rsolti13 wrote: Bruce Marriner wrote: rsolti13 wrote:
Got my last couple of rolls done....I've decided I quit. I have serious skill issues with film. Below 250D
For what it's worth, I like the photos.
lol…thanks. I just struggle so much with film, but it doesn’t help that I don’t develop and rely on labs for scanning. I don’t shoot enough and don’t have the time to do film right. I feel my comps on film aren’t anywhere they should be and I don’t have the freedom like I do in a 60mp file. Without a doubt skill issue
Honestly, those first three are lighting nightmares. Film just doesn’t have the dynamic range of digital. Considering that - I thought you did well to get what you did. It isn't skill or the lab - it is the media - imo
Hm I don’t know about that. You should be able to get pleasing results in these situations with color negative film, esp 250D which has huge dynamic range.
I think color balance of the scans is kinda screwed up. If it was my film, I’d change to a different lab for scanning or do it myself..
Also looks like these were underexposed, as shadows go quite muddy. Probably relying on a built-in reflective meter that was thrown off by the bright patches?
You are free to think whatever you want. I had no intention of starting a disagreement. Professionally I avoided lighting like that, because it was problematic. However, I did look it up first. Current color negative film dynamic range falls between 12-15 ev. To get the 15 ev requires over exposure. Current mirrorless sensors are 15-17+ ev. Nothing approaches the human eye at 20-21 ev.
I'm sure to the eye it looked a pleasant scene, but capturing it is a challenge for both film and digital. It is why I thought he did a good job of it.
rsolti13 wrote: Bruce Marriner wrote: rsolti13 wrote:
Got my last couple of rolls done....I've decided I quit. I have serious skill issues with film. Below 250D
For what it's worth, I like the photos.
lol…thanks. I just struggle so much with film, but it doesn’t help that I don’t develop and rely on labs for scanning. I don’t shoot enough and don’t have the time to do film right. I feel my comps on film aren’t anywhere they should be and I don’t have the freedom like I do in a 60mp file. Without a doubt skill issue
Honestly, those first three are lighting nightmares. Film just doesn’t have the dynamic range of digital. Considering that - I thought you did well to get what you did. It isn't skill or the lab - it is the media - imo
Hm I don’t know about that. You should be able to get pleasing results in these situations with color negative film, esp 250D which has huge dynamic range.
I think color balance of the scans is kinda screwed up. If it was my film, I’d change to a different lab for scanning or do it myself..
Also looks like these were underexposed, as shadows go quite muddy. Probably relying on a built-in reflective meter that was thrown off by the bright patches?
You are free to think whatever you want. I had no intention of starting a disagreement. Professionally I avoided lighting like that, because it was problematic. However, I did look it up first. Current color negative film dynamic range falls between 12-15 ev. To get the 15 ev requires over exposure. Current mirrorless sensors are 15-17+ ev. Nothing approaches the human eye at 20-21 ev.
I'm sure to the eye it looked a pleasant scene, but capturing it is a challenge for both film and digital. It is why I thought he did a good job of it.
Jul 06, 2026 at 08:46 AM
Previous versions of James Markus's message #17067103 « Post your recent film shots! »
