digital vs film color

[msbarnes]

Honestly I love film but it is becoming more difficult and more expensive to shoot and process. It doesn't help that many emulsions are dissapearing. I'm particularly in love with slide film which makes matters worse or better. Worse in that it is costlier to shoot on film and better because it is more simililar to "digital".

I'm debating between home development, getting a better digital camera, or working on my photoshop skills with my current camera (m43 + 20mm f1.7). If I were to get a "better" digital camera then it would most likely be APS-C because I don't like DSLRs and M9's and the FF Sony's (RX100, I think?) are too costly...it would probably be a Fuji, Sony, or maybe even Ricoh.

I can never get satisfying digital colors but to be honest I haven't put much effort. Whenever I shoot film, the colors usually look good to my eye but this might be psychological too because I'm partial towards film.

Fuji Provia 100f


(Leica M3 + DR Summicron)


(Rolleiflex 3.5E Xenotar)

I rarely shoot E-6 because it is just too expensive near me ($10-$12) and C41 just doesn't look the same. I like how E-6 is vibrant but seemingly subtle.

Well I don't mean to make this an obvious digital vs film thread but I just seek some advice I guess.

For you color lovers that have switched to digital, has an APS-C camera filled your void? What about an M9? Maybe I should just wait until FF mirrorless cameras become cheaper (because I simply like bigger sensors).

For those that stuck with film and develop at home, was home processing E-6 "difficult"? I know it isn't difficult per se but the tight temperture/time tolerances worry me. C41 is more tolerable in this regard, but the look is not the same.

Anyone have side-by-side comparisons between film colors and digital colors?
http://www.flickr.com/groups/fujifilmx100/discuss/72157627348979016/
I have seen one comparison but the film just looks better. Ofcourse it depends on on processing and such...

 

[noisycheese]

For those that stuck with film and develop at home, was home processing E-6 "difficult"? I know it isn't difficult per se but the tight temperture/time tolerances worry me.

I have developed a buttload of E6 at home and I never found controlling the temperature to be that difficult.

The critical parts of the process are the first developer and the color developer. You have to keep your chemisty temperatures within one degree (+ or -) of the temperature stated in the instructions. If you do not keep the temps where they are supposed to be, you will probably have a color shift and your colors will be off. I can't say what will actually happen though as I never had a problem maintaining my chemistry temps.

I developed my E6 in the kitchen sink using a warm water bath to control my developing temps. Believe it or not, maintaining + or - one degree in your chemistry is not that hard. Once you get the temperatures of both your warm water bath and your chemicals where you want them, they stay pretty constant. Changes happen slowly, not abruptly. This makes keeping the temperatures constant fairly easy. When the temperature of your chemistry starts to wander downward a bit (say by half a degree), pour a quart of hot water (not boiling, just hot to the human hand) into the warm water bath and stir the bath around to evenly distribute the new hot water. The temperature will begin to climb in your chemistry - but it is a gradual, delayed reaction change.

When you get past the first developer and color developer stages of the process, the temperature tolerances relax a bit, making the rest of the process less demanding in terms of monitoring the chemistry temps.

Developing E6 is not that hard; if you can develop B&W film, you can develop E6. There are more steps involved and the temps require closer attention in the initial stages, but it is nothing to be as intimidated by as some people make it out to be.

If you carefully follow the instructions, your chromes will look as good as chromes developed by any pro lab.

Also: Use only distilled water to mix your chemistry. Tap water is okay for the water rinse steps, but using distilled water for the chemistry is crucial. Chemicals and minerals in tap water can cause color shifts and/or increased grain size.

 

[bobby_novatron]

What noisycheese said.

I have been developing my own C-41 and E-6 at home for about 3 years now, in my bathroom, using only basic equipment. A Paterson tank, a cheap thermometer, my iPhone as a timer, and a gallon of purified water. Once you get the hang of it, it's as easy as developing B+W.

One trick that I use to maintain proper temperatures: I use a small plastic portable cooler, the kind people use for picnics etc. The cooler is insulated and helps keep the water bath temps very consistent for a long period of time. I put my bottles of chemicals in the bath, along with the Paterson tank (once it has been loaded with film). My floating thermometer tells me when the temps are within a workable range. Easy-peasy.

To the original poster: film or digital? That all depends on your budget, your workflow, and your "soul". For me, I enjoy the hands-on experience of developing and scanning. Other people like working with a USB cable and digital files. Both are equally rewarding. But it's up to you to decide what's going to work best for you.

Without meaning to sound inflammatory, I would observe that working with digital files is ultimately cheaper than using film+scanning ... even when you do the developing at home. A 16GB SanDisk card is much cheaper than using film in the long run. If you're a young guy on a budget, then you might find digital to be more economical.

I like using film, even though economically it doesn't really make sense. But that's just me. My wife likes buying shoes, so fortunately our irrational hobbies are equally weighted and neither of us can chastise the other! 🙂

 

[f16sunshine]

Since you primarily shoot human subjects with selective focus......

Get a 5D classic, a few old OM Zuiko lenses, a cpu chipped adapter, and be done with it for under $800.
You can get a Zuiko 1.4/50 or SMC takumar 1.4/50 that give The Leica Summilux 50's a run for sub $100.
Give it a try.
Want more resolution?
Bring it up to $1500 and get a 5Dii.


The classic 12mp 5D runs circles around the M9 up to 1600 ISO.

 

[msbarnes]

Thanks for the sugggestions and advice.

I think that my best options are to learn home development and/or get a FF DSLR. I think that I will be more satisfied jumping from M43 to FF than to APS-C.

I guess the digital vs film color thing is analagous to the digital vs film b&w only that film color is more costly than film b&w and so harder to justify.

 

[tsiklonaut]

ahh, colors

ahh, colors

There's a good saying: "only the dead fish go with the flow". Why shoot digital when 99% of photographers do the same?

Analog brings that much needed difference in the utter digital dominated similarity boredom of todays world.

C41 very easy to DIY develop and the film is very capable whan you know how to properly scan and invert it. DIY E6 with Tetenal 3-bath kit is a breeze. Lots of info around the net how to do it. Fuji 6-bath brings superior results, but it's hell of a much more work with DIY and it's better left for processors - if lucky, those you can find relatively cheap these days as well.

IMHO, "emotional" color-wise E6 runs circles around any (Bayer-) digital when drumscanned and just trounches anything on Earth when projected, making even the very best digital projectors projecting the best digital images look rather poor. When properly drumscanned E6 is capable of amazing prints. A well done C41 just "feels" so different to anything digital. See some E6 and C41 examples in this thread.

The only digital remotely coming close color-wise to E6 is Sigma/Foveon X3 tech cameras, but it isn't there yet as well since like everything it has its own issues. All common Bayer sensors have around 2/3 of details interpolated (meaning mathematically "guessed") and almost all the colors mathematically calculated which is fundamentally too much academical faking for me. The only field where the digital has serious advantage is ease of use in large quantity quick results shooting where the fine quality and being different doesn't matter. Digital vs analog is a pointless discussion since it's like comparing an acoustic grand piano to digital piano, everyone knows which sounds better when the first note is played. It just comes down how practical they are in different applications.

I use digital for documenting, but any serious shooting: it's film for me.

All IMHO of course. 🙂

 

[Photo_Smith]

If you like slide film why not stick to it? There may be a time where we have to resort to faking the look of our favourite films digitally but that time hasn't arrived yet.

My advice is shoot while you can, buy a 3 bath kit it's easy I developed my first E6 film at 13 years old many years ago no reason not to do it.

If you find it too expensive/trouble why not try Kodak Ektar? It has a transparency 'look' IMO:

jump by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

 

[shadowfox]

You can get any look (color-wise) that you like using digital.

The real question is, will you enjoy the efforts that it took?

Can't really answer the question if you haven't tried.
And the answer is not getting new gears.

 

[msbarnes]

C41 very easy to DIY develop and the film is very capable whan you know how to properly scan and invert it. DIY E6 with Tetenal 3-bath kit is a breeze. Lots of info around the net how to do it. Fuji 6-bath brings superior results, but it's hell of a much more work with DIY and it's better left for processors - if lucky, those you can find relatively cheap these days as well.

IMHO, "emotional" color-wise E6 runs circles around any (Bayer-) digital when drumscanned and just trounches anything on Earth when projected, making even the very best digital projectors projecting the best digital images look rather poor. When properly drumscanned E6 is capable of amazing prints. A well done C41 just "feels" so different to anything digital. See some E6 and C41 examples in this thread.

Thanks for sharing those images, they are beautiful!

I will probably stick with film longer atleast in medium format. If you think about it, medium format film (color/bw) is a bargain. I'm playing around with C41 to see if I can like it, because if I do, then my life would be a little easier (momentarily atleast because I'm unsure how long color film will last).

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

I can never get satisfying digital colors but to be honest I haven't put much effort.

Yep, it's an effort indeed, and something not many people are willing to put up with, but the possibilities, oh the possibilities. You can take it your own way.

 

[Godfrey]

I work with both film and digital capture. I like working with both equally.

Processing film is one set of skills.
Scanning film is another set of skills.

Rendering digital captures and rendering scanned film with image processing applications are similar, but are not quite the same workflow... Two more sets of skills.

The one constant across everything having to do with photography is that it's only easy on a relatively simplistic level. Real photography takes lots of learning and work, no matter whether you are fond of digital or film.

G

 

[Contarama]

I think different digital sensors have unique "fingerprints" if you will some sensors producing images that are more film like than not maybe??? If you should even choose to compare the two. I also believe that some sensors are better than others with good pleasant colors and results and that megapixels really don't have a lot to do with it in many cases.

Fuji S5 Pro sensor for example...D90 Nikon sensor...personally I love the color and IQ I get from my D5000 with in camera adjustments and jpegs...it has a certain looking result.

 

[noisycheese]

Honestly I love film but it is becoming more difficult and more expensive to shoot and process. It doesn't help that many emulsions are dissapearing. I'm particularly in love with slide film which makes matters worse or better. Worse in that it is costlier to shoot on film and better because it is more simililar to "digital".

I'm debating between home development, getting a better digital camera, or working on my photoshop skills with my current camera (m43 + 20mm f1.7). If I were to get a "better" digital camera then it would most likely be APS-C because I don't like DSLRs and M9's and the FF Sony's (RX100, I think?) are too costly...it would probably be a Fuji, Sony, or maybe even Ricoh.

I can never get satisfying digital colors but to be honest I haven't put much effort. Whenever I shoot film, the colors usually look good to my eye but this might be psychological too because I'm partial towards film...





...I rarely shoot E-6 because it is just too expensive near me ($10-$12) and C41 just doesn't look the same. I like how E-6 is vibrant but seemingly subtle.

Well I don't mean to make this an obvious digital vs film thread but I just seek some advice I guess.

For you color lovers that have switched to digital, has an APS-C camera filled your void? What about an M9? Maybe I should just wait until FF mirrorless cameras become cheaper (because I simply like bigger sensors).

For those that stuck with film and develop at home, was home processing E-6 "difficult"? I know it isn't difficult per se but the tight temperture/time tolerances worry me. C41 is more tolerable in this regard, but the look is not the same.

Anyone have side-by-side comparisons between film colors and digital colors?...





...I have seen one comparison but the film just looks better. Ofcourse it depends on on processing and such...

To answer your questions, developing color film - E6 or C41 - is not difficult. With color film, maintaining temperature control during the initial developing phase is relatively easy. I have developed E6 and C41 in my kitchen sink for years and have never had problems with color shift due to not controlling the temps. If you use a picnic cooler as someone else suggested, it should be even easier to maintain the correct temperature during developing. Once developing is complete, the remaining steps do not require as strict an adherence to temperature discipline.

I would urge you to shoot some Fuji Pro 400H ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=396053&is=USA&Q=&A=details ) before you dismiss C41 film as not having an acceptable color palette. I recently shot 30 rolls of this film on a trip to Mongolia and am quite pleased with its color palette. I needed a film with more exposure latitude than Fuji RVP (my E6 film of choice), a higher ISO and a good color balance for human skin tones. I was also surprised at how small the grain is for an ISO 400 film. Fuji Pro 400H is simply outstanding in all facets.

Also - Fuji recently ditched several of their slow selling emulsions but kept Pro 400H. I talked with one of the tech reps at Fuji about this. He said that after careful scrutiny, Fuji came to the conclusion that Pro 400H was their best C41 film and they decided to keep it. Given how good this film is and given Fuji's commitment to film, I seriously doubt that Pro 400H will go away anytime soon. As long as people continue to buy it, Fuji will continue to make it - just like they do with Velvia.

I am developing my Mongolia film in Tetenal ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/109267-REG/Tetenal_T109306_C_41_Press_Kit_for.html ) and the negatives look better than any I have had lab developed before. I have no complaints at all. A C41 press kit goes for $23.50 at B&H and will develop 8-10 rollls of 36 exposure C41, which is very affordable compared to $7.00/roll plus shipping to have it processed by a pro lab.

Regarding "justifying" the cost of shooting and processing C41 - who do you have to "justify" it to? Is the (supposed) economy of digital worth the price of having prints that you are unhappy with? My answer to that is a huge NO.

Regarding the process, in my experience it seems alot easier to get satisfying colors and prints from the C41 process than it is for non-professional printers to get a similar result from the digital process. I know alot of people who print digitally at home and the vast majority of them seem to settle for prints that are "almost" what they want. Photography matters to me. It is a huge part of my life. I refuse to settle for prints that are "almost good enough." We all have to compromise in life on some things because we are not all billionaires. I settle for a Toyota Corolla rather than a Mercedes S550. That's one of my compromises. However, I will not settle for "almost good enough" when it comes to my photography. It's a quality of life issue.

To compare color digital to color film in terms of cost, the film and chemistry runs I am currently using (see above) runs $10ish per roll. A full frame digital camera costs thousands. Everyone looks at the money aspect of photography differently, but from where I stand, it is much easier to bleed a little bit as I go along versus cutting out my spleen.

When we set aside the money issue and look at the photographic aspects of the discussion, Pro 400H and Tetenal comes out on top when compared to digital - IMHO, at least.

YMMV.

 

[tempest68]

I'm hooked on E6, but Fuji is discontinuing the only ISO 400 E6 that was left (as far as I know - if there is another ISO 400 E6 available, someone please clue me in).

I recently picked up an M8 and Zeiss Biogon 28mm f/2.8. This combination gives me results that look similar to what I get out of E6. So if an older digital isn't out of the question, consider an M8. It is much less expensive than an M9 if you are not certain whether a digital M is right for you. Mine had less than 2,000 shutter actuations and so far I think it's going to be in my possession for a long time or until it breaks.

If you want a Canon 5D II, I'm soon putting mine up for sale as I don't use it much at all.

 

[cosmonaut]

I noticed that about Ektar. Is a beautiful film.

If you like slide film why not stick to it? There may be a time where we have to resort to faking the look of our favourite films digitally but that time hasn't arrived yet.

My advice is shoot while you can, buy a 3 bath kit it's easy I developed my first E6 film at 13 years old many years ago no reason not to do it.

If you find it too expensive/trouble why not try Kodak Ektar? It has a transparency 'look' IMO:

jump by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

 

[Ronald M]

To do a digital camera right, you need a profiled monitor. You need proper white balance.

YOu need to learn to control WP and BP.

After you learn to control it and burn.dodge, you will make beautiful images and be pleased . It is like a drugstore print compared to a pro lab.

 

[Photo_Smith]

To do film right you need a camera, some film and processing. If shooting E-6 put the film in the camera, meter and press the button.
Then send to the lab for wonderful colours.

No expensive profiling, monitors etc and everyone who sees your print/slide doesn't need to have a calibrated monitor and will see what you see without honouring embedded profiles (within the tolerance of normal human vision)

 

[jwc57]

I request profiles from the labs I use. The local lab doesn't have the information available. So, I asked what machine and models they use and got the profiles online. I can soft proof in Photoshop before sending them the image files. Works great. Profiles range from free to $3.00.

I don't worry about what appears online since clients never calibrate their monitors. If it looks good on my laptop and phone, I'm good with it.

 

[Archiver]

As a relative newcomer to dedicated photography, film is what moved me from digital snapshots to more serious image creation. I loved the colours, the dynamic range, and the overall look of films like Pro 400H, Reala, and even XTRA 400. I acquired a bunch of film cameras like the Contax T3, Olympus XA2, Fuji Natura Black, and adopted my Dad's Pentax and Minolta kits. Colours were lush and smooth, and 35mm film offers lovely shallow depth of field, too.

But two things moved me away from film. Cost per roll, and lack of convenience. I put a bunch of money in a Zeiss Ikon and some Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses, but found myself using it less and less when I got my Sigma DP1. The files from the DP1 gave me such a 'film feeling' that I used it like a mini film camera, and bought the DP2 as soon as it became available.

Time went by, I got a Canon 30D and later a 5D Mark II, but I still hankered for the film experience again. It was rewarded in the Leica M9. Frankly, it is the bomb. and careful postprocessing gives me images that I like as much as film. Perhaps more, because of the convenience. It was not cheap at all, but for me, it was worth it.

Other digital options include the Ricoh GXR M-mount module, and the new GR. Both cameras produce extremely sharp images with rich saturation, and it's not hard to tweak a filmish look out of them. I've seen images from the Fuji X100 processed to look very retro and film like; Brian Kraft does a great job at this:

http://www.briankraft.com/Blog/personal/fuji-x100-destination-maui-hawaii/

If shooting film is as much about the journey as it is the final product, then keep shooting film for as long as you enjoy it.

 

[Ronald M]

I request profiles from the labs I use. The local lab doesn't have the information available. So, I asked what machine and models they use and got the profiles online. I can soft proof in Photoshop before sending them the image files. Works great. Profiles range from free to $3.00.

I don't worry about what appears online since clients never calibrate their monitors. If it looks good on my laptop and phone, I'm good with it.

We never know if clients examine prints under proper lighting either.

And as far as manipulation like burn/dodge goes, it is a rare picture that can not be improved. But if you do not like to do so, frrl free to accept what the camera delivers. I have a darkroom because I am fussy. I also have a calibrated Eizo monitor for digital.