karateisland
Established
In anticipation of my CLE arriving, I have been thinking of what I can do to smooth my transition to film from digital. I started by using my Fuji in fully manual mode to mimic the restrictions of film. That is, I set the ISO to 400, and set the shutter speed and aperture according to the sunny 16 method.
It has been an eye-opening experience. I have come up against some limitations in terms of light gathering—which I have never really dealt with before. Since the little Fuji has such great high-ISO performance, in the past I would simply set auto-ISO, pick an aperture that suits me and run with it. In low light, I set it to F/2 and the camera would take care of the rest. Now, shooting it like a film camera, with ISO 400 (or 100), I am coming up against the limitations of the F/2 lens *sometimes.*
So I started to wonder, is F/2 fast enough? The answer, of course, is that it depends on who you are and what kind of subjects you shoot. If you shoot film, you can learn from experience--you’ll likely just know that you rarely hit the limits of your F/2 or F/2.8 lens. If you shoot digital and let your camera do it all for you, then, well, you lack the same lived experience.
Many of you reading this will probably think, “Then just go out and shoot with film, get the lived experience, and you’ll find out!” This is true, of course, and excellent advice. However, in my excitement for my new camera to arrive, I decided to try the next best thing: data analysis!
I extracted metadata for aperture and shutter speed for every digital picture I took in 2017. Next, I plugged those numbers into a formula to calculate the EV for every shot, which I tallied and converted to a chart. This gave me a quick visual guide that shows me how many pictures I took at each EV during 2017. (See attached chart.)
I took more than 90% of my pictures over EV 7, which Fred Parker’s handy dandy Ultimate Exposure Computer guide rates as "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Bottom of rainforest canopy. Brightly lighted nighttime streets. Indoor sports. Stage shows, circuses." (http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm) Furthermore, my guess is that most of the pictures I took under EV 7 were the result of my playing around with the camera at night in my condo--so I'd put the actual number of shots taken below EV 7 much lower than 9 out of 10.[/FONT][/FONT]
Using that information, I can check Fred Parker's EV exposure factor relationship chart, which gives me a way to see if a lens would be up to snuff for my normal use. My M-Rokkor 40mm (original version) opens up to F/2 and can be handheld down to 1/30. Finding those numbers on Fred’s chart, I see that this can be used comfortably in lighting down to EV 5 if I use ISO 400 film, and EV 7 if I use ISO 100 film. The lens is likely to be more than good enough!
Th[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]is also helps me when [/FONT]thinking about what lenses might be the best use of my (limited) funds in the future. Let’s say I want a wide-angle to accompany my normal 40. Would the VC Color Skopar 25mm be fast enough? To find out, I can repeat the same steps as above: The lens opens to F/4 and can be quite comfortably handheld down to 1/30. Using ISO 400 film means I can shoot in light as dim as EV 7, ISO 100 gets me workable results in light as low as EV 9, which is still good enough for most landscape shots. Alongside my rokkor, that would make a rather affordable and extremely small two-lens kit with my Rokkor that would get me pretty far.
I can run the same analysis for a 50mm F/2.5 and see that shooting ISO 400 film gets me a little below EV 7. That makes it more than passable for daytime outdoors work and portraits, which, again, is probably good enough for me as part of a small kit. F/2 would get me even further.
Some of you may say this over-complicates things, that my preferences may change in time, that I may decide to move on to new lenses after my initial purchase, or even point out that there are plenty of other factors to take into account—those are all fair points, and this is definitely not a perfect system. For me, however, any concrete metric that makes me feel more comfortable buying a slower, cheaper, and easier to correct lens is a good thing. It will save me money for film.
In the end, it eliminates one more unknown factor, helping me to maximize the quality of my lens kit, and minimize the cost. It's a very personal thing, of course, but this helped me a lot and I thought I would share in case anyone else could benefit.
It has been an eye-opening experience. I have come up against some limitations in terms of light gathering—which I have never really dealt with before. Since the little Fuji has such great high-ISO performance, in the past I would simply set auto-ISO, pick an aperture that suits me and run with it. In low light, I set it to F/2 and the camera would take care of the rest. Now, shooting it like a film camera, with ISO 400 (or 100), I am coming up against the limitations of the F/2 lens *sometimes.*
So I started to wonder, is F/2 fast enough? The answer, of course, is that it depends on who you are and what kind of subjects you shoot. If you shoot film, you can learn from experience--you’ll likely just know that you rarely hit the limits of your F/2 or F/2.8 lens. If you shoot digital and let your camera do it all for you, then, well, you lack the same lived experience.
Many of you reading this will probably think, “Then just go out and shoot with film, get the lived experience, and you’ll find out!” This is true, of course, and excellent advice. However, in my excitement for my new camera to arrive, I decided to try the next best thing: data analysis!
I extracted metadata for aperture and shutter speed for every digital picture I took in 2017. Next, I plugged those numbers into a formula to calculate the EV for every shot, which I tallied and converted to a chart. This gave me a quick visual guide that shows me how many pictures I took at each EV during 2017. (See attached chart.)
I took more than 90% of my pictures over EV 7, which Fred Parker’s handy dandy Ultimate Exposure Computer guide rates as "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Bottom of rainforest canopy. Brightly lighted nighttime streets. Indoor sports. Stage shows, circuses." (http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm) Furthermore, my guess is that most of the pictures I took under EV 7 were the result of my playing around with the camera at night in my condo--so I'd put the actual number of shots taken below EV 7 much lower than 9 out of 10.[/FONT][/FONT]
Using that information, I can check Fred Parker's EV exposure factor relationship chart, which gives me a way to see if a lens would be up to snuff for my normal use. My M-Rokkor 40mm (original version) opens up to F/2 and can be handheld down to 1/30. Finding those numbers on Fred’s chart, I see that this can be used comfortably in lighting down to EV 5 if I use ISO 400 film, and EV 7 if I use ISO 100 film. The lens is likely to be more than good enough!
Th[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]is also helps me when [/FONT]thinking about what lenses might be the best use of my (limited) funds in the future. Let’s say I want a wide-angle to accompany my normal 40. Would the VC Color Skopar 25mm be fast enough? To find out, I can repeat the same steps as above: The lens opens to F/4 and can be quite comfortably handheld down to 1/30. Using ISO 400 film means I can shoot in light as dim as EV 7, ISO 100 gets me workable results in light as low as EV 9, which is still good enough for most landscape shots. Alongside my rokkor, that would make a rather affordable and extremely small two-lens kit with my Rokkor that would get me pretty far.
I can run the same analysis for a 50mm F/2.5 and see that shooting ISO 400 film gets me a little below EV 7. That makes it more than passable for daytime outdoors work and portraits, which, again, is probably good enough for me as part of a small kit. F/2 would get me even further.
Some of you may say this over-complicates things, that my preferences may change in time, that I may decide to move on to new lenses after my initial purchase, or even point out that there are plenty of other factors to take into account—those are all fair points, and this is definitely not a perfect system. For me, however, any concrete metric that makes me feel more comfortable buying a slower, cheaper, and easier to correct lens is a good thing. It will save me money for film.
In the end, it eliminates one more unknown factor, helping me to maximize the quality of my lens kit, and minimize the cost. It's a very personal thing, of course, but this helped me a lot and I thought I would share in case anyone else could benefit.
Attachments
Last edited:
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I'd be careful here. I know I am operating at the limits at 1/30th, and can't be certain of a lack of motion blur. You may be very steady though.
karateisland
Established
Another wrinkle! Thanks for the tip--I tend to be quite steady, but I suppose I'll see soon enough...
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
Interesting approach to lens choice(s).
One budget 50mm you might look for, if you decide to get a 50mm, is the Canon LTM 50/1.8. Quite good image quality and not much more than $100 if found without haze and would fit your bang for the buck/size approach. I have one and it fits my CL quite well, much better than the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 which I also have (1.4 is now gone) but use on my M3 more comfortably.
Enjoy the film path and as you likely have already heard, when in doubt (with negative film), give it more exposure.
One budget 50mm you might look for, if you decide to get a 50mm, is the Canon LTM 50/1.8. Quite good image quality and not much more than $100 if found without haze and would fit your bang for the buck/size approach. I have one and it fits my CL quite well, much better than the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 which I also have (1.4 is now gone) but use on my M3 more comfortably.
Enjoy the film path and as you likely have already heard, when in doubt (with negative film), give it more exposure.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
FWIW, I rarely hit a shot at 1/30th. I still attempt it though 
Even 1/60 can have movement blur if you're in motion or have had too much coffee or just don't have your technique down. I have the images to prove it. (and just to clarify, with a 35 or 50mm lens).
Even 1/60 can have movement blur if you're in motion or have had too much coffee or just don't have your technique down. I have the images to prove it. (and just to clarify, with a 35 or 50mm lens).
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
It's fast enough.
Many of the greatest photos ever taken were shot with f/2.8 or f/3.5 50mm lenses drawing on 50 or 64ASA film. Most of Bresson's greatest work. Erich Salomon was scale focusing a fast long focus lens with incredibly slow film. In what we may call darkness.
Maybe we've gotten more jittery in the last 50 years and I keep saying that I need to buy more Delta 3200 but really, I can shoot handheld Tri-X down to 1/15 at f/2 and get what I need in focus. If I'm walking around the city at night, I may even take my 2.1cm f/4 Nikkor O on my M4 as the wide angle lens really cuts down the jitter effect. I can handhold that lens for decent images to 1/4 second. If I have a wall to lean on, I can shoot on Bulb.
Phil Forrest
Many of the greatest photos ever taken were shot with f/2.8 or f/3.5 50mm lenses drawing on 50 or 64ASA film. Most of Bresson's greatest work. Erich Salomon was scale focusing a fast long focus lens with incredibly slow film. In what we may call darkness.
Maybe we've gotten more jittery in the last 50 years and I keep saying that I need to buy more Delta 3200 but really, I can shoot handheld Tri-X down to 1/15 at f/2 and get what I need in focus. If I'm walking around the city at night, I may even take my 2.1cm f/4 Nikkor O on my M4 as the wide angle lens really cuts down the jitter effect. I can handhold that lens for decent images to 1/4 second. If I have a wall to lean on, I can shoot on Bulb.
Phil Forrest
narsuitus
Well-known
I wish I could help you but my experience was just the opposite of yours. I made the transition from film to digital.
When I was a film only shooter, I shot under a variety of lighting conditions and usually shot ISO 100 and ISO 400 film. Occasionally, I would have to push process my 400 film to 800.
Since I rarely carried film with an ISO rating higher than 400, I relied on fast lenses (f/1.2, f/1.4, f/2 and f/2.8) with my small format 35mm film cameras. With my medium format and large format film cameras, I still use slow lenses. I must rely instead on a sturdy tripod and a long shutter speed for correct exposure.
With my small format digital cameras (full-frame, FX, DX, APS-C, and micro 4/3), I still use my film shooting style and habits. I usually set my ISO to 100 or 400 and only occasionally use ISO 800, 1600, or 3200. I never shoot auto ISO.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Respect! I wish I could achieve 1/15. As I said, I still try but often end up with an image that doesn't meet my objectives. However, because I'm not afraid to try, I've found myself with a few surprises. One of my favorite images of "city life" during the last year was shot at 1/15, and blurry as hell in most of the image, except for where I actually wanted sharpness. I'll freely admit it was a happy accident, but I'll take it!
I honestly don't expect images at [handheld] 1/30 and below to be sharp. OK if I planned it that way, disappointing otherwise. I'm even worse with a SLR/DSLR
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
How enough is F2 for family, group of five, seven?
If you are forum photographer, then lens is never fast enough. If you are real life photographer and aperture is for gathering of enough light, not bokeh masturbation, you will quickly realise why flash was photographer friend and why modern digital cameras have clean ISO 12800 and up.
The only limit I have with film, is how far I could push it. My limit is @3200. And it limits my real life photography by 1/8 with f2.5. But once I have flash added...
If you are forum photographer, then lens is never fast enough. If you are real life photographer and aperture is for gathering of enough light, not bokeh masturbation, you will quickly realise why flash was photographer friend and why modern digital cameras have clean ISO 12800 and up.
The only limit I have with film, is how far I could push it. My limit is @3200. And it limits my real life photography by 1/8 with f2.5. But once I have flash added...
f16sunshine
Moderator
I use a 2.5/50mm and it's fast enough 90% of the time.
One thing I find now over the years is, I'm not afraid to underexpose a shot.
More specifically, leave shadow details unexposed.
It often represents the scene better and adds contrast.
It's an approach of looking for the image that is there and not over reaching.
Limits create opportunities !
One of the reasons we use film is to compliment Digitals "perfection" and ability to go deep into the shadows.
Letting some of what we might think of the "traditional shortcomings" of film photography exist in the work.
Digital has made it too easy to always get the shot. Even with an iPhone one can have a fully exposed room that measures ev 2 IRL ....
My eyes can't see what the Digital sensor does.
Using film, I show what my eyes see.
When using a faster lens, it's to get faster shutter speeds not expose more deeply into shadows.
That f2.5/50 is complimented by a f1.2/50.
In your case with the CLE, I would eventually choose the Nokton f1.4/40.
With a digital camera it would have been too tempting to expose deeper. With film... the choice was limited.
Seriously by Adnan, on Flickr
Cheers
One thing I find now over the years is, I'm not afraid to underexpose a shot.
More specifically, leave shadow details unexposed.
It often represents the scene better and adds contrast.
It's an approach of looking for the image that is there and not over reaching.
Limits create opportunities !
One of the reasons we use film is to compliment Digitals "perfection" and ability to go deep into the shadows.
Letting some of what we might think of the "traditional shortcomings" of film photography exist in the work.
Digital has made it too easy to always get the shot. Even with an iPhone one can have a fully exposed room that measures ev 2 IRL ....
My eyes can't see what the Digital sensor does.
Using film, I show what my eyes see.
When using a faster lens, it's to get faster shutter speeds not expose more deeply into shadows.
That f2.5/50 is complimented by a f1.2/50.
In your case with the CLE, I would eventually choose the Nokton f1.4/40.
With a digital camera it would have been too tempting to expose deeper. With film... the choice was limited.
Seriously by Adnan, on FlickrCheers
Jdsegra
Member
It really depends on how steady your hands are and your development process.
I use a 60min semi-stand in rodinal most of the time for HP5 at 800. Using this, I can pretty reliably shoot indoors at night in a well lit room at f2 ,1/60(think kitchen). If I need more light, it'd be nice to have 1.4. I suppose I could also use a conventional development and push to 1600, but I'm lazy.
Most of the time I just open up to 1/30 or 1/15, take a deep breath and hope for the best. Most of the time it works out, but every now and then it ends in heart ache.
Best of luck on the conversion to film. Once you adjust, it'll be hard to go back to digital. When you nail a shot on film, it's magic.
Best advice I can give you.... If you develop at home, make sure you pay attention to how long your fixer is good for.. I couldn't figure out why my shots looked so ****ty for a while and was blaming my exposures.. then I realized that I had been using exhausted fixer and had ruined several rolls through bad development.
I use a 60min semi-stand in rodinal most of the time for HP5 at 800. Using this, I can pretty reliably shoot indoors at night in a well lit room at f2 ,1/60(think kitchen). If I need more light, it'd be nice to have 1.4. I suppose I could also use a conventional development and push to 1600, but I'm lazy.
Most of the time I just open up to 1/30 or 1/15, take a deep breath and hope for the best. Most of the time it works out, but every now and then it ends in heart ache.
Best of luck on the conversion to film. Once you adjust, it'll be hard to go back to digital. When you nail a shot on film, it's magic.
Best advice I can give you.... If you develop at home, make sure you pay attention to how long your fixer is good for.. I couldn't figure out why my shots looked so ****ty for a while and was blaming my exposures.. then I realized that I had been using exhausted fixer and had ruined several rolls through bad development.
Jdsegra
Member
Also, part of the fun of film is that if you're up against a constraint and need say 1/15 make an exposure, you're forced to pan to get the shot.
It may not work out, but you may end up with an even better shot than if you had just upped your ISO on a digital camera.
It may not work out, but you may end up with an even better shot than if you had just upped your ISO on a digital camera.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Just curious why the film couldn't have been salvaged by refixing in fresh fixer?
Jdsegra
Member
My assumption is that the fix prevents the film from continuing to develop to light. It may stop it getting any worse, but it won't retroactively keep it from continuing to develop.
How low you can hand hold a shutter speed differed wildly for people. It also depends on how / what you photograph and what acceptable sharpness is for you. If you are standing still waiting for a photo to happen and you breath properly, you have a better chance of getting a low shutter speed shot than if you are walking, see something quickly, and have to bring the camera quickly to your eye for the moment. Handholding at low shutter speeds seems to have a macho element attached to it... but does the photo work? In the past, many had no choice but to try to get the shot at a low shutter speed or risk having no shot. I see no need to handicap yourself if there is another option available today. I'll take the fast lens and the high ISO. I also have shaky hands and tend to walk a lot waiting for something to catch my attention. I may need to bring my camera to my eye quickly, and just shoot.
karateisland
Established
In this case, the idea is to get myself out there shooting ASAP, and to do it with lenses that offer the aesthetic qualities I like, in a package I can afford. If slower lenses will work for more than 90% of my shots, why not start with one of those instead of waiting until I've saved for an F/2?
Though it's likely add faster lenses to my kit in the future, I can still have a lot of fun--and take most of the pictures I want to take--with some small, slow lenses while I'm saving up.
I can agree with that... certainly better to be making photos than dreaming about equipment.
Certainly... my response wasn't in direct response to you necessarily but the whole thread. Sorry, I agree wholeheartedly with buying a 2.5 or 2.8 lens and just making photos. The worst that can happen is you can't make some photos. That happens even when you seemingly have it all!
karateisland
Established
Ah! Understood. And I totally agree with your sentiment!
This is part of what I'm looking for with film, honestly--sometimes it's almost too easy being able to get a perfectly competent photo in any circumstances using my digital!
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I have one word for you: monopod.
Actually, a bunch of folks used to take a 1/4 screw and tie a long piece of sturdy string to it. The screw goes into the tripod socket and you stand on the string and pull UP until the string is taut. Helps with the shakes.
BTW 1/30 with a 50mm lens is ok, but I wouldn't call it "no problem." You have subject movement to consider too.
Where I live f:2 at 1/60th will do for many indoor settings during the day. But at night? Let's just say that I own a lot of f:1.4 and faster lenses . . .
michaelwj
----------------
My fastest lens is a 28/2.8 at ISO 320. I can hand hold down to 1/15th provided the subject is stationary, and sometimes go down to 1/8th with acceptable (not excellent) results. After that, I'll put down my camera and pick up a beer.
One other point to think about:
Lets say I'm at 1/15 and f/2.8 and you're at 1/60th and f/1.4 and in both cases the subject is moving a little. Is it better to have a uniform motion blur over the whole image, or miss focus as the subject moves in and out of the narrow plane of focus?
Personally, I find people shots at wide apertures like f/1.4 are hit and miss unless they are sitting for a portrait or my shutter speed is high enough to stop the subjects motion (not my camera motion), or about 1/250. I pick uniform motion blur.
For the record, my best shots have been shot at f/4 to f/8 with shutter speeds down to 1/30th.
One other point to think about:
Lets say I'm at 1/15 and f/2.8 and you're at 1/60th and f/1.4 and in both cases the subject is moving a little. Is it better to have a uniform motion blur over the whole image, or miss focus as the subject moves in and out of the narrow plane of focus?
Personally, I find people shots at wide apertures like f/1.4 are hit and miss unless they are sitting for a portrait or my shutter speed is high enough to stop the subjects motion (not my camera motion), or about 1/250. I pick uniform motion blur.
For the record, my best shots have been shot at f/4 to f/8 with shutter speeds down to 1/30th.