Personally I don't like Velvia. It works for some types of shots, but most of the time I'll pass. I particularly don't like the purple shadows and the skin tones. As far as weak/strong points of film... well I wouldn't say color is a 'weak' point. But I could certainly see that it might not be to everyone's taste. However, it will probably take a bit more work than what you are used to with digital, and there will probably be a bit more of an imprint of the film medium on the final image. It's not for everyone.
Try some slide film. Maybe Velvia, maybe Ektachrome, maybe Provia. If you like bold colors and high contrast, slide film is where I'd look.
But damn, $10/shot? Things must be a lot more expensive over there.
denoir wrote:
It's not particularly just indoors shots, in fact I'm mostly interested in medium format landscape shots. It seems to me however that colors are the weak point. If you look at Nate's Velvia monkey picture above - that's from what I've seen is about as good as it gets color wise with film. It's fine but still not quite what I want. And what I'm getting is much worse than that.
Take a look at this shot for instance, Ektar 100 as well. The colors are just washed out and none of my standard PP methods seem to work. Increasing contrast or saturation doesn't seem to help. I'm getting nowhere with curves adjustments...
I don't know. Perhaps I should try velvia and perhaps I should try slide film and see if I get something better but it seems right now difficult for me to justify the extra work and the cost. With developing and scanning each 6x7 shot such as the above costs me about $10 and I'm just getting rubbish out of it. ...Show more →
Right now precision photo in texas is offering $11.99 developing and high res scanning for 120/220 C-41/E-6. I'm planning to give them a try, but have never used them. NCPS definitely has made me very happy with my scans.
denoir wrote:
Take a look at this shot for instance, Ektar 100 as well. The colors are just washed out and none of my standard PP methods seem to work. Increasing contrast or saturation doesn't seem to help. I'm getting nowhere with curves adjustments...
I just think you're used to being able to save shots like that in PP, where in reality the light just wasn't that good. I don't mean that at all offensively, digital just makes it a lot easier to do things like bring up shadows and alter color in post. With film you've gotta know what you're hoping to get before you take the shot, and whether or not the film is going to let it happen.
Sorry if I'm preaching to the choir here. I love the shot a few posts above with the lights and snowy cars -- great stuff.
thrice wrote:
Haha love the shot of the monkeys Nate. Wonder why the man was so annoyed to find them on it... it doesn't look like a supremely pristine machine itself. Very recognisable lens that 35 lux asph.
Any idea what that girl wrote in the sand?
As for the monkeys, like any feud no one really knows how it started, but rock wielding Cambodians will chase the monkeys down and unleash on them. It might have to do with many monkeys having hep b.
I'm not sure what she wrote, but it normally isn't long before someone posts what it means.
Denoir! Japanphoto charges only 39 SEK for developing one roll of 120 slide film, no matter what sort. I got very nice results with Provia 100 F, which I then scanned myself. But the cost of developing shouldn't have to be too bad then.
And then again; film is *not* going to look as perfect as digital. Colors will be off, too saturated, too dull, et cetera. Why not try to like it? In the shots you posted, I would only make minor adjustments to make them look good to my eye.
Personally I love film, not so much C-41, but mostly Velvia(50). I love the colors, the skin-tones and the shadows. Here are a few examples of how good Velvia can look:
cgiff wrote:
I just think you're used to being able to save shots like that in PP, where in reality the light just wasn't that good. I don't mean that at all offensively, digital just makes it a lot easier to do things like bring up shadows and alter color in post. With film you've gotta know what you're hoping to get before you take the shot, and whether or not the film is going to let it happen.
Sorry if I'm preaching to the choir here. I love the shot a few posts above with the lights and snowy cars -- great stuff....Show more →
Thanks. You are right that the light wasn't ideal but still, it's way worse than I expected. As it happens, I have no metering prism so I used my compact Leica X1 for metering and subsequently I've got shots from both that I can compare. The shots below are in pairs - digital then film. They are not exactly the same but they were taken at the same time under the same roughly of t
#1
#2
#3
#4
I actually prefer the film shots, #2 and #4 but that has more to do with the medium format than with colors.
I have so far tried Ektar 100 and Portra 160 VC and can't say that I'm a huge fan of either. I suppose that I should explore some other color films as well. I have not tried slides yet.
Makten wrote:
Denoir! Japanphoto charges only 39 SEK for developing one roll of 120 slide film, no matter what sort. I got very nice results with Provia 100 F, which I then scanned myself. But the cost of developing shouldn't have to be too bad then.
And then again; film is *not* going to look as perfect as digital. Colors will be off, too saturated, too dull, et cetera. Why not try to like it? In the shots you posted, I would only make minor adjustments to make them look good to my eye.
I develop my stuff and get it scanned at Crimson. They charge a bit more for the development and quite a lot for the scanning. It's quite convenient - I just post one of their envelopes with the film roll and I can download the images a day or two later. I would not even mind the price, but the scans are not very good, or at least I think they are not. And they are quite small - 3 Megapixel (1900 x 1500).
So I'm at a crossroads. Either I give up the film thing or postpone it or get a big expensive film scanner. It's the size of the thing that bothers me the most, I don't really have any good place to put it. The other alternative is to try a couple different film stocks and see if I like the results better - although I'm pretty sure the scans that I'm getting won't improve...
One more question - is there any fine grained film stock (slide or negative) that you can recommend that comes as close as possible to conventional digital color reproduction? I think it might be easier if I started with something that isn't too far from what I'm used to working with.
Try Fuji 160 - It works for me. Last year I got several jobs due to the fact that my chosen film does not blow higlights, have dull colours, lack depth, look rubbish when the sun is not ideal...
I must admit I am surprised by the idea prevalent in this thread that the colour of film is worse somehow than digital. You just need to understand your workflow, which admittedly takes some time.
denoir wrote:
That's good to hear. So if decide to get a film scanner and to it myself I should be able to get higher image quality.
Any thoughts about the Epson V750 Pro?
Me, I tried scanning myself and it made me even more frustrated than I was with bad scans. I had a V700 and despite numerous hours behind it, most waiting on it's slow ass to scan I never really got the quality out of it I was looking for. I've been much happier with NCPS.
You want film that looks like digital? Just shoot digital
Just wanted to clarify - even though I don't really like Velvia for my work, Nate really knows how to work it. It really depends on what you like and what you shoot. And I LOVE the color of some good film
I'd consider sending my film to the US to NCPS or Precision Digital. $10-12 development and big scans.
Try Fuji 160 - It works for me. Last year I got several jobs due to the fact that my chosen film does not blow higlights, have dull colours, lack depth, look rubbish when the sun is not ideal...
I must admit I am surprised by the idea prevalent in this thread that the colour of film is worse somehow than digital. You just need to understand your workflow, which admittedly takes some time.
Well, it is less accurate as a semiconductor diode tuned to a specific wavelength will always be more accurate than a chemical process. If it's better or worse will of course depend on your own preferences. I think it's largely a question of what you are used to.
Thanks for the Fuji 160 tip.
TWoK wrote:
Me, I tried scanning myself and it made me even more frustrated than I was with bad scans. I had a V700 and despite numerous hours behind it, most waiting on it's slow ass to scan I never really got the quality out of it I was looking for. I've been much happier with NCPS.
Hmm. Unfortunately not an option for me. The lab I use charges ridiculous amounts for high rez scans (something on the order of magnitude of $50 per scanned image). It's possible that there are other local alternatives but there are very few labs that even support film development.
kidtexas wrote:
You want film that looks like digital? Just shoot digital
But I do! The film thing is not something that I take seriously - just something to play around with. Plus there are still no decent medium format digital cameras. I started with film because I wanted to try medium format and got a Pentax 67. If there existed good 6x7 digital medium format cameras then I would not bother with film at all. As it is, it might, just might be worth it to learn to properly use film in order to be able to shoot medium format.
I'd consider sending my film to the US to NCPS or Precision Digital. $10-12 development and big scans.
I'd then have to wait a couple of weeks to get the scans. Too much hassle for something that I'm just experimenting with out of curiosity.
denoir wrote:
I'd then have to wait a couple of weeks to get the scans. Too much hassle for something that I'm just experimenting with out of curiosity.
If you're not patient to wait a few weeks or pay higher prices for better scans then film probably isn't for you.
I mean $11.99 at Precision is so cheap it's almost free. I wouldn't pay $1 for whatever scans you got from that place. More resolution isn't going to fix the scans.
denoir wrote:
But I do! The film thing is not something that I take seriously - just something to play around with. Plus there are still no decent medium format digital cameras. I started with film because I wanted to try medium format and got a Pentax 67. If there existed good 6x7 digital medium format cameras then I would not bother with film at all. As it is, it might, just might be worth it to learn to properly use film in order to be able to shoot medium format.
There are plenty of decent digital MF cameras. I can't afford them, but they are out there
I'd be willing to say if you aren't willing to take film that seriously, you are probably just wasting your time.
I'd then have to wait a couple of weeks to get the scans. Too much hassle for something that I'm just experimenting with out of curiosity.
Oh the horrors!
Shoot film because you want to shoot film. I like film's colors, dynamic range, and colors. I like my film cameras, I like some of the non-digital-compatible lenses I use, and I like printing in the darkroom. I don't mind the workflow that much: the scanning, the developing, and the periodic waiting for results. If you don't like film's colors, grain, and dynamic range, and the workflow is too onerous, then I don't see any real point in shooting it.
I hate to say that because I love film and try to encourage it's use. But it might not be a good fit for you.
kidtexas wrote:
There are plenty of decent digital MF cameras. I can't afford them, but they are out there
6x7 minimum and with live view (60 megapixels is pointless if you can't get the focus exactly right). Name one.
Believe me, there are none. I'll be the first one to buy when they come. I borrowed a Hasselblad H4D-60 a while ago and it was really a grave disappointment. Digital medium format lags behind DSLR technology about a decade. The new Pentax 645d is a valiant effort but the sensor is too small and it's CCD so no live view. There are some Phase One backs that have it, but they have other shortcomings.
I'd be willing to say if you aren't willing to take film that seriously, you are probably just wasting your time.
Probably, but it can be an interesting waste of time.
Shoot film because you want to shoot film. I like film's colors, dynamic range, and colors. I like my film cameras, I like some of the non-digital-compatible lenses I use, and I like printing in the darkroom. I don't mind the workflow that much: the scanning, the developing, and the periodic waiting for results. If you don't like film's colors, grain, and dynamic range, and the workflow is too onerous, then I don't see any real point in shooting it.
Well, I like few things of the ones you listed, but for the most part I'm happy with digital. There are two primary points for me. The first one, I've mentioned - the only reasonable option for shooting medium format until the digital ones improve. The film version is far from my requirements but at least it's cheap. The other thing is that I really like film cameras. I like the build, the mechanical shutter using the wind lever etc They simply feel good to use. It's of course not a reason to start shooting film seriously but enough that it can be fun to do on occasion.
sirimiri wrote:
Wha? Is there a qualifier missing in there, somewhere?
Nope, I don't think so. I'm waiting for a 6x7 CMOS sensor based medium format camera to come on the market. I'd prefer a reasonable price, but I'd probably be willing to pay as much as the current one costs.
denoir, to be honest I'm not sure I've understood why you'd bother. From the little I've seen from your photography it looks like you enjoy lots of detail with consistent, realistic colours. Film is going to set you back in all these areas, you can still achieve it but with more pain than digital because film is generally much less massageable after the fact. Some film stocks are great for resqueing highlights but thats about it. Film is not realistic, its an interpretation of reality which you have to accept and love, otherwise you'll be frustrated.
If you insist because you love a specific camera or whatever maybe try Astia, I reckon this is a close as you'll get to what you want, then be prepared to invest many frustrated hours learning to scan. But why not stick with digital and your zeiss glass and be happy?
denoir wrote:
Well, it is less accurate as a semiconductor diode tuned to a specific wavelength will always be more accurate than a chemical process. If it's better or worse will of course depend on your own preferences. I think it's largely a question of what you are used to.
Why?
They are both simply methods of transforming information into different form, film has a 100 plus year head start on developing technology
Is there a qualifier missing in there, somewhere? 
