Smarter Everyday:How does film work: Probably posted before but surely deserves a second look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCxoZlFqzwA pardon for including one of my favorite old...

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Probably posted before but surely deserves a second look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCxoZlFqzwA

pardon for including one of my favorite old commercials...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrakwB0toFA

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

If you are an old timer you have to know how film works. It was what we used for over a century. I bet most of us still have beautiful enlargements from the film era.
Processing film is more expensive than ever, film is expensive too. I have no idea how much it is charged today to develop and print film. I don't even know how much it is charged for digitizing the images and put them on a compact disc or even if indeed that is cost effective.

A big disadvantage to film is that we have to wait till film is developed to know how we did. Digital has instant feedback. Exposure is pretty complicated with slide film, due to its short dynamic range while color negative film is somewhat more flexible. If we are shooting a scene under less than ideal lighting I give the advantage to digital. No film was and, most probably will not be fast enough ever to reach ISO 6400 and digital can go much further than that. What could be easier than night photography with digital.

Something film has that digital has not perfected yet are those shifts in colors mainly in the sky. Many times the sky in some areas look muddy, not with its natural colors and that cannot be fixed with software. Film is superior in that respect. Some tonalities are better reproduced with film but we need the right technician to work with the prints because many times those negatives need color correction and development of the film is left to a machine along with printing. Even an enlargement could show a totally different look from what we saw and all because the colors were not corrected during printing.
With digital it is a totally different game, we do the color correction and the machine prints the file exactly like we envisioned it. I have never been disappointed with my digital prints while frustration was common with prints made from film.

It is an exhilarating experience working with b&w negatives and watching how the image is formed in the developer. We do have the same and more advanced adjustments to work with the image when we use software. When using color negative I remember that we did not have like in b&w different papers with different grades of contrast. Using ISO 400 has been common for medium format shooters at weddings and we came to accept the quality of the prints but look at an ISO 800 made with a "full frame" digital, even using software to control noise and see the tremendous difference in quality. As I write this I do not know of any wedding photographer in Miami using film for weddings and even more, they do not use medium format any longer either. A digital with 24 Mp. gives the quality no film can surpass.

Dynamic range was within the domain of film, no longer so. Today modern digital cameras have a much wider dynamic range than any film made.

The gentleman in the video was talking about "disposable digital cameras" referring to the fact that many photographers shoot whatever stand in front of them knowing there will be no financial loss involved. With film we slow down, we think more about what we are doing and every frame counts.
I like film, it was the media I learned over 55 years ago when all we had was a manual camera and a handheld exposure meter. Pure photography in my opinion. Perhaps I got into the habit and I do not shoot something digital style but think first about what I am going to do as if I was using film. I could go to a shooting and my rate of deleting files could be very low. I do not remember EVER in my travels shooting more than 100 files, perhaps 200 and I bet I am exaggerating.

If film is having a come back I hope the prices will be more realistic. Film, as I said, is what I have used most of my life and I am expecting better weather here in Miami to head for Key Biscayne and shoot a roll of 36 exposures. Digital cameras have outstanding technologies and each new one is better.
Softwares are better than ever and allow us to do things we never dreamed could be done with film. The new mirrorless cameras are great technological marvels and camera's firmware and processors are also better than ever. For sure there is no coming back with digital.

BebuLamar

He talked about film and he talked about SOOC. Unless he shoots Polaroid there is no such thing and he should know as he covers the process needed to have the images after the film comes SOOC.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

camerapapi wrote:

If you are an old timer you have to know how film works. It was what we used for over a century. I bet most of us still have beautiful enlargements from the film era.
Processing film is more expensive than ever, film is expensive too. I have no idea how much it is charged today to develop and print film. I don't even know how much it is charged for digitizing the images and put them on a compact disc or even if indeed that is cost effective.

A big disadvantage to film is that we have to wait till film is developed to know how we did. Digital has instant feedback. Exposure is pretty complicated with slide film, due to its short dynamic range while color negative film is somewhat more flexible. If we are shooting a scene under less than ideal lighting I give the advantage to digital. No film was and, most probably will not be fast enough ever to reach ISO 6400 and digital can go much further than that. What could be easier than night photography with digital.

Something film has that digital has not perfected yet are those shifts in colors mainly in the sky. Many times the sky in some areas look muddy, not with its natural colors and that cannot be fixed with software. Film is superior in that respect. Some tonalities are better reproduced with film but we need the right technician to work with the prints because many times those negatives need color correction and development of the film is left to a machine along with printing. Even an enlargement could show a totally different look from what we saw and all because the colors were not corrected during printing.
With digital it is a totally different game, we do the color correction and the machine prints the file exactly like we envisioned it. I have never been disappointed with my digital prints while frustration was common with prints made from film.

It is an exhilarating experience working with b&w negatives and watching how the image is formed in the developer. We do have the same and more advanced adjustments to work with the image when we use software. When using color negative I remember that we did not have like in b&w different papers with different grades of contrast. Using ISO 400 has been common for medium format shooters at weddings and we came to accept the quality of the prints but look at an ISO 800 made with a "full frame" digital, even using software to control noise and see the tremendous difference in quality. As I write this I do not know of any wedding photographer in Miami using film for weddings and even more, they do not use medium format any longer either. A digital with 24 Mp. gives the quality no film can surpass.

Dynamic range was within the domain of film, no longer so. Today modern digital cameras have a much wider dynamic range than any film made.

The gentleman in the video was talking about "disposable digital cameras" referring to the fact that many photographers shoot whatever stand in front of them knowing there will be no financial loss involved. With film we slow down, we think more about what we are doing and every frame counts.
I like film, it was the media I learned over 55 years ago when all we had was a manual camera and a handheld exposure meter. Pure photography in my opinion. Perhaps I got into the habit and I do not shoot something digital style but think first about what I am going to do as if I was using film. I could go to a shooting and my rate of deleting files could be very low. I do not remember EVER in my travels shooting more than 100 files, perhaps 200 and I bet I am exaggerating.

If film is having a come back I hope the prices will be more realistic. Film, as I said, is what I have used most of my life and I am expecting better weather here in Miami to head for Key Biscayne and shoot a roll of 36 exposures. Digital cameras have outstanding technologies and each new one is better.
Softwares are better than ever and allow us to do things we never dreamed could be done with film. The new mirrorless cameras are great technological marvels and camera's firmware and processors are also better than ever. For sure there is no coming back with digital.

If you are an old timer you have to know how film ... (show quote)

Needing materials for production of the film itself and the post processing plus chemicals afterward, I don't think film can become cheaper than what they already are.
Its comeback may be just a passing fad, for surely it won't be the top dog again. Rather it will remain as a niche for other hobbyist or professionals looking for a its distinctive look or capability.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

BebuLamar wrote:

He talked about film and he talked about SOOC. Unless he shoots Polaroid there is no such thing and he should know as he covers the process needed to have the images after the film comes SOOC.

Probably using a stretched meaning of the term to include developing and printing of the film without deliberate touch-ups, akin to a JPEG SOOC.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Wallen wrote:

Probably using a stretched meaning of the term to include developing and printing of the film without deliberate touch-ups, akin to a JPEG SOOC.

Film SOOC might be doing a straight print (no burning or dodging) on #2 (normal contrast) paper.

BebuLamar

JohnSwanda wrote:

Film SOOC might be doing a straight print (no burning or dodging) on #2 (normal contrast) paper.

Still you can expose for darker or lighter depending what you want. There isn't a standard exposure for a negative that you can call it SOOC.