zerobuttons
Well-known
Is it possible to find an overview of how many stops in a single exposure (from highlights to shadows), a given film would successfully cover, without blown highlights and/or blackened shadows?
I took up film photography again, because digital disappointed me in this regard - pretty low dynamic range, even with expensive cameras.
Trying to investigate this with film in mind, I have found all the documents that the manufacturers publicize about their film products, but either I don´t know what to look for, or this information isn´t in those documents.
From my own experiences so far, I know for a fact that I can expect lower dynamic range from Kodak Ektar 100 than from Kodak Portra NC160 (just an example), but since it would be hard for me to really experiment with every interesting film on the market, it would be nice if this information could be found somewhere.
By the way: I am aware that there could be differences between for instance 120 and 135 film with the same product name. I am interested in 135 film, color negative and B&W.
I took up film photography again, because digital disappointed me in this regard - pretty low dynamic range, even with expensive cameras.
Trying to investigate this with film in mind, I have found all the documents that the manufacturers publicize about their film products, but either I don´t know what to look for, or this information isn´t in those documents.
From my own experiences so far, I know for a fact that I can expect lower dynamic range from Kodak Ektar 100 than from Kodak Portra NC160 (just an example), but since it would be hard for me to really experiment with every interesting film on the market, it would be nice if this information could be found somewhere.
By the way: I am aware that there could be differences between for instance 120 and 135 film with the same product name. I am interested in 135 film, color negative and B&W.
Ranchu
Veteran
Look at the density curves of the film datasheets, an increment of 1.0 in log exposure is 3 1/3 stops.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
With B+W it is almost totally dependent on the contrast to which it is developed. Also, the dynamic range of any film (colour or mono) will normally far exceed what can be represented more or less linearly in a print. You might find the following useful: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps subject brightness range.html
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Tim Gray
Well-known
The characteristic curves are where this info is to be found, as stated by Ranchu. The caveat is that they are for standard development and oftentimes the full right side of the curve is not plotted, where the film is either fully saturated or the curve becomes nonlinear and you start to get highlight compression. Faster films usually do better with dynamic range.
Actually printing/scanning super dense highlights can be tough too - even though your film differentiates detail up there might not mean you can extract it in a meaningful manner.
That being said, I think T-Max 400 exposed at 100 and pulled two stops would record whopping amounts of scene dynamic range. It's not too shabby at developed normally either. Portra 400NC also has boatloads of dynamic range.
Actually printing/scanning super dense highlights can be tough too - even though your film differentiates detail up there might not mean you can extract it in a meaningful manner.
That being said, I think T-Max 400 exposed at 100 and pulled two stops would record whopping amounts of scene dynamic range. It's not too shabby at developed normally either. Portra 400NC also has boatloads of dynamic range.
ferider
Veteran
Here is a great summary on how to experimentally determine dynamic range for a given film: http://archive.bigben.id.au/tutorials/360/technical/hdri/results.html (in this case for Reala 100, the conclusion was 15EV).
Note that in a given flow including a scanner, with correct exposure and development, with negative films your dynamic range will be most likely limited by the scanner.
Roland.
Note that in a given flow including a scanner, with correct exposure and development, with negative films your dynamic range will be most likely limited by the scanner.
Roland.
Last edited:
Ranchu
Veteran
This is from a test roll, Olympus XA2 with Kodak 400 HD, on an Epson V500, nothing fancy. The sun was blasting into the lens from the left, I tried to block it with my hand, but not enough I guess. It's soft because of the file upload limit, haven't bothered to tweak.
I find this an incredible amount of DR compared to digital.
I find this an incredible amount of DR compared to digital.
Attachments
emraphoto
Veteran
its why i shoot film
Ranchu
Veteran
kzphoto
Well-known
Ditto for film. I hate blown highlights. Fuji 160S, 400H, 800Z/Press Color 800. All amazing films.
JohnnyT
Established
In general, Fuji have less dynamic range than Kodak... but they have so much more beautiful color and texture...
The new generation of motion picture film Kodak vision 3 have an insane dynamic range... So much that when you look at an original frame, it looks so flat, it's unbelievable... Once you grade it in a HDR digital environment, it gets better
The new generation of motion picture film Kodak vision 3 have an insane dynamic range... So much that when you look at an original frame, it looks so flat, it's unbelievable... Once you grade it in a HDR digital environment, it gets better
FrozenInTime
Well-known
Interesting that Kodak 250D sure does have a lot of dynamic range !
Image below is from : http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Production/VISION3_Color_Negative_Films/VISION3_250D/data5207.htm
1 -5.4 Stops 2 -2.3 Stops 3 +1 Stops 4 +1.5 Stops
5 +3 Stops 6 +4 Stops 7 +6 Stops 8 +7 Stops
I guess the biggest problem is going to be the remjet backing :bang:
I've been using Fuji 400H for years as it seemed to beat everything for overexposure latitude as well as natural colors and fine grain.
Kodak 250D is white and Fuji 400H is red.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
This is a very interesting thread -- thanks to everyone for contributing. I have had the same questions about film & dynamic range for a while now.
From a subjective point of view, film just looks "better". When I use my digital cameras, the images look much more "squashed" dynamically ... I especially notice the blown highlights and the lack of flexibility in the gradation of contrast.
Re: Kodak vs Fuji ... both make great products. I will have to give Fuji 400H another go.
From a subjective point of view, film just looks "better". When I use my digital cameras, the images look much more "squashed" dynamically ... I especially notice the blown highlights and the lack of flexibility in the gradation of contrast.
Re: Kodak vs Fuji ... both make great products. I will have to give Fuji 400H another go.
kossi008
Photon Counter
Hmmmm.... this got me thinking.... You state that on sunny days, northern latitudes will have lower dynamic ranges than southern latitudes. But then you go on to say that "few if any photographers" account for the difference in summer/winter in their developing times.
However, when you look at sun path diagrams you will find that for most places in moderate latitudes, the difference between summer and winter is far greater than the difference between any two such places on average, say, 51st parallel (where I'm at) vs. 34th parallel (e.g. Los Angeles).
So if one doesn't account for the summer/winter differences, then one also shouldn't account for latitude, right? Or am I overlooking something?
Of course, I'll grant that the whole thing is rather academic, as in practice, you'll simply look for what brightness range there *is* in front of you...
Timmyjoe
Veteran
We used to have a theory when I worked in the motion picture industry, about the time digital video was encroaching on film. When folks said that digital had as much dynamic range as film, because film had to be digitally scanned by the same type sensor that was in the digital video camera (therefore it being a wash), we used to point out the following.
When capturing an image, it is the dynamic range of Mother Nature (or the lighting on the set) that needs to be first captured and managed, and this dynamic range can be HUGELY WIDE. The film negative would capture much more of that dynamic range than a digital sensor could. Once the negative was developed, the dynamic range of the negative was less than the dynamic range of the scene in Mother Nature, and therefore much more manageable by the digital sensor. The same digital sensor that got overloaded when trying to capture the raw scene in Mother Nature could capture much more of the scene's dynamic range when capturing it off the film negative.
Best,
-Tim