want to do differently on your next roll - but at least you'll have a base to start from. If you're doing color you'll have issues above and beyond B&W, which in itself can be a challenge - but a good challenge, and learning is part of the fun. Get a good book or two along the way to get you thinking about photography from a film perspective rather than digital instant gratification. Although I grew up with film and moved substantially to digital, about 3 years ago I had the pleasure of working with a young (twentyish) man, who only knew digital snapshots, visiting me. I was headed out with film and invited him to come along. He had never seen or used a film camera, so I took one of my oldies, loaded it with color negative film, and explained the sunny 16 rule, showed him how to focus a rangefinder, and told him to think about what he wanted to shoot, frame it, set the exposure, then shoot. Much to my amazement, when we had his film developed and printed....he did a great job...missed exposure on only 1 frame, and had a newly created interest in film photography.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[There was a time when film was the only option for casual day to day shooting and it seemed to work o.k. then.]]</p>

<p>There was a time when creating a photograph involved mercury vapor and it worked "ok" then too. How many daguerreotypes have you made recently, Steve? </p>

[wogears]

<p>Lot of issues here, even without the (inevitable) film vs. digital hissy-fights. :) First of all--wouldn't it be an effective solution to learn how to expose correctly? This would eliminate the 'shoot-chimp-shoot' loop you are currently in. If you have time for the 'loop', you have time to meter carefully. You might also concentrate on learning processing--you will have to do this with film as well, unless you outsource it to a lab. (Many famous photographers did exactly that.) This is, IMO, essential to getting the image from your brain to paper.</p>

<p>Let's talk expense. It is true that excellent film cameras can be had for under $200. I recently bought a Nikon N90s for USD 58, and two 8008 Nikon bodies for about $25 each. By contrast, a 5D (Mk I) body is about $1200 used. Unfortunately, if you are shooting film all the time, that thousand dollar difference will be eaten up in a hurry. It costs me (with shipping, etc) about $20/roll of 35mm film, processed and scanned at high resolution. If I shoot fifty rolls (1800 frames), I've spent the grand already. If I buy a high-quality scanner, it will cost about $2000 for the device alone. Now there ARE expenses with digital. You will need storage space for your files and backups. You may need a new computer. But in the Real World, film will cost you more, especially if it is digitized, which will ALSO require hard drives, new computers, etc.</p>

<p>You posit two advantages to 'full frame': wider lenses and better blur. The availability of the Sigma 8-16mm zoom eliminates the first of these. And a larger sensor/film frame will not necessarily produce nicer blur; it will only provide somewhat shallower DOF, which <em>may</em> lead to <em>more</em> blur. Also, I will point out that the high-ISO performance of 35mm sensors is a moot point for landscapes and portraits. (There is also no question that digital outperforms film above (say) ISO 400.) One advantage of digital for landscapes is the ability to render accurate stitched images. I have made 40 megapixel files with my D70--you are up in the range of MF film there. This is why I bought some MF film cameras--to get very high resolution without stitching (wind and subject movement happen). I use these cameras sparingly, when I NEED the pixels. 35mm film does not cut it for these applications, nor did it do so before digital.</p>

<p><strong>@Rob Bernhard</strong>: Your <em>reductio ad absurdum </em>proves nothing. For casual shooting, daguerreotype is preposterous. 35 mm film is not.</p>

[phule]

<p>It is not meant to "prove" anything. It illustrates that technology, which is direct tied to photography, changes and that what once was common is no longer but photography has still flourished.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>First I must say that I am a 90% film shooter and would certainly love to have more film shooters to keep film manufacturer making film. However, I don't think it's a good idea for you to switch to film because of the reason you said. Like others have already said, the ultra wide can be solved with the right lens for the APS-C format. Nice brokeh? not necessarily so.<br>

You said you don't want to do any scanning yourself (or darkroom work) then you miss a lot from shooting film. If you shoot color negative film (I assume you don't shoot B&W much) the film developing can be left to the lab as it's a rigid process with no adjustment needed. But if you don't do the printing in a real darkroom and don't want to scan the negative yourself then you leave a whole lot of interpretation of your work to others. Would you want others to do the contrast, white balance etc.. for you when you shoot digital?<br>

If you decide to shoot color slide film then get yourself a light box, a good loupe and a slide projector. All of those are not expensive. Exposure for the slide is pretty much like that of digital. The dynamic range of slides are quite narrow and about the same as digital. Without the instant feedback then you will need to learn how to meter a scene. It's a rather long subject and can't really addressed in one post. Metering technique is about the same as digital. Using your digital camera as meter would work.<br>

Color negative film has much more latittude than digital and generally should be exposed to the left that is you should watchout for the shadow and let the highlight be where they may.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For what it's worth, I have an Eos 300D, and got an Eos 500 and an Eos 620 as back-up bodies. The larger field of view and finders sometimes help in their own right, especially with wider angles and with a fish-eye. When I switched to full-frame Nikon, I got an F5 film camera to use as back-up. I also have a Pentax 645 medium format, mostly for landscapes, and I'm unlikely to get the digital equivalent any time soon.<br />

<br />

On film, I mostly shoot either black and white (I too will vouch for XP2) or Velvia slide film (for landscapes) - particularly, the latter can get some colours that digital seems to struggle with. I usually get scans done when the film is developed, with an eye to sending off anything I really like to get drum scanned (although I've not yet got to that stage) - my home scanner is not very impressive with slides, so there's little point in my bothering unless I need to do radical surgery on the exposure range. I don't get everything scanned, especially if there are no offers on and I doubt I'll have many keepers. Note that, on a high resolution scan, film grain is often pretty visible compared with digital at low ISO - be ready for it. I wouldn't touch any fast colour film (again) for this reason.<br />

<br />

I've not been too scared by exposure worried - apply any adjustment that you think you might on digital, but the camera meters were designed to cope in the days of film, and you can pull a lot out of a decent scan. You can use the zone system and spot meter, but the educated guess approach works quite often in the real world.<br />

<br />

Just bear in mind that film photographs aren't free - this might slow you down and make you think about your shots, or you might think "I must use up the spare film in the fridge that's going off"; it cuts both ways. Sadly, I seem to fall in the latter category, which is a shame because I could really do with being slowed down; I must buy a 5x4...<br />

<br />

Good luck, and I hope this tale from someone who also went from digital to film helps.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>Take notes. Keep track of every exposure, and see how they turn out. You could always use your digital to chimp and figure out the exposure, then use the film camera for the "keeper" shot.</p>

<p>As far as your questions, I can't address them directly, since I shoot B&W film and use digital for color, and I shoot differently and different subjects for each.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>However, I cannot afford a digital FF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How about a used or refurbished first-generation 5D if you can find one?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>1.How do/did you transition from the 'digital loop' mentioned earlier, to a more accurate/tigher loop in film? Is it just practice, or did you use some interim techniques? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I learned to expose film first. Practice? Yes. Bracketing? Definitely, if I cared about what I was shooting. Be prepared to make many mistakes and learn from them.</p>

<p>(NOTE: I lived to regret some arrogant moments when I considered myself too skilled to worry bracket anymore. Jay Maisel brackets his shots; you and I should, too, if we care about our images.)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>how did you wean off the immediate gratification/verification mind-set?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's a dangerous excitement about not knowing whether your photos came out until days or even weeks later. The results can be like Christmas presents that you waited for for a long time.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Did you carry your ex-dslr to shoot and verify some basic exposure aspects,then record the image in film?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is very risky, because (a) film and digital don't respond to light in the same way, and (b) preview images on LCD screens are not reliable for judging exposure due to the relative intensity of the ambient light. Plus, the digital/film light response varies even more with the type of film that you use (B&W, color print, color slide).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I understand that films deal better with highlights. If so, how did it affect your exposure techniques? I guess, for safety I can shoot 'to the right' and control the highlights later. Any specific do's and don'ts for portraiture and landscape ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First of all you need to understand the latitude of your film. Print film has a LOT. Slide film has a LITTLE. You can't expose them the same way and expect good results. Experience and experimentation are important.</p>

<p>When metering you have to separate specular highlights (street lights at night, glare on shiny water) from highlights were you actually want to capture detail. You can pretty much neglect the specular highlights in most cases and let them wash out. Spot meter the important highlights along with your shadows and mid tones and see it if all fits within your film's latitude. If so, expose to fit everything in (except the specular highlights). If not (esp. with slide film), you have two choices - sacrifice either the highlights (blown) or the shadows (black), or try to compress the latitude of the scene using ND grads or some similar partial-frame masking option.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>3. Choice of film for a beginner - slide or print? Speed? Which ones for portraiture and which ones for landscape? Can you please suggest me something cheaper to start with, and progressively better as we go further. Some typical do's and don'ts for film purchase/storage/handling for a digital user...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like slide film for landscapes, print for portraits, and either/or for cityscapes. It doesn't matter if you're a beginner or more advanced. Each film will provide you with a set of challenges to master.</p>

<p>As far as labs go, you probably want to find a pro lab (not a drug store development machine). It helps to have one relatively close to where you live, but that's not easy these days, so be prepared to do some shipping. Many people develop their own film, but that will require additional investment in gear and technique. As with everything else in the Film World, expect to do some trial and error as well.</p>

<p>Post-processing: If you shoot black and white, your post processing can be done in a darkroom. Regardless of film type, you'll need to scan before you can use Aperture or the like. Scanning is a lot of work and bother, so you may prefer to have a lab do it for you. I would suggest that you forget about scanning for now. See if you can make prints/slides that you LOVE first, then worry about what to do with them later.</p>

<p>WARNING: The challenges of scanning might send you running back to Digital Camera Land.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>6.Anything else i missed!!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Borrow a camera. Shoot some film. Evaluate the results and the process. Be patient with yourself, and see how you like the whole idea.</p>

<p>GOOD LUCK!</p>

 

[pierre_fermat]

<p>All<br>

Thanks so much for your thoughts and feedback. Appreciate it. A summary of my thoughts:<br>

1. Capex and opex of digital vs. film. Opex of digital decays and storage/processing power is getting cheaper by the day. On a longer term, digital seems to be cheaper than film. But again, the 'velvia' look of landscapes or the nice BW portraits may be worth it :). I so dig the Kodachrome looks.. (yes, i know i am little too late for that)<br /><br />2. I reckon, if I have to switch to film, I have to learn/un-learn aspects of exposure. I guess thats OK. <br /><br />3. The processing bits bother me…<br />To quote Bebu<br />"But if you don't do the printing in a real darkroom and don't want to scan the negative yourself then you leave a whole lot of interpretation of your work to others. Would you want others to do the contrast, white balance etc.. for you when you shoot digital?"<br /><br />I do spend time adjusting my RAW files before exporting/printing them. I don't plan to process film myself anytime soon. If i get them processed even by a pro lab, it looks like I will loose some control over aspects like contrast/WB etc. Preliminary choices made by the lab would reduce or eliminate the latitude of adjustments that I can make on the scanned film. <br /><br /><br />I now have three options:<br />1. Continue digital; get a used FF. I may lose getting those unique film looks, but will retain full control over processing and will reduce opex.<br /><br />2. Just BW - I can get a cheaper camera and have more control (due to reduced variables) over the tonality.<br /><br />3.Take the plunge and try film for what is worth.<br /><br />THe heart says 3, but the head says 1! .</p>

[matthew_rusbarsky]

<p>Relax, buy a camera and shoot some film. Do it just for fun, and don't give up on your digital gear. There is no big plunge, just nice old SLRs for less than $50 and pro film for $6 a pop. It's not like you are planning to buy a house.</p>

[cj8281]

<p><strong>CAUTION: Beware of buying old cameras‼ </strong><br>

They are fun to shoot and you may find one for cheap, then you may find a screaming deal on a few lenses, then you may find a better model, then you may discover a different brand and then well you get the idea, its called G.A.S. Gear Aquisition Syndrome. But wait, that is not all. You may want to try and <em>develop </em>your own film, this will also lead to more gear that needs to be acquired, oh and then there is the chemistry to go along with that. You may get some great shots and then you might think "Hey I can print this at home, all I need is one of them enlarger thingies that everyone is getting rid of". This will then possibly cause you to convert a bathroom into a room of darkness and acquire more gear. You may even discover that you might possibly be having fun. Don't even get me started on medium format or (Heaven Forbid) Large Format.</p>