Digital or Film... either one... Why f4??
Digital or Film... either one... Why f4??
Hello🙂..
I am a beginner with film photography..Sold the M9 and got a used M7..
I developed my first rolls last night and scanned them today on my Epson V700..
Scanning is tricky, and obviously I'm learning the ropes with developing too.
I also have a Rolleiflex tlr and am quite pleased with the results but my M7 results are very disappointing.
This is one of the first shots I made with the M7 (and 50mm Summilux asph) of a long bank of cow parsley..I metered carefully and the aperture was at about F4, the light was nice, not too bright..I was interested in seeing the detail in the dof.
Most of the shots are rubbish that I took, I know I have a lot to learn with film but any tips about what I could be doing wrong here would be helpful..
Many Thanks.
... There is no appreciable DOF on large apertures. I think you would have had the same result with digital, shooting f4 at this particular subject. Don't blame film for what was not a film problem, or you will soon put down the M7 and go back to digital. All the exposure elements, focus elements including DOF, and compensation functions are relatively the same for digital and film.
Your problem on this image is a routine photography situation. You would be doing film a disservice by making this a film vs digital discussion. \
The thing that does take place between digital and film is the evolution of automation in the digital era. So many people have succumbed to that automation by letting the camera command the process, that a true understanding of composition, exposure, lighting, and other factors have been laid aside. Even with all that automation, it behooves the photographer to better understand all those elements and not get caught up in the differences of the media.
I shoot Digital and I stilll shoot more film. The best thing I ever did to learn the elements that transcend the differing capture media by having taken the NYIP correspondence course (New York Institute of Photography) in the 1960's
Your image would have been markedly different if you had used f16 or f22. But also, if you had used f4 on a digital camera, it would have looked like the same narrow DOF and primarily OOF as you got with film. Provided you had over-ridden the automation on digital and shot manually.
I hate to say this, but your problem is not changing to film. It's about understanding photography in general, rather than concerning yourself with the capture media. Again, don't blame the M7 or film.
Sorry to be critical here, but spend more time on elements of photography. The NYI program is still available, but if they have a digital photography class, and a photography class, I would opt for photography.
And that's also a huge problem with digital photography classes. They often spend WAY too much time on the digital operation of a camera, and not nearly enough on photography concepts that DID NOT CHANGE SUBSTANTIALLY with the advent of the digital technology.
"f11 and Be There"... one of the primary laws of successful photography. Secondly, understand the basic tool and the process. Learn about the relationship between the shutter speed, the fstop, and the nature of the light. Put the automation in the least important position, until you have mastered those three. They rule, even when you drag the automation back into the equation.
That in fact is where digital drops the ball. It's often mistaken as replacement for basic knowledge of photography.
I suggest you take the camera back out to that location and shoot that same image at manual setting of f22, even if you let the meter in the M7 dictate the shutter speed. Then look at just that ONE improvement (long DOF) which is so fundamental to a landscape shot... focus over a long distance. Can't get there with f4.
Oh yes, and one last point. Home scanning is truly BS unless you have a seriously pro scanner, like a Nikon 9000 (dedicated or such) No longer manufactured and used running $2000 to $4000.
While you are sorting out your feelings about film, just have your film processed and scanned in a good lab. Then, if you really think home processing and scanning is truly acceptable and less expensive, which I personally find ridiculous, move to that arena.
I do not and have not processed my own film for many years. Just no time and no place in the housing situations I have had. And I have gone the route of the flatbed scanners. Epson 500, 700 and 750 and personally find scanning a useless waste of my time, for the results. And I've been shooting film since the late fifties.
I still shoot more film than digital, but I pay to have my film processed and scanned for 135. Now for medium format (120), which is a far different animal, I will deign to scan, at least.
LET ME MAKE ONE MORE PERSONAL OBSERVATION ABOUT SCANNING.
I think you will be doing yourself a great favor if you have a pro scan your negs/transparencies until you get the photography stuff worked out. It will help you see the possibilites in a different way. Then pick up the scanning yourself. My experience came down to these two conclusions. I tried the Vuescan and made the mistake of trying to edit the image at the scan level. I finally concluded that I just needed to get a good scan (not an edited scan). So I went back to the Epson scan software, and set focus heights to get the best scans. I found that editing at the scan level, can have a negative effect (no pun) in the final editing software you use. It was better for me to get a good basic scan and work on the file in Photoshop (CS5) or Lightroom. Then these programs did not suffer from editing hacks done in the Epson software, or even more in Vuescan. I learned to turn off all the edit functions in Epson SW, and uncheck the thumbnails box, so I could set the scanning frame to the portion or image that I wanted to acquire in the scan.
Ultimately, I decided that since I could edit in more powerful programs like CS5 and Lightroom, it made more sense for me to have the film processor give me a CD with the high res scan choice at the processing lab. Very inexpensive because my time is worth $50-75 per hour when I have paying clients in my computer work.
Good luck. Keep shooting film. It will actually enhance your digital experience in the end.
