alfisti
Member
Hi folks. I have determined to "learn film" since I started my photography journey in the digital realm, and I feel like I started in the middle. I am hoping that shooting film can broaden my perspective and make me think more about lighting and contrast.
First, a sample of my "old" work, 5D, 50mm... http://images114.fotki.com/v145/photos/8/242648/9573356/LeavesIMG_1447-vi.jpg
I show this as an example of what I think a "good" shot is, meaning (in this case) good detail, the eyes are sharp, and I got the exposure I wanted.
So what's the problem? Well, with film, I'm a MESS. Let me start with the equipment:
- Canonet GLIII QL17. Had it for roughly a year, never warmed up to it though ... the rangefinder patch is dim enough I missed focus so much it just wasn't useful to me
-Newly aquired FED-5. Who knows if it's perfect or completely out of whack, or somewhere in between. I adjusted the rangefinder myself (Danger Will Robinson!) and I THINK it's accurate...
-Film is almost exclusively Ilford HP5+ 400. I decided to be consistent with the film to maximize lessons learned. This is the film I picked.
-CanoScan 4200F - to scan the negatives
So on to 2 samples from the FED-5, Industar 61 (53mm, 2.8), and what my frustrations are.
This shot was in broad daylight. Maybe slightly overcast. I am going to guess and say, 1/500th and F/4. Developed in DD-X 1+4 for 7 minutes. This is what I consider to be one of the BEST I've gotten. I shot the roll with (if I'm using the term correctly) a rated ISO of 200. I wanted to tone down the contrast and see if I could get some detail.
Second sample from FED.
For this one, I shot the roll at a rated ISO of 800. I wish I'd written down the exposure settings (what can I say, raised on digital). I think it was something like 1/60th and certainly wide open at 2.8.
To my eye, the detail simply isn't there. I've got stopped down outdoor shots (i.e. f/11 or f/16) with the FED and with this film, the results don't look much different.
Is this merely the amount of detail to be expected from a small-format, B&W film exposed and developed in this manner, or am I doing something wrong?
Sample 2 (the cat, Cookie) actually looks sharp where I want it to be - but barely so. The shot of my daughter on the other hand... doesn't. And I'd expect the DOF to cover any minor focusing error (which is possible).
In looking at these shots, does anything jump out to anyone as to how I can improve, or are these actually not bad?
I'm doing this to learn, but to be honest, some of the shots I've seen posted (er, most of them?) look very sharp to me, and would compete with the digital resutls I get. These don't. It makes me think I must be doing something wrong (which wouldn't surprise me) or the weak link is the equipment (which is also highly possible, but I don't want to blame the equipment before I'm sure it's not my process/technique).
Ideas?
Thanks all!
-Glenn
First, a sample of my "old" work, 5D, 50mm... http://images114.fotki.com/v145/photos/8/242648/9573356/LeavesIMG_1447-vi.jpg
I show this as an example of what I think a "good" shot is, meaning (in this case) good detail, the eyes are sharp, and I got the exposure I wanted.
So what's the problem? Well, with film, I'm a MESS. Let me start with the equipment:
- Canonet GLIII QL17. Had it for roughly a year, never warmed up to it though ... the rangefinder patch is dim enough I missed focus so much it just wasn't useful to me
-Newly aquired FED-5. Who knows if it's perfect or completely out of whack, or somewhere in between. I adjusted the rangefinder myself (Danger Will Robinson!) and I THINK it's accurate...
-Film is almost exclusively Ilford HP5+ 400. I decided to be consistent with the film to maximize lessons learned. This is the film I picked.
-CanoScan 4200F - to scan the negatives
So on to 2 samples from the FED-5, Industar 61 (53mm, 2.8), and what my frustrations are.
This shot was in broad daylight. Maybe slightly overcast. I am going to guess and say, 1/500th and F/4. Developed in DD-X 1+4 for 7 minutes. This is what I consider to be one of the BEST I've gotten. I shot the roll with (if I'm using the term correctly) a rated ISO of 200. I wanted to tone down the contrast and see if I could get some detail.
Second sample from FED.
For this one, I shot the roll at a rated ISO of 800. I wish I'd written down the exposure settings (what can I say, raised on digital). I think it was something like 1/60th and certainly wide open at 2.8.
To my eye, the detail simply isn't there. I've got stopped down outdoor shots (i.e. f/11 or f/16) with the FED and with this film, the results don't look much different.
Is this merely the amount of detail to be expected from a small-format, B&W film exposed and developed in this manner, or am I doing something wrong?
Sample 2 (the cat, Cookie) actually looks sharp where I want it to be - but barely so. The shot of my daughter on the other hand... doesn't. And I'd expect the DOF to cover any minor focusing error (which is possible).
In looking at these shots, does anything jump out to anyone as to how I can improve, or are these actually not bad?
I'm doing this to learn, but to be honest, some of the shots I've seen posted (er, most of them?) look very sharp to me, and would compete with the digital resutls I get. These don't. It makes me think I must be doing something wrong (which wouldn't surprise me) or the weak link is the equipment (which is also highly possible, but I don't want to blame the equipment before I'm sure it's not my process/technique).
Ideas?
Thanks all!
-Glenn
Last edited:
pbo
Established
Hi Glenn, two suggestions:
1) For dim rangefinder, check this out: http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-165.html . Doesn't make rangefinder brighter, but helps with focusing and costs almost nothing.
2) Flatbed scanner results usually turn out pretty soft - but detail should be there, you just have to sharpen the scan to get it... You have to figure out good USM settings for the film and dpi you're scanning at.
That's all I've got, hope it helps!
1) For dim rangefinder, check this out: http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-165.html . Doesn't make rangefinder brighter, but helps with focusing and costs almost nothing.
2) Flatbed scanner results usually turn out pretty soft - but detail should be there, you just have to sharpen the scan to get it... You have to figure out good USM settings for the film and dpi you're scanning at.
That's all I've got, hope it helps!
Last edited:
typhillips
Established
The first shot looks soft, possibly due to focus error or camera shake. The second seems sharp enough.
As pbo said above, you are not going to be able to achieve the same sharpness that you're used to on a digital SLR by scanning 35mm film with a flatbed... not even close. Sharpening does help, though. I sharpen my 6x6 and 6x4.5 flatbed scans pretty significantly. OTOH, my 35mm film scanner scans barely need it.
As pbo said above, you are not going to be able to achieve the same sharpness that you're used to on a digital SLR by scanning 35mm film with a flatbed... not even close. Sharpening does help, though. I sharpen my 6x6 and 6x4.5 flatbed scans pretty significantly. OTOH, my 35mm film scanner scans barely need it.
Krosya
Konicaze
Why not get a better camera with a better lens? Bessa R3A or similar and lets say Nokton 40/1.4 will deliver great results. I dont get you - you used Canon 5D, - one of the best Canon DSLRs, but when it comes to RF you get the cheapest stuff possible? Not to say that good results cant be achieved with the cameras that you used, but lets be reasoable.
alfisti
Member
thanks to both of you. I might look into a better film scanner, but that woudl depend on how much I decide to shoot film in the future. For now I've got 10 more rolls to burn through.
And regarding the shot of my daughter - I dunno, at 1/500th of a second, I'd be surprised if it were camera shake. But I guess it's possible.
Thanks
And regarding the shot of my daughter - I dunno, at 1/500th of a second, I'd be surprised if it were camera shake. But I guess it's possible.
Thanks
alfisti
Member
Krosya, you are making sense - but my logic is it SEEMS that the I-61 lens is generally regarded to be very good, and it's the lens that's doing the heavy lifting here (I think).
In any case, the thought has occurred to me
Thanks
-Glenn
In any case, the thought has occurred to me
Thanks
-Glenn
typhillips
Established
I have no personal experience with the I-61, but from what I've read of it, I doubt this is the weak link in your system. That would definitely be the scanner.
I wonder if it's possible there is some focus shift going on with that camera/lens combo? That might explain the in focus cat photo and out of focus photo of your daughter.
I wonder if it's possible there is some focus shift going on with that camera/lens combo? That might explain the in focus cat photo and out of focus photo of your daughter.
pbo
Established
Don't think you need to invest in a new film scanner right now - since you don't really have that much film left, you might as well try to "figure out" your scanner. It certainly took quite a bit of time for me to make my Epson 4490 work as I wanted it to - still not fully satisfied, but good enough... for now. After that, you will have a better idea whether to keep shooting film.
Creagerj
Incidental Artist
What I am going to say may shock you, but RF's are very difficult to work with. No internal metering, no aperture priority or AF (both very useful IMO). To make matters worse you can't actually see the image as it will look on the frame, and of course there is parallax error.
On to your photos. The shot of your daughter is in focus, just not where you want it. It looks to me like her jacket is in focus and her face is slightly soft. The cat seems fine. With a little post processing your could help this photo a lot.
The photo you took with your DSLR looks like it has been sharpened, so that may part of the deal with the discrepancy you are seeing. I'm pretty sure that when you shoot jpeg mode your digi auto sharpens along with a lot of other adjustments.
My advice is to not shoot BW, try fuji supera 400. Its dirt cheap and very nice. HP5, although it is my favorite film, is very contrasty. Its for composition minded, not detail minded. Both of your photos lack compelling composition, which is why they pale in comparison to your digi shot that you have shared.
Also, it looks like you are showing your best digi work along side your first attempt at BW. BW and color are two different animals, like apples and oranges. Digital is a banana or an avocado. The three can't be compared in a tactile sense. In a technical sense sure, but they all have different emotions.
You just haven't hit your groove yet. If you really want to shoot film, don't screw with RFs, especially not cheap ones. Get an EOS body and shoot film, you'll be happy with what you get. An Elan II goes for nothing these days.
Shooting film and working with RFs are two completely different arts. You just don't have a lot of experience with either. Give it time and you will learn to love the results you get. Its not like Michael Jordan could slam dunk the first time he picked up a basketball.
On to your photos. The shot of your daughter is in focus, just not where you want it. It looks to me like her jacket is in focus and her face is slightly soft. The cat seems fine. With a little post processing your could help this photo a lot.
The photo you took with your DSLR looks like it has been sharpened, so that may part of the deal with the discrepancy you are seeing. I'm pretty sure that when you shoot jpeg mode your digi auto sharpens along with a lot of other adjustments.
My advice is to not shoot BW, try fuji supera 400. Its dirt cheap and very nice. HP5, although it is my favorite film, is very contrasty. Its for composition minded, not detail minded. Both of your photos lack compelling composition, which is why they pale in comparison to your digi shot that you have shared.
Also, it looks like you are showing your best digi work along side your first attempt at BW. BW and color are two different animals, like apples and oranges. Digital is a banana or an avocado. The three can't be compared in a tactile sense. In a technical sense sure, but they all have different emotions.
You just haven't hit your groove yet. If you really want to shoot film, don't screw with RFs, especially not cheap ones. Get an EOS body and shoot film, you'll be happy with what you get. An Elan II goes for nothing these days.
Shooting film and working with RFs are two completely different arts. You just don't have a lot of experience with either. Give it time and you will learn to love the results you get. Its not like Michael Jordan could slam dunk the first time he picked up a basketball.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think you're being a bit hard on yourself ... that photo of your daughter looks fine to me with a little sharpening applied.
andredossantos
Well-known
Re: The I-61. The Russian lenses can deliver nice quality IF you get a good copy. The quality control was spotty back in the USSR!
You don't have to buy a crazy expensive lens but perhaps grab a Voigtlander. The 50mm Color Skopar can be had relatively cheaply and is very sharp. You can test it out vs the I-61 and always sell it for no loss later on.
You don't have to buy a crazy expensive lens but perhaps grab a Voigtlander. The 50mm Color Skopar can be had relatively cheaply and is very sharp. You can test it out vs the I-61 and always sell it for no loss later on.
Last edited:
Richard G
Veteran
Keep at it, and I agree that you should not rush to a better scanner. I get superb results from a flatbed with B&W, admittedly the Epson V700. Good advice regarding Superia too. Makes life much easier.
aad
Not so new now.
A little unsharp mask would fix a world of problems. Even a film scanner can use some help. Try this before spending any money on equipment.
alfisti
Member
Thanks, everyone.
typhillips - interesting you mention focus shift. I didn't think that was possible with a rangefinder, as the lens is focused and the aperture is set before I hit the shutter button?
That said - I DO see the rangefinder patch move when I hear the shutter "thunk". I don't have a clue what might cause that.
And to the others - you are of course correct. I'm comfortable enough with my digital gear that I can go out and shoot what I want and focus on composition, lighting, etc. With this equipment, I'm only at the start, where I'm shooting test rolls under conditions where I'd expect to get certain results. And I'm learning from it, which is all good
Thanks
typhillips - interesting you mention focus shift. I didn't think that was possible with a rangefinder, as the lens is focused and the aperture is set before I hit the shutter button?
That said - I DO see the rangefinder patch move when I hear the shutter "thunk". I don't have a clue what might cause that.
And to the others - you are of course correct. I'm comfortable enough with my digital gear that I can go out and shoot what I want and focus on composition, lighting, etc. With this equipment, I'm only at the start, where I'm shooting test rolls under conditions where I'd expect to get certain results. And I'm learning from it, which is all good
Thanks
setyotomo
Established
just make your benchmarking easier... go to a lab with, maybe a noritsu scanner or fuji.. scan your neg, see the difference... if it still the same you might have a problem with your tools...
this is my industar on canon 7 a while back, scanned with noritsu scanner
Untitled by Dion Setyotomo, on Flickr
this is my industar on canon 7 a while back, scanned with noritsu scanner
Untitled by Dion Setyotomo, on Flickr
setyotomo
Established
sorry double post
alfisti
Member
Thanks, Dion. I think yours looks better than mine. Then again, now that I've gotten a good night's rest and looked at mine again - maybe they are not that bad?
I will shoot a roll of color film and have it processed/scanned, as a comparison. I think that's a great idea.
Thanks
-Glenn
I will shoot a roll of color film and have it processed/scanned, as a comparison. I think that's a great idea.
Thanks
-Glenn
Proteus617
Established
Glenn-mind if I do a little post processing on one of your photos?
alfisti
Member
Not at all. Please do!
jcrutcher
Veteran
Glenn, your story sounds the same as what happened to me. I used a Canon Mark 3 1Ds for a couple of years then switched last year to Leica both film and digital. I'm still learning but the process of learning is fun and rewarding. My observations.
Compared to Canon's best Film is soft, that's ok because it's more realistic of what your eye sees.
The second shot would be a keeper for me, I think it's very good.
Maybe you should take it in stages and master each step before you move to the next. Learn the camera and lens first, all manual and use a light meter.
Stick with one film which you're doing.
Send the film to a lab that can do Tiff scanning. This way you can judge the camera and you're technique.
Once satisfied with the shots move on to scanning your own but still have a lab develop.
Have a lab do some prints for you to compare.
Once all above is dialed in then move to developing.
Once you've mastered developing (I'm not at this point yet) try a couple of other films.
At this point you may also want to add another camera or two and different focal length lenses.
The problem with full frame DSLR's is they give such good results we forget how to master the art of photography. I think in about 10 years I'll be a good photographer.
lastly be active on RFF, you will learn a lot from the members, they are either professional photographers or have a few years head start on you and I.
Jim
Compared to Canon's best Film is soft, that's ok because it's more realistic of what your eye sees.
The second shot would be a keeper for me, I think it's very good.
Maybe you should take it in stages and master each step before you move to the next. Learn the camera and lens first, all manual and use a light meter.
Stick with one film which you're doing.
Send the film to a lab that can do Tiff scanning. This way you can judge the camera and you're technique.
Once satisfied with the shots move on to scanning your own but still have a lab develop.
Have a lab do some prints for you to compare.
Once all above is dialed in then move to developing.
Once you've mastered developing (I'm not at this point yet) try a couple of other films.
At this point you may also want to add another camera or two and different focal length lenses.
The problem with full frame DSLR's is they give such good results we forget how to master the art of photography. I think in about 10 years I'll be a good photographer.
lastly be active on RFF, you will learn a lot from the members, they are either professional photographers or have a few years head start on you and I.
Jim