CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Film, particularly 35mm, is having a renaissance. This post was conceived while editing the two images below. After returning to shooting film a few years ago, I've done a few side by side comparisons of the results from film vs digital. I've cut back on those experiments after recognizing that I ended up with too many of essentially the same image, where the film version has a tangible cost in the postage, film, processing and scanning that can be calculated down to the individual frame.

Consider the two images below, same date, about the same time, with similar perspectives, although with different Canon lenses and bodies.

Sanibel Island Light
Sanibel Island, Florida
November 2018

Version 1

Body - EOS 1v
Lens - EF 135mm f/2L USM
Film - Kodak Portra 400
Exposure - 1/1000 at f/6.3, ISO 400

Sanibel Lighthouse on film by Paul Sager, on Flickr


Version 2

Body - EOS 5DIII
Lens - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
Exposure - 1/100 at f/9, ISO 100

Sanibel Lighthouse by Paul Sager, on Flickr


I've been back into film now for a few years after inheriting a Canon AE-1. The AE-1 dates to sometime in the mid 1970s. I began investigating available film bodies that took me in a few directions before landing on my preferred option, an EOS 1v. The drawback of the manual focus lenses on the AE-1 is that I can't manually focus as accurately as letting the camera and lens auto focus when using an EOS body. The manual focus film cameras just don't have an EVF and 100% digital zoom that my eyes need now from a mirrorless body with manual focus lenses.

For me, what has been exciting about film is the types of film available. As a niche market, really only the highest quality professional film types remain available. I ran a roll of Kodak Ektar through my high school graduation Canon T50 and had better images from that body and the FD 50mm f/1.8 "kit lens" than I had ever created in the years of shooting from the early 80s to the late 90s. I hope my skills have improved after years of digital, but the types of film are better than what you could buy cheap at most any drugstore back in the day.

A crop of the two versions of the Sanibel Lighthouse occurs below. The processing and scanning of the film image, from North Coast Photography Services of Carlsbad, California, returns virtually dust-free JPEGs at 5035x3339-pixels, roughly the resolution of a 16MP digital camera. The scanned files are then processed in Lightroom to achieve the desired end-result.

Below is a side by side crop of the details from the two images. The details show a few considerations:



1) The different pixel resolution (16MP of the scan vs 22MP of the DLSR) provide different options for cropping into the details of the image. I didn't try to maintain the same pixel dimensions of the two crops where the film crop shows poorer in this side by side comparison.

2) The film grain is emphasized by the crop.

3) The color and shadow details are relatively consistent between the two images.

My involvement in film is not to recreate digital images using film. Rather, I use film for the challenge of slowly framing and determining exposure for an image that needs to be captured near perfect in 1 try rather than shooting, considering, adjusting and continuing to shoot in digital. Although here at Sanibel I had both a film body and digital body and shared lenses between the bodies, I tried for most of 2018 to go out with only one type of camera, film or digital, and no longer bringing both bodies where the near same image in both format is likely to occur (like this example).

The color film results, such as the case of Kodak Portra 400 above, is remarkably similar to the digital result. Using of software filters on digital images likely could create virtually identical results with the 'look' of Kodak Portra 400. The similarity of the results between color film and digital is a reason I primarily use black and white film. Of the several color films I've experimented with, Kodak Ektar delivers images that seem more unique to film, an observation to be continued in part II. I intend to post a 5-part series over the next days looking at different aspects of shooting 35mm film now in 2019 based on my own experiences and example images.

The images are sized to fill your wide-screen display. Try using <F11> to maximize your browser window for the full effect. If the images overshoot your display, such as a laptop, just click on the image or the URL link and they'll resize to your screen from the host Flickr site. You can click a bit further into the image details on the Flickr page, if desired. EXIF data is available from the host Flickr pages as well. On the Flickr site, use your <L>key for Large and the <F11> for the full-screen.

If the images are not filling your widescreen display due to recent UHH changes, follow this link and update your UHH profile: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-572300-1.html

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Nice comparison. I'm sticking with digital.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Paul, I've never left film. Though, I shoot mostly black and white when shooting film. In addition, the majority of what I post is done using large format. Admittedly, there are things that I can do with film that are not possible with digital, and vice versa. I'm not one to claim one is better than the other, just different.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Oops-some how posted twice.
--Bob

gessman Loc: Colorado

Please give us a couple of examples of the significant things you can do with film that are not possible with digital that aren't related to the fact that you shoot film at 4x5 and digital at 35mm equivalent. Thanks.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Before we do that, please explain why you added the modifier 'significant' things to my statement that, "...there are things that I can do with film that are not possible with digital".
--Bob

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

gessman, bob, this pending series of posts is intended to further the interest in film now in 2019, but the reply section to any my posts is not the appropriate location for "a couple of examples of the significant things you can do with film that are not possible with digital". Thank for your consideration in this matter.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

You're very welcome, Paul.

I will say that I support your furthering the interest in film.
--Bob

gessman Loc: Colorado

Sure. No problem and my apologies if it appeared I was trying to hijack your thread. I appreciate your effort in offering and discussing this comparison. I evidently mistakenly thought it might be useful for some of our less experienced members if the subject was broadened slightly to further compare and contrast the two mediums while we are on the subject, particularly since Bob introduced an element of mystery that could stand some clarification by way of a couple of the most glaring examples of how one medium offers benefit over the other since they both lead to the production of the same thing - an image.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Among others here, I have never abandoned film.

The problem with comparisons is that there are too many variables involved, not the least of which is the factor limiting affordable digital, the format. This is especially true for B&W where even full frame digital is handicapped by the Bayer array.

At 24x36 digital starts to get expensive even if it has an edge in resolution and ease of use. But above that size, film comes into its own.

Two aspects of film photography that are often overlooked: film is more fun and film is more challenging.

Consider the difference between crossing a bay on a nice summer day. A motorboat will get you there in a hurry but a sailboat will be a lot more fun and more of a challenge to all of your skills. There is a lot of satisfaction to be gained from accomplishing something that most people cannot do.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

this may be a stupid observation but some of the best shots I have ever seen on film were transparencies (slides). And slides were meant to be projected.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

While not directed specifically towards film, my comment is about my film cameras. Using film allows me to return to eye-controlled focus Canon was so famous for and ditched. It improves my photography a LOT. It's fast, efficient and seldom fails.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Nothing can offer a better discipline to the photographer than using film. We will know what we did when the film is developed in marked contrast to digital when we have an immediate feedback and a histogram for guidance. While with film we are more selective of what we shoot because it is more expensive with digital we tend to shoot the hell out of everything we see. After all, digital is practically free.
For more discipline use slide film with its contracted dynamic range. Exposures have to be right on and what we see is what we get.
Monochrome film is a different story. It is important to figure out the actual speed of the film and it is important to arrive at the right development for the bright areas that preserves the shadow areas. This only happens with testing and that takes time.
Today film is not readily available. It is more expensive than ever to buy it and have it developed and scanned. Scans gain in grain and contrast (my experience) but those color negatives are flexible enough when we edit.
I love the tonalities in both, b&w and color negative film. I love the dynamic range. I still see tonalities with film that I cannot see with digital but that is me.
When it comes to sharpness and super enlargements film is hard to beat. Nothing comes close to a 4x5 negative for those enlargements. Film is indeed sharp although many of them are grainy.
Film and digital will get us the image we want although as has been said they are different medias.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

An interesting subject - especially for us older film era users ! IMO, today, medium and large format film would/should provide the most attraction for film shooting. Thanks for posting/sharing....

..