Color Negatives

[rogue_designer]

don't get us wrong here Jeremy. If shooting a 5D makes sense for what you want to shoot... how you want to shoot it, and your final output requirements (and workflow) then by all means - get the 5D. It is a very capable camera.

But it isn't film. And it can't really replicated what film does. Just as you can't really replicate a digital image with a film camera. Different horses for different courses. Use what you need for the look you want.

If you want it to look like film. It's much much cheaper to actually shoot film than to invest in digital, and spend time trying (but not quite getting it) to look like it.

My film RF's cost less than 1/10th of the price of a 5D. If cost is a factor, that is.

 

[JeremyLangford]

A 5D would do the job of a film RF at a 'ridiculously lower price'?

I didnt say it would do the same job. I said I used to think that.

And by lower price I mean, I dont have to build a darkroom, buy developers, papers, film, or enlargers.

After a couple of years, a 5d would pay itself back compared to film.

 

[rogue_designer]

And by lower price I mean, I dont have to build a darkroom, buy developers, papers, film, or enlargers.

After a couple of years, a 5d would pay itself back compared to film.

I think you'd be suprised at the actual cost to build a darkroom these days. Most of the equipment is literally being given away.

As for the 5d in a couple of years? If you have to buy a new digital camera ever 3-5 years, that adds up too. I've yet to have a digital body last more than 3 years. Certainly before I really "wanted" and upgrade.

On the other hand, I have some of the same film bodies I used 20 years ago. And they still work perfectly. *shrug*

Sure I pay for film and other consumables. But I also have to buy more harddrive space for digital images, plus a system for archiving them (and re-archiving them every 2 years), And printer paper. And ink. And more ram as my images go up in size. And then a new computer in 2 years when this one gives up... etc. etc.

digital isn't free.

 

[JeremyLangford]

I think you'd be suprised at the actual cost to build a darkroom these days. Most of the equipment is literally being given away.

As for the 5d in a couple of years? If you have to buy a new digital camera ever 3-5 years, that adds up too. I've yet to have a digital body last more than 3 years. Certainly before I really "wanted" and upgrade.

On the other hand, I have some of the same film bodies I used 20 years ago. And they still work perfectly. *shrug*

Sure I pay for film and other consumables. But I also have to buy more harddrive space for digital images, plus a system for archiving them (and re-archiving them every 2 years), And printer paper. And ink. And more ram as my images go up in size. And then a new computer in 2 years when this one gives up... etc. etc.

digital isn't free.

I really think its safe to say that Digital could save you a fortune over time compared to film. You only pay money for the pictures you want to have printed.

I dont know why Id ever need to upgrade my 5d. (besides more megapixels I guess).

After googling, I found that most people say 10-11 megapixels is equivelant to film. A Canon 5d is 12.8 megapixels.

And I found nothing to convince me of a dramatic effect over 35mm film dynamic range vs. Canon 5d dynamic range.

I promise Im not trying to come into your forum and argue against film. Im just trying to learn, and get facts to help me make my decision so I can start snapping away like you guys.

 

[aad]

I think adding grain to a digital image to make it look like film is kind of, um, strange.

Really, though, if you do C41 and have them scan to CD and hold the prints, you'll have a pretty simple workflow that may well be easier-no fooling with RAW and such. Heck, get them all printed and just use the prints a proof-only mess with a computer for the images you like.

 

[JeremyLangford]

I think adding grain to a digital image to make it look like film is kind of, um, strange.

Really, though, if you do C41 and have them scan to CD and hold the prints, you'll have a pretty simple workflow that may well be easier-no fooling with RAW and such. Heck, get them all printed and just use the prints a proof-only mess with a computer for the images you like.

Im 16. So Im just looking to get good results for the least money.

I guess having your film developed to a cd is almost like having a dslr with a film dynamic range. Except for the part I hate, paying for the film to get developed (Even ones you don't want to keep).

Don't get me wrong, I've been shooting B&W film for a while for my high school photography class and developing my own B&Ws, and I think its ausome to go from a can of film, to enlarging a neg, to watching the paper show up in the developer.

And I will keep shooting film until I can afford a 5d (If you guys dont somehow talk me out of it).

 

[navilluspm]

Jeremy,

I too, in the future, plan to get a 5D. For the moment I am shooting with a Contax SLR and getting good lenses. You can use these Zeiss lenses with a 5D via an adapter. (Hint, Hint - You can also get a Rollei - Canon adapter for even cheaper Zeiss lenses).

But when I look at the cost, I have to shoot a lot of film to pay for that 5D, and so I will wait. Digital will just get better and cheaper (except for inflation).

In the mean time, film is cheap. I bought a complete BW darkroom setup for $100. Ultrafineonline.com has some great deals on paper and chemicals. I got a 2 minolta scan Elites F-2900 for $100. You can get 20 rolls of Velvia 100f for under $50 at Ultrafine, as well as NPZ. When I shoot a roll of color and develop it for 1.76, and scan it - I can save money by printing only what I want. On top of this I have a negative archive, a digital archive and the print itself! It costs $6.00 for me to develop Velvia slides.

If I consider Ultrafine prices on Velvia, I figure I would have to shoot and process 250 rolls of 36 exposure Velvia 100f film to justify the expense of a USED 5D from KEH. That is 9000 exposures! It would take me a LONG time.

Right now, for me, film is much more cost effective, but who knows for the future. Ken Rockwell admits that the 5D is an swesome camera, the first one he would grab if quality mattered most. Save up for the 5D. In the mean time get Contax or Rollei Zeiss lenses that will make the most of the 5D (minus autofocusing and the fact that you have to use stop down metering).

 

[JeremyLangford]

Right now, for me, film is much more cost effective, but who knows for the future. Ken Rockwell admits that the 5D is an swesome camera, the first one he would grab if quality mattered most. Save up for the 5D. In the mean time get Contax or Rollei Zeiss lenses that will make the most of the 5D (minus autofocusing and the fact that you have to use stop down metering).

Thank you, thats good advice.

Until I find some actual comparison shots that shows a big enough difference of film beating a 5d in dynamic range or anything else, I will continue to shoot film, and will be saving up for a Canon 5d.

 

[amateriat]

A friend of mine went through the whole film-to-digital-to-film thing (partly my fault, I still think). The whole story is here.


- Barrett

 

[JeremyLangford]

A friend of mine went through the whole film-to-digital-to-film thing (partly my fault, I still think). The whole story is here.


- Barrett

Thanx. He pretty much went through the same exact thing I am.

But he also had a 1.6 crop factor camera. I think a 5d would be way closer to film than what he used due to it being full frame.

The main thing i still dont know is how much better of a dynamic range film has than a 5d. I think the 12.8 megapixel quality is good enough for me (Its supposed to be just as good as film).

I would stick with film like you guys if I already had a darkroom at my house. But all I have is a SRT-101, and a darkroom at school, which I wont be able to use after christmas since I will be out of the class.

So, Im just trying to decide what I will do after this semester.

A) Start on making my own darkroom
B)Start saving up for a 5d.

 

[DavidH]

Can you give me a link to this? I am interested.

You'll find some of it on the vmi.tv website - the first issue of HD Today from about 2004 I think. It was a HD conference in London ...the camera was a HDW750 - the 'standard' TV HDCAM camera of the day (baby brother to the 900 which Lucas used for Star Wars) and the one that I tend to shoot with. Since then I've heard that they've pushed it to 13 stops.

cheers

 

[navilluspm]

So, Im just trying to decide what I will do after this semester.

A) Start on making my own darkroom
B)Start saving up for a 5d.

Let me respond with a little story:

When I was visiting my brother in Tucson and decided to take a 3 day trip up to the Grand Canyon. I could have taken the Interstate up and spent most of my time there, but instead I took back roads, went to Sedona, Montezuma's Castles, Oak Creek Canyon, etc. . . and enjoyed the ride up. Eventually I got where I was going. It was a little more expensive and time consuming, but I got there, and I am glad I made all the little excursions.

My advice for you is this: enjoy the ride! You have a goal. Great. Persue it. However, use what you have to enjoy photography until you reach your goal. Do you enjoy Black and White more than anything else? Then get persue a darkroom setup. If you like color more, the 5D is the way to go.

BTW, Ken Rockwell pointed out in his article that he shot a 24exp roll of film, got 5x7 prints and a photo CD all for under $10 a roll at Costco (and this included the price of film). If you live near a Walmart or Walgreens in the US, you could still get this deal. $10 for film, scan and prints.

Given that a 5D is $2000 used, you could use the money to shoot, develop, print and have scanned 200 rolls of 24exp. film (4800 exposures) or just get the camera! On top of this, you need no printer or scanner (because all of it would come scanned on a CD).

I don't know what your goals are. I would, eventually, like to get a 5D. But I am in no rush. I am enjoying the ride. Would you rather spend more time with the 5D than any other camera? Save and get it ASAP. Would you like to talk the scenic and long way to the 5D? Then spend time with film and darkroom stuff for a while. It may put your goal off, but you also may enjoy the ride as much as the destination.

There is no wrong way. It is just a path you have to decide for yourself.

 

[rogue_designer]

dynamic range and resolution are different things - more megapixels doesn't necessarily translate into either less noisey, or better dynamic range (in fact, often the opposite).

dynamic range is how much contrast the scene can hold. This page of the dpreview site shows usable dynamic range data for the 5D.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page22.asp

In no case can it hold more than 8.2 stops of data. And thats under ideal test circumstances.

When scanning color negative films I can regularly hold 10 stops when using a good scanner. BW film is even broader. That makes a big difference, especially in the shadows where the digitals quickly get noisey.

 

[JeremyLangford]

dynamic range and resolution are different things - more megapixels doesn't necessarily translate into either less noisey, or better dynamic range (in fact, often the opposite).

dynamic range is how much contrast the scene can hold. This page of the dpreview site shows usable dynamic range data for the 5D.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page22.asp

In no case can it hold more than 8.2 stops of data. And thats under ideal test circumstances.

When scanning color negative films I can regularly hold 10 stops when using a good scanner. BW film is even broader. That makes a big difference, especially in the shadows where the digitals quickly get noisey.

I understand that resolution and dynamic range are different.

I was saying that the 5d has enough resolution for me but Im skeptical about the dynamic range.

And thank you, Im glad to know that the difference in dynamic range is 2 stops.

I was wondering, what resolution or size does a 35mm negative have once you get it scanned to a cd?

 

[JeremyLangford]

Let me respond with a little story:

My advice for you is this: enjoy the ride! You have a goal. Great. Persue it. However, use what you have to enjoy photography until you reach your goal. Do you enjoy Black and White more than anything else? Then get persue a darkroom setup. If you like color more, the 5D is the way to go.

I agree with everything you said. And I personally am not a hardcore B&W fan like some people. I like B&Ws, but not enough where I can be comfortable never shooting color. Thats just seems silly to me to leave out all the colors they eye can see except shades of gray on all your pictures.

The fact that you can get a roll of film, and then get it scanned to a cd for $10 is good, but clearly not as good a price as digital. And I'm still skeptical about getting them scanned.

I dont really want to get my B&Ws developed and scanned, because I understand all the different ways you can develop, all the different developers, and of course pushing and pulling and dodging and burning that I wouldnt be able to do.

And with color, I would definately want to have a lab develop them, but then I wouldnt want them scanned to a cd yet, because I feel like I they wouldn't be finished until I enlarge them myself with filters, because when it comes to color, I always tint the white-balance different ways and usually don't want the natural real white balance in my pictures.

 

[rogue_designer]

I was wondering, what resolution or size does a 35mm negative have once you get it scanned to a cd?

It depends. Typically scanning resolution varies with machine.

Most 1-hour places just do files large enough for 4x6 prints at 300 dpi - but the machines can be set for a wider variety of sizes.

A better lab will typically scan them at about 4000 dpi (native size) so big enough for about 13x19" at 300dpi (equiv to slightly above 19mp).

 

[JeremyLangford]

It depends. Typically scanning resolution varies with machine.

Most 1-hour places just do files large enough for 4x6 prints at 300 dpi - but the machines can be set for a wider variety of sizes.

A better lab will typically scan them at about 4000 dpi (native size) so big enough for about 13x19" at 300dpi (equiv to slightly above 19mp).

Wow. I really need to learn about resolution. Cause thats a little over my head.

I understand that theres PPI for monitors and LCD screens and DPI for prints.

Is PPI and DPI referring to the number of pixels in a square inch or in a one inch line?

Are the Dots and Pixels prefectly square?

 

[JeremyLangford]

It depends. Typically scanning resolution varies with machine.

Most 1-hour places just do files large enough for 4x6 prints at 300 dpi - but the machines can be set for a wider variety of sizes.

A better lab will typically scan them at about 4000 dpi (native size) so big enough for about 13x19" at 300dpi (equiv to slightly above 19mp).

What is the native size?

If film can be scanned to 19mp, then why does everyone say that 12mp is equivilant to film?

 

[cmedin]

What is the native size?

If film can be scanned to 19mp, then why does everyone say that 12mp is equivilant to film?

There's a lot more to it than that. You could record a 35mm frame with an electron microscope and get a gazillion gigapixels out of it. What matters is the point where the film resolution breaks down and you won't resolve more detail.

 

[JeremyLangford]

I guess resolution is just over my head for some reason