Reading mode: Light Dark

The high cost of film

Go to last post
When you become more intimate with the subject you are photographing you produce better images. The Leica is a very intimate camera. The C330 requires more planning and work than you Hasselblad.

In one of my the intermediate photography classes I taught we check out a TLR to everyone. We gave them one roll of TriX. They had to make that roll of TriX last a week. The next week in class we developed the film. The next week the students printed four images from the that roll. The comments we got back was - when you only have 12 exposures you make sure every image you take is a good image.

Today with a digital - point the sucker and fire away. You don't have to worry about getting the good image because what you lack in quality in a single image you will make with with quantity and a little luck.

Film requires you to work a little, to visualize a lot to get what you want. That I think is the difference and it shows in the images. Digital to many people is more about "spray and pray."
me_tarzan said:
Strange thing, re film.
Click to expand...
me_tarzan said:
IMHO, the pics I get from my Mamiya C330F appeal to me more than the pics I get from my Hasselblad (which is supposed to have better lenses) - so maybe I'm just a bit demented and like old and crappy stuff.......
Click to expand...
--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt
 
Erik Magnuson said:
This is a scratch on the emulsion.
Click to expand...
On he contrary, it doesn't look like a scratch to me. I get a similar problem if I try scanning a negative with my flatbed scanner. It looks to me like a dead set of pixels in the scanner. As the sensor in the scanner is probably a line-scan CCD that's exactly the affect you will get.

The obvious question is whether the line is there when you examine the negative with a loupe.

--
Thanks,
Gary.
 
gbainbridge said:
On he contrary, it doesn't look like a scratch to me. I get a similar problem if I try scanning a negative with my flatbed scanner. It looks to me like a dead set of pixels in the scanner. As the sensor in the scanner is probably a line-scan CCD that's exactly the affect you will get.

The obvious question is whether the line is there when you examine the negative with a loupe.
Click to expand...
I took a look at the negative with a 5x loupe. There is no visible evidence of this streak on the negative so I think you're right: It's something with the drugstore scanner. The prints must have been done from the scanner data, so they show the same streak.

Also, the negative shows several scratches that pass all the way through the frame horizontally but if the scan had caught them they would have been fine lines. Thest scratches indicate also that the processing was really poor. To get a really good reading on the camera I'll need to send a roll off to Richard Photo Lab. They most likely will handle it with care, but it will take at least 10 days I imagine, since for me this does not have high priority.

I'll post my results in this thread if and when I get them. Thanks again for your help and suggestions.

--
Tom Schum
 
me_tarzan said:
Strange thing, re film.

When I take my Leica M2 or M3 out for a shoot, I usually just have one lens (50mm) - sometimes I use the 21mm and sometimes the 135mm. (and occasionally, the many other Leica lenses I have). In theory, I should be "behind the 8 ball", as compared with my Pentax K5 (and its huge zooms). The thing is - when I get the films back and scan them, fiddle with them under ACDSee or Lightroom etc - zowie! I end up with films that are more appealing. It's very hard to quantify but the end result is more pleasant to me than the "perfect" digital pics. Not nearly as convenient and as the previous member explains - a hell of a lot more expensive but still... I can't let film go.
Click to expand...
You've really stated it well: even with the lousy drugstore processing I can see something subtle and arty, and I don't think I'll be able to get it even with a SD1! Also, now I am beginning to see why the Holga and Lomo products have such enduring markets.

What will be interesting to see, at least for me, will be the maximum resolution scans from Richard lab, and whether or not they can compare to SD1 imagery. I did buy a few rolls more of Kodak UltraMax 400, so I'll be sending an exposed roll to them hopefully later this week. For this, I really don't care that much about the grain; I'm still evaluating the performance of my copy of the SA-7n. There is no reason to expect it to fail the scratch test but I'll find out soon.
--
Tom Schum
 
Truman Prevatt said:
In one of my the intermediate photography classes I taught we check out a TLR to everyone. We gave them one roll of TriX. They had to make that roll of TriX last a week. The next week in class we developed the film. The next week the students printed four images from the that roll. The comments we got back was - when you only have 12 exposures you make sure every image you take is a good image.

Today with a digital - point the sucker and fire away. You don't have to worry about getting the good image because what you lack in quality in a single image you will make with with quantity and a little luck.

Film requires you to work a little, to visualize a lot to get what you want. That I think is the difference and it shows in the images. Digital to many people is more about "spray and pray."
Click to expand...
My first 24-exposure roll really disappeared quickly! Gone in a flash! I know what you mean!
--
Tom Schum
 
Tom Schum said:
My question to the esteemed multitudes out there on the Sigma forum is, "Is it worth it to shoot film?"
Click to expand...
Film (negative, anyway) still wins in dynamic range and exposure latitude, especially the new Portras. When you get to medium format, the quality of the images can also be superior in terms of focus falloff from the focal plane. I still shoot film - Bronica GS-1 (6x7), EOS 3, F-1 and Fujica, Canonet and Yashica rangefinders. My Rolleiflex SLX and MAT-124G don't get much use. I process my own B&W and C-41 films, then scan on either a Nikon LS-4000 (35mm) or Epson V500 with Vuescan.
--
Tony-S
 
I have the Plustek 7600i and it is worth the expense. If you have a lot of slides to scan and many are Kodachrome, then the 7600i is worth it partially based on the full version of Silverfast scanning software that comes with the scanner.

I have over 5K slides to scan with at least 75% Kodachrome. I also still shoot film for the serious photography that I do.

You can not go wrong with the Plustek.
--
JRB
 
Truman Prevatt said:
When you become more intimate with the subject you are photographing you produce better images. The Leica is a very intimate camera. The C330 requires more planning and work than you Hasselblad.

In one of my the intermediate photography classes I taught we check out a TLR to everyone. We gave them one roll of TriX. They had to make that roll of TriX last a week. The next week in class we developed the film. The next week the students printed four images from the that roll. The comments we got back was - when you only have 12 exposures you make sure every image you take is a good image.

Today with a digital - point the sucker and fire away. You don't have to worry about getting the good image because what you lack in quality in a single image you will make with with quantity and a little luck.

Film requires you to work a little, to visualize a lot to get what you want. That I think is the difference and it shows in the images. Digital to many people is more about "spray and pray."
me_tarzan said:
Strange thing, re film.
Click to expand...
Truman Prevatt said:
IMHO, the pics I get from my Mamiya C330F appeal to me more than the pics I get from my Hasselblad (which is supposed to have better lenses) - so maybe I'm just a bit demented and like old and crappy stuff.......
Click to expand...
--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt
Click to expand...
I agree 100%+. In 2008 I spent 10 days in Michigan's Upper Peninsula taking nothing but digital images. I took well in excess of 800. Now, I have been in photography for over 57 years but composition is still my weak point. Out of 800 I had about 20 that I considered really good and honest to god "keepers". Talk about "spray and pray"!!

In 2010 I went back to the Upper Peninsula with my last 10 rolls of Kodachrome using my absolute favorite SLR (Pentax LX). Shot 360 slides and spent the extra time for correct exposure and, in particular, composition. I would say I have crowding 100 slides that I consider "keepers". Still not good but much better than my 'spray and pray" performance of 2008.

I just bought a DP2X on 8/10 and after 50 images I will say this camera does make you think and work. Just like my film days and the way it should be.
--
JRB
 
I used to shoot film exclusively, both 35mm and 120 6x7, the cost of quality development put an end to it. I also processed myself, but I found myself dreading the scanning, the dust removal etc... I spent more time splashing around chemicals than I did actually taking photos, which sucked.

I'm exclusively digital now, and it's been great, the SD15 gives awesome results, I wish it was as small as my Leica M6 was, but it's much more flexible too, so it's a small price to pay.

I do miss the tactile cameras though, where is the digital OM4ti, or Pentax LX? Why is it all big plastic lumps these days? Fuji is making a bit of an effort though.

MT
 
Tom Schum said:
I just bought a used Sigma SA-7n camera so I can experiment with film while using my nice SA-mount lenses.

Unfortunately before I can start shooting film, I have to clean the dust out of the mirror box. Not a show stopper but I have to set aside an afternoon....

But what I want to mention is that I was astounded how expensive it really is to shoot film! I paid $8 for a good-quality 24-exposure roll of Kodak film, and the camera batteries (2 pcs CR2 lithium) cost me $15. Maybe they will be good for 10 rolls. Not only this, I find out that it will cost me $6 for quality developing at north coast photo, and I have to mail it to them for maybe $5 or so. I'm thinking about having the film scanned so I can process 18 mpixel images from the film, and that costs $12 extra.

This is for a 24-exposure roll. With my "hit rate" I'll be lucky to get one or two keepers. Summing up the costs, it looks like each exposure will cost me $1.35, regardless whether or not it is a keeper. If I get 2 keepers per roll, the cost per keeper is $16.25! Of course these incremental costs would go down by 1/3 if I use 36 exposure rolls, but the 24-exposure roll was hard to find anyway.

At $32.50 per roll, I could either shoot 215 rolls or buy a SD1 (of course I don't have the money for either of these alternatives).

My question to the esteemed multitudes out there on the Sigma forum is, "Is it worth it to shoot film?"
--
Tom Schum
Click to expand...
Film is expensive but it isn't that bad... especially if you've been shooting digital for while.

The battery is something you won't ever have to buy in a while. You can buy nice slide film for $4 from bhphoto, and 120processing.com father company develops for a pretty decent price.

I just got into 6x6 120 film (specifically slide) and I love it. Just take your time with each photo and don't fire off shots like we tend to do with digital. Make sure each one is thought out and well exposed. If I can get nice exposed images with my Yashica-mat with no light meter (using iPhone app instead) then you can definitely get one with the SA7.

Have fun
--
-Chris Pandoliano
http://www.pandaism.com
http://www.twitter.com/ThePanda61

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thepanda/
 
Tom Schum said:
Also, the negative shows several scratches that pass all the way through the frame horizontally
Click to expand...
That's not good. Once the negatives are scratched you've lost any chance of a decent photo.
Tom Schum said:
I'll need to send a roll off to Richard Photo Lab.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately here in the UK I've yet to find any lab which does a decent job. Sending my films off to the US really isn't practical, plus they'll probably get fogged going through X-ray.

In the early days of digital I had some films processed and transferred to Kodak PhotoCD with excellent results. Have Kodak given up on that format? All I seem to see now is transfers to Jpeg.

--
Thanks,
Gary.
 
Jim Beverlin said:
I have the Plustek 7600i and it is worth the expense. If you have a lot of slides to scan and many are Kodachrome, then the 7600i is worth it partially based on the full version of Silverfast scanning software that comes with the scanner.

I have over 5K slides to scan with at least 75% Kodachrome. I also still shoot film for the serious photography that I do.

You can not go wrong with the Plustek.
--
JRB
Click to expand...
I looked at the 7600i and the 7400i and for me my expected volume of film use will be small. So, for me they would be overkill. Better for me to send the few rolls of film off to the pros for development and scanning. Now, if I get addicted to film it will be another story (nobody to inherit 5000 slides from at this point).
--
Tom Schum
 
gbainbridge said:
In the early days of digital I had some films processed and transferred to Kodak PhotoCD with excellent results. Have Kodak given up on that format? All I seem to see now is transfers to Jpeg.
Click to expand...
When I took my film to the drugstore I had an option to get a Kodak photo CD, so that is what I ordered.

When I got it, it had small JPG files for each frame and a bunch of install stuff to run the CD on my windows computer (I guess). I did not try that.
The JPGs were messed up because of poor scanning.

Since film is now becoming a niche in the vast consumer marketplace, the standards are dropping fast!
--
Tom Schum
 
mugent said:
I used to shoot film exclusively, both 35mm and 120 6x7, the cost of quality development put an end to it. I also processed myself, but I found myself dreading the scanning, the dust removal etc... I spent more time splashing around chemicals than I did actually taking photos, which sucked.

I'm exclusively digital now, and it's been great, the SD15 gives awesome results, I wish it was as small as my Leica M6 was, but it's much more flexible too, so it's a small price to pay.

I do miss the tactile cameras though, where is the digital OM4ti, or Pentax LX? Why is it all big plastic lumps these days? Fuji is making a bit of an effort though.
Click to expand...
I still hope to show that film gives more detail than I can get with my SD15. Theoretically this should be true, but as you say scanning and dust and scratches really can cost in terms of image quality in the end.

Having done hobby 35mm black and white in high school too many years ago, I can agree with you that any time spent with chemicals is too much time spent with chemicals. That's why I don't expect to send any film out without having it scanned at the processor's facility. I don't expect to handle the negatives at all, under any conditions.

I can agree with you that a camera with an authoritative heft speaks precision and durability, and simply feels better to use. However these days nobody wants to pack them. They want a light camera. Fuji is experimenting with a niche product in the X100, and I wish them well. Also, Leica continues to be a niche product. Ken Rockwell compares it to a nice expensive handgun: Very well made, very durable, and of course very precise. Even military equipment can't really compare to it, since they're making it as light as possible now.

I was surprised that my new used Sigma SA-7n was so light. Less weight to it than the SD15 body, that's for sure. The shutter is like a toy cap gun firing (lots of clanking without the pop) and the auto film advance I can live without. I wish it had the manual film advance lever of yesteryear!
--
Tom Schum
 
The Panda said:
I just got into 6x6 120 film (specifically slide) and I love it. Just take your time with each photo and don't fire off shots like we tend to do with digital. Make sure each one is thought out and well exposed. If I can get nice exposed images with my Yashica-mat with no light meter (using iPhone app instead) then you can definitely get one with the SA7.
Click to expand...
Wow! Hard telling if I will ever be ready to do 120. The heirloom family camera is an Argus 75, which takes 620 film I believe (same size).

I was concerned about whether or not the SA-7n would work at all, and with the first roll I could see that it got the exposure correct, autofocus seemed to work OK at least some of the time, and mechanically it was all good. I was able to see that manual focus worked well too.

I feel like I need to clean it inside much more carefully before trying a second roll of film, so I can be really sure there is nothing in the film path even invisibly small to scratch the film. However, it looks like the scratches I saw on the first roll were put on the film AFTER scanning.

Yes my first roll disappeared way too quickly! I found myself doing two shots per scene, just as I have a habit of doing with my SD15 (autofocus and exposure are not always perfectly consistent). No need for that!

--
Tom Schum
 
Tom Schum said:
gbainbridge said:
In the early days of digital I had some films processed and transferred to Kodak PhotoCD with excellent results. Have Kodak given up on that format? All I seem to see now is transfers to Jpeg.
Click to expand...
When I took my film to the drugstore I had an option to get a Kodak photo CD, so that is what I ordered.

When I got it, it had small JPG files for each frame and a bunch of install stuff to run the CD on my windows computer (I guess). I did not try that.
The JPGs were messed up because of poor scanning.
Click to expand...
A genuine Kodak PhotoCD disk does not contain any JPGs. The image files are .pcd format, which bundles several resolutions.

However, even the biggest is only 6 Mpix, which is low by today's standards.

If you expect to shoot hundreds of rolls of film, it is worth getting a scanner. Or, use an SD1 with a macro lens to digitize the film.
Tom Schum said:
Since film is now becoming a niche in the vast consumer marketplace, the standards are dropping fast!
--
Tom Schum
Click to expand...
 
Is it worth it to shoot film?

That depends on what you figure your time is worth. While the up-front and processing cost of film is high, the upside is that, after shooting, you hand the exposed film off to a third party and they do the work.

With digital, you get to shoot hundreds more frames, but then you also get to do all the "developing" yourself.

Bye-bye normal life and hello sleep deprivation.

Another important drawback to shooting digital is that you longer have the luxury of ranting at someone else for their poor processing. Though you can still stand in front of a mirror and rant at your reflection when things don't turn out right.

--

"If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough" - I thought this was original, but it's very close to what someone else said. Oh, well.

"Not to compete whole-heartedly, with a will to win, degrades the sport and insults the competition" - anonymous Olympic long-distance runner

"Mongo not know ... Mongo just pawn in game of life." - Mongo

http://www.ChuckLantz.com
 
Tom Schum said:
I still hope to show that film gives more detail than I can get with my SD15. Theoretically this should be true, but as you say scanning and dust and scratches really can cost in terms of image quality in the end.
Click to expand...
My Bronica GS-1 6x7 with Velvia 50 has about the same resolution as my Canon 5Dii. However, the color negative films will get you about 12 (Ektar, Fujicolor) to 14 (Portra) stops of dynamic range, compared to about 10 stops for my 5Dii. Of course, this means shadow detail and highlight retention of film is superior if the scene has that much dynamic range. In addition, with Portra (and to a lesser extent the other color neg films) you can miss your exposure by 4 or 5 stops and still get a very good image. No digital camera can do that.

With B&W, the dynamic range can be even greater. Adams' mantra was "expose for the shadows, process for the highlights." With digital, it's "expose for the highlights and pray you get the shadows ."
--
Tony-S
 
Antone said:
With B&W, the dynamic range can be even greater. Adams' mantra was "expose for the shadows, process for the highlights." With digital, it's "expose for the highlights and pray you get the shadows ."
--
Tony-S
Click to expand...
The rule was

for negatives, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights
for positives, expose for the highlights and pray for the shadows.

A digital camera produces only positive images. My impression is that the exposure algorithms expose for mid tones, which is why the highlights are often burned out, at least on the JPGs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top