Pentax/Camera Marketplace |
Pentax Items for Sale |
Wanted Pentax Items |
Pentax Deals |
Deal Finder & Price Alerts |
Price Watch Forum |
My Marketplace Activity |
List a New Item |
Get seller access! |
Pentax Stores |
Pentax Retailer Map |
Pentax Photos |
Sample Photo Search |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Today's Photos |
Free Photo Storage |
Member Photo Albums |
User Photo Gallery |
Exclusive Gallery |
Photo Community |
Photo Sharing Forum |
Critique Forum |
Official Photo Contests |
World Pentax Day Gallery |
World Pentax Day Photo Map |
Pentax Resources |
Articles and Tutorials |
Member-Submitted Articles |
Recommended Gear |
Firmware Update Guide |
Firmware Updates |
Pentax News |
Pentax Lens Databases |
Pentax Lens Reviews |
Pentax Lens Search |
Third-Party Lens Reviews |
Lens Compatibility |
Pentax Serial Number Database |
In-Depth Reviews |
SLR Lens Forum |
Sample Photo Archive |
Forum Discussions |
New Posts |
Today's Threads |
Photo Threads |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Recent Updates |
Today's Photos |
Quick Searches |
Unanswered Threads |
Recently Liked Posts |
Forum RSS Feed |
Go to Page... |
|
Search this Thread |
04-06-2018, 05:12 AM | #46 |
My first camera (about 1950) was a 127 roll film Baby Brownie, 8 exposures per roll. I used various 127 cameras through the 1950s, even making a plexiglass underwater housing for one. With 8 shots per roll you get very selective. My first 35mm was a Stereo Realist slide camera, then got a Pentax H1a early in college. It seemed to take forever to use up 36 shots, so I usually bought 20 exposure rolls (film switched to 24 as a short roll later). Now I bulk load my own short rolls, and process a roll every week or two. I shoot digital the same as I do film - still trying to get the best capture I can for each shot. I don't make great pictures, but I sure enjoy the process, and am glad I started with film to train my habits. | |
04-06-2018, 05:30 AM | #47 |
I’d say ‘no cropping’ is a step too far; in my living memory I could walk from my office to a professional lab on my lunch hour, select exposures from a contact sheet and the next day mark up test prints with a grease pencil with a lab printer looking over my shoulder My wife could take prints of her ancestors to a lab - even 11 x 1 7 art prints - and have them reproduced on her selection of paper, retouched to fix age spots and marks, tinted to her pleasure, and have multiple prints made for her siblings (and the Colorado History Museum). | |
04-06-2018, 09:09 AM - 1 Like | #48 |
Kodak's new Portra 400 film - On Landscape And anything you do, like adding an s curve, will increase contrast somewhere from linear, 1stop=1stop, in that case in the midtones. Negative film has an s curve already, and lower contrast in the midtones 1stop=.7stop. You won't be lowering contrast with digital, no matter how much you want to. That has real consequences for the way your pictures look, dsmithfx's picture I posted above as an example, there's no reason to even attempt this picture with digital, it would look so bad, imo. On film, it's magic. Magic? Not really. If an s-curve is continuous and starts from the same points, it will have to be steep in the middle to connect the curvy ends. Otherwise, you’d have very objectionable tonal crossovers. If the curve extends away from a shallower middle, then that curve has greater dynamic range, at least at some signal/noise ratio. The author of the article you linked was comparing very grainy (even in the base exposure—I can see it on my iPhone) fast film with digital technology that is now 13 years old. I’m not sure that is illuminating, to be honest. The 645z has 14.5ish stops of usable dynamic range, meaning range that has a usable signal/noise ratio, according to carefully done tests at DXOMark. Having tone that can be brought up isn’t the same thing as showing real detail distinguishable from grain/noise. None of his images looked good to me—flat in the mid-tones even on my forgiving iPhone. That photo with the muddy mass of a guy standing in front of a sunset would be very easy on the latest sensors, where shadow detail that looks black on the camera’s LCD can be brought up in post without the excessive graininess of these images. Most reviewers of the latest cameras, particularly the 645z, comment on the extreme ability to recover usable images out of what looks black on the camera display. Here are just four examples of reviews from working pros that highlight shadow recovery: http://starvingphotographer.com/pentax-645z-real-world-dynamic-range/ http://thephotofundamentalist.com/pentax-ricoh/pentax-645z-review-opinion-part-2/3/ https://www.photigy.com/pentax-645z-review-part-3-comparisons-of-the-dynamic-range/ https://www.aarondickson.co.uk/single-post/2017/05/09/Pentax-645Z-Review The last one includes this picture: The image on the right is what could be recovered from the image on the left. No grain, noise, or loss of detail there. We also have to think about the display medium, too. What do you do with a color negative? There are only two choices left (and, increasingly, only one) that are generally available. You could make a C-print, which will have an even narrower range, or you can scan it. And if you scan it, you have a range of choices: 1. Consumer flatbed—needs the one real advantage of color negatives: they compress all that range into a narrow density range. I have to scan into the ProPhoto color space not to clip the histogram when scanning negatives. But that flatbeds mortals can sustain are low resolution. My Epson 750 adds no detail when the scan resolution exceeds about 2400 spi. I find that scanner can support good prints up to about 4x enlargement. I use it for 4x5. 2. Consumer film scanner. These range from the current models that struggle to achieve usable resolution much above a flatbed to vintage Nikon models that have been out of production for nearly a decade. It’s what I use, but I pray a lot. The 8000/9000 scanners get the job done for negatives, using Vuescan and the ProPhoto color space. I’m happy up to 8 or 10x enlargement. 3. Laser scans. $75-$100 a pop last time I checked. That puts them out of reach for me. 4. Photographing the negative with a digital camera—may be all we’re left with soon enough. My 21mp 5DII has the same resolution at 1:1 as the Nikon scanner. The apparatus and the lighting requirements are not trivial. Here’s something I built several years ago as an experiment to test the concept: The 5D (2800 spi at 1:1) in the picture lacked the resolution, and aliased the grain. I need to try it again with the 5DII. 5. Getting the lab to scan it for you. I have had poor experience with this—clipped histograms, noise, etc. But this works fine for most purposes, and is certainly good enough for web display. Black and white is a whole separate topic. For me, I put up with narrow range to get size and image control. I made this photo using 4x5 Fuji 160C color negative film, but ended up converting it to a sepia-colored monochrome print. Scanned in the Epson, but printed to 16x20, where it is tack-sharp: Saltbox Staircase, Fuji 160C, Sinar F2, 90mm f/5.6 Super Angulon, f/45 at 16 seconds. I keep my Nikon scanner going just so I can use my Pentax 67. My point is that one is not better, but a photo made is better than a photo that wasn’t because the process was too inconvenient. Each medium can explore boundaries unavailable to the other, but those boundaries may be farther away than we realize. I love both mediums because I can make them work for me. Rick “who has done this for more than a couple of weeks” Denney ---------- Post added 04-06-18 at 09:27 AM ---------- As someone who has been doing it far longer then you, I can only warn you to stay away because you might end up like me - totally immersed . . . If you're coming into film (C41 negatives, E6 slides or true b&w) completely new with only digital experience then the first obvious difference will depend on the film type. Likely you may try color negatives first - since it is more commonly available, so the first thing you will notice is the near impossibility of blowing out the highlights. Digital has an advantage - a necessity, of having an LCD to show you a histogram - and twinklies, to help you keep from blowing out the scene. Below you can see how digitals and color negative films react to overexposure. Rick, If you have the 645Z, I would appreciate it if you can do the same test I did above. Simply get a perfect exposure then simply increase exposure up a stop until it is blown out. TIA. Knowing this film characteristic, I came upon a scene that my meter recommended a 1/60 shutter speed at my selected aperture using Kodak Ektar 100. I wanted 1/2 shutter speed to smooth out the waterflow and I confidently shot the scene - even though I didn't have any ND filters with me, knowing I will get the results I wanted with no issues at all. Another thing I discovered in my immersion was that I finally found the only camera that can aperture priority autoexpose a scene for as long as it takes - all the while monitoring the scene for changes in lighting conditions and changing exposure accordingly - the Pentax LX. Using this capability, I autoexposed this scene on Kodak Ektar 100 that took about 45minutes to complete. Have fun and enjoy the exploration! I don’t have the 645z yet—expecting it next month. The key is to think of a modern digital camera as having the range of negative film (it’s actually more at base iso), but otherwise behaving like slide film. It’s far easier to blow highlights on slides than on digital, and there’s no hope of highlight recovery. I expose to control highlights. You will recall that in the past, we exposed negatives for the shadows and developed for the highlights. With slides, we had to choose what part of the image we wanted in the contrasty middle. With digital, we expose for the highlights and process for the shadows. Those who do JPG only are truly using slide film, but from raw files there are much greater shadow recovery opportunities. Getting slow shutter speeds on purpose is a challenge with highlight-sensitive media like digital and slides. More people have trouble getting fast enough shutter speeds, and underexposed shadows on a negative are as blankly transparent as overexposed highlights on a slide. There are certainly some images that would be difficult on digital, particularly older digital. But it’s wrong to characterize one medium as being generally superior to the other, though the activities involved to the best that is possible with each are very different (and more involved than most are willing to undertake). I never needed to immerse myself in film—I have been swimming in that ocean for many decades. I had to immerse myself in digital when it came along. Each has its strengths, weaknesses, and challenges. None are as important as the photographer’s eye. Rick “for whom brightly lit bridges at night are a rare subject” Denney | |
These users Like rdenney's post: |
04-06-2018, 09:42 AM - 1 Like | #49 |
This is only the case if one uses a print service (aka service bureau) to produce high quality optical enlargements from a negative or slide and is no big deal. If needed, one can indicate crop from a reference print. The process is not much different from working with an online print service with an digital image. If one is doing their own enlargements or working from a scan, cropping is simplicity itself. Steve | |
These users Like stevebrot's post: |
04-06-2018, 09:50 AM | #50 |
By all means buy the gear but don't be disappointed if you find the experience less than thrilling, there are quite a few on here who, like me, started off in the film era but have never gone back. | |
04-06-2018, 10:45 AM | #51 |
I still use film and have a freezer full of it. But for me, the format size has to have the advantage to overcome the other constraints. 6x7 is on that boundary, 4x5 for sure, particularly with the image management capabilities of large format. But if they ever made a true 4x5 sensor usable in my view camera, I will want it.
I can't say with any certainty, but I truly doubt that an inquiry on dry-brush tempera posted to an painting forum would bring a sprinkling of disparaging comments from those painting with oils. Steve * Yes, scanning backs have existed for a number of years, but they are very expensive, slow, and require a full-blown computer for initial data capture, processing, and storage. Field use requires support at the expedition level. Last edited by stevebrot; 04-06-2018 at 10:58 AM. | |
04-06-2018, 12:20 PM | #52 |
It's better than your tree. Quote: If an s-curve is continuous and starts from the same points, it will have to be steep in the middle to connect the curvy ends. Otherwise, you’d have very objectionable tonal crossovers. Quote: If the curve extends away from a shallower middle, then that curve has greater dynamic range, at least at some signal/noise ratio. Quote: The author of the article you linked was comparing very grainy (even in the base exposure—I can see it on my iPhone) fast film with digital technology that is now 13 years old. I’m not sure that is illuminating, to be honest. The 645z has 14.5ish stops of usable dynamic range, meaning range that has a usable signal/noise ratio, according to carefully done tests at DXOMark. Having tone that can be brought up isn’t the same thing as showing real detail distinguishable from grain/noise. None of his images looked good to me—flat in the mid-tones even on my forgiving iPhone. Quote: That photo with the muddy mass of a guy standing in front of a sunset would be very easy on the latest sensors, where shadow detail that looks black on the camera’s LCD can be brought up in post without the excessive graininess of these images. Most reviewers of the latest cameras, particularly the 645z, comment on the extreme ability to recover usable images out of what looks black on the camera display. Here are just four examples of reviews from working pros that highlight shadow recovery: Quote: We also have to think about the display medium, too. What do you do with a color negative? There are only two choices left (and, increasingly, only one) that are generally available. You could make a C-print, which will have an even narrower range, or you can scan it. And if you scan it, you have a range of choices: Quote: There are certainly some images that would be difficult on digital, particularly older digital. But it’s wrong to characterize one medium as being generally superior to the other, though the activities involved to the best that is possible with each are very different (and more involved than most are willing to undertake). I never needed to immerse myself in film—I have been swimming in that ocean for many decades. I had to immerse myself in digital when it came along. Each has its strengths, weaknesses, and challenges. None are as important as the photographer’s eye. Rick “for whom brightly lit bridges at night are a rare subject” Denney Last edited by Ranchu; 04-06-2018 at 01:15 PM. | |
04-06-2018, 01:38 PM - 1 Like | #53 |
This is a telling comment. While not particularly inexpensive, film opens the door to larger formats that are inaccessible to native digital capture short of a scanning back.* There are many rationals for working with film capture, but this is one where the reasoning is particularly compelling. On that note, I will share my personal reasons (very few technical) why, along with digital, I still create in the film space... Being able to take a really beaten up K1000 into a dodgy area of town, knowing nobody will be interested in it. Being free from battery chargers and the worry of running out of juice when all you need is a couple of spare LR44s. Not looking through a peep-hole viewfinder (particularly if you wear glasses) and not struggling to see the LCD screen in full sun. Then there are the bonus shots, the last couple at the end of a roll you shoot on the way to the lab to finish the film, or the first on the roll you shoot just to make sure the film has been advanced enough. The results can be amazing, the first roll of Kodachrome 25 shot on an MX with M 28 & 50mm lenses, the first B&W roll you develop in the kitchen is amazing when you realise there are images on it. The first roll of 120 shot through a Lubitel which blows your best 35mm efforts into the weeds. The first roll of chrome film through an eBay special Bronica S2A - something that old & complex surely can't be expected to work properly! You get failures and annoyances too. The 'see me' stickers the labs used to stick on your prints "Image affected by camera shake - try using a faster shutter speed or flash next time...". It is a completely different experience to digital. * Old school shooters are well aware you could squeeze 38 or perhaps even 39 exposures out of a 36 exp roll if you were careful when loading - the frame counters of the cameras kept running beyond 36. | |
These users Like johnha's post: |
04-06-2018, 03:08 PM | #54 |
Is a nightscape with a neon-covered bridge really that rare a subject? A 25-foot tall Japanese Maple tree showing that particular shade of red backlit by the sky may be more rare. I made a photo on 4x5 of a field of wildflowers, on an island off the Massachustetts coast several years ago. I accidentally forgot to stop down before the exposure. It was on color negative film (Fuji 160C, as I recall), and I was using a Rodenstock 210mm Sinaron-S. The negative was about 4 or 5 stops overexposed. By your assertion, I should have been able to recover that photo. But the colors were so blocked up and the highlights so halated that there was nothing I could do to make even an acceptable print out of it, even at small size. But enough of this. With all due respect, I believe there is nothing to be gained arguing this point with you any further. Rick "have a good day" Denney ---------- Post added 04-06-18 at 03:23 PM ---------- ... The results can be amazing, the first roll of Kodachrome 25 shot on an MX with M 28 & 50mm lenses, the first B&W roll you develop in the kitchen is amazing when you realise there are images on it. The first roll of 120 shot through a Lubitel which blows your best 35mm efforts into the weeds. The first roll of chrome film through an eBay special Bronica S2A - something that old & complex surely can't be expected to work properly! You get failures and annoyances too. The 'see me' stickers the labs used to stick on your prints "Image affected by camera shake - try using a faster shutter speed or flash next time...". It is a completely different experience to digital. The converse is true, too, however. I've been able to make images I could never have made by using digital cameras, particularly in cases where I needed high ISO. And the first time I did so was as exciting to me as the first time I projected Kodachrome 25 or saw a print form in the developer. I tire of those who say one is "superior". There are good photos and there are photos that are not so good. Some photos are technically exquisite, while others are just a happy pile of big mistakes. I'm not sure of the correlation between the first sentence and the second. But I would say that in a gallery showing of wonderful photographers who demonstrate exquisite technique, one will find both film based and digital photographs these days. I'm not sure even an expert will be able to tell them apart. It's not like the difference between oils and watercolors--the results will be very close to the mind of the photographer. That's what technique is for, after all. Artists choose oils or watercolors depending on what they want to express, or they specialize in one or the other and then choose their subjects to fit within the technique they want to demonstrate. I love making photos with film, but for the most part I have to accept what it gives me. I particularly resonated with Stevebrot's statement that he likes shooting film simply because he loves some film cameras--that is absolutely true for me. Rick "wondering why there is so much assertion on this topic" Denney Last edited by rdenney; 04-06-2018 at 03:26 PM. | |
04-06-2018, 03:42 PM | #55 |
I never saw much point in you arguing with me about this topic to begin with. I am asserting two things, that negative film has more dynamic range than any digital camera, and that it has reduced contrast in the midtones, 1stop = .7 stop with an S curve built in, and that these two things make it a superior medium for photography. I have provided dsmithfx's fine picture as proof, and I believe it is sufficient proof. You can do as you like with your time.
| |
04-06-2018, 03:47 PM - 1 Like | #56 |
Or 38.5 exposures. I always had fun picking something for the first 1/2 frame. If you load the camera carefully, the very first cock pulls about 1/2 frame of unexposed film across the film gate. It's on the left-hand side of the gate which means it gets exposed by the right-half of the scene. One good use of that half-frame was to take a quick snapshot of something very identifiable in the area such as an iconic building or street sign -- a GPS reading for the roll.
| |
These users Like photoptimist's post: |
04-06-2018, 04:09 PM | #57 |
Or 38.5 exposures. I always had fun picking something for the first 1/2 frame. If you load the camera carefully, the very first cock pulls about 1/2 frame of unexposed film across the film gate. It's on the left-hand side of the gate which means it gets exposed by the right-half of the scene. One good use of that half-frame was to take a quick snapshot of something very identifiable in the area such as an iconic building or street sign -- a GPS reading for the roll. Can't you get like 40 frames if you load a camera in a dark bag/dark box? | |
04-06-2018, 04:26 PM | #58 |
---------- Post added 04-06-18 at 07:28 PM ---------- I am certain I have managed to get 41 frames a few times by loading the camera in the dark as you said. | |
04-06-2018, 04:43 PM - 1 Like | #59 |
But one can have one's cake and eat it, too. After inserting a bare minimum of leader of the film and placing the cartridge in the camera (but before closing the back of the camera), I lightly turn the rewind knob to remove the slack inside the cartridge and lightly tension the film across the gate and sprockets to check the security of the leader. After I close the back, the very first crank should cause the rewind knob to spin. If it spins, I know the film is securely loaded and the first half-frame is ready to shoot. If if doesn't spin properly, know the leader slipped and then I fix it.
| |
These users Like photoptimist's post: |
04-06-2018, 05:01 PM | #60 |
That last extra negative invariably turns out to be a half image, the other half obscured by the tape securing the film end to the spool. Film is cheap. Once in a lifetime photos are priceless. When I first bulk-loaded film I tried to cram more frames into a cassette. The result was extremely tight film advance/rewind and scratched negatives. Chris Last edited by ChrisPlatt; 04-06-2018 at 05:07 PM. | |
|
Bookmarks |
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
accessories, analogy, benefits to film, camera, car, color, composition, contrast, curve, depth, dr, era, exposure, ff, field, film, film era, flash, format, images, insight, mamiya rb, op, photo, photography, photos, scan, shots, sinar, vs |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General discussion about 50-55mm lenses - film era. | cieslikowski | Pentax SLR Lens Discussion | 3 | 05-06-2016 12:42 PM |
How much did film bodies and film-era lenses originally cost? | Outis | Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras | 90 | 12-30-2015 01:19 AM |
Film-era lenses on FF cameras | utak | Pentax SLR Lens Discussion | 5 | 04-08-2013 02:26 AM |
Film Era vs. Digital Era lenses for K-x | steveknj | Troubleshooting and Beginner Help | 23 | 08-19-2011 05:36 PM |