JSouthworth wrote:
It isn't all about resolution, films can have a superior dynamic range. Low speed films can however surpass the resolution of digital image sensors, figures up to 800 lines per millimeter have been quoted for some black and white films.

Naaaa.... 35mm film can't touch high end full frame DSLRs for resolution and dynamic range.
At least not for 99% of users in real world conditions.

But it is fair to argue that differences in the creation process and how we perceive the images can make 35mm film worthwhile to some users.

Chris Macan wrote:
35mm film can't touch high end full frame DSLRs for resolution and dynamic range.
At least not for 99% of users in real world conditions.

General purpose 200 ISO film, as used in single-use cameras has a much better dynamic range than digital sensors. Black and white film can also have more dynamic range as this article shows;

https://petapixel.com/2019/05/02/film-v … -compares/

Dynamic range is a more useful measure than exposure latitude, expressed as a number of stops above and below correct exposure, because correct exposure is usually subjective in pictorial photography.

JSouthworth wrote:
General purpose 200 ISO film, as used in single-use cameras has a much better dynamic range than digital sensors. Black and white film can also have more dynamic range as this article shows;

https://petapixel.com/2019/05/02/film-v … -compares/

Dynamic range is a more useful measure than exposure latitude, expressed as a number of stops above and below correct exposure, because correct exposure is usually subjective in pictorial photography.

This doesn't really address usable dynamic range so much as how badly can you can get your exposure and still wind up with something kinda usable. And it doesn't really say what kind of digital file was being created. Is this film vs. jpeg  or film vs. RAW? (cause it kinda makes a difference)

Also, When I'm talking about dynamic range I'm talking about usable latitude within a properly exposed frame
I've always shot slides.... so the basic DSLR generally has slightly greater usable dynamic range when properly exposed as a jpeg.

Negative film (color or BW) typically has a bit more dynamic range than digital shot as jpegs, but I would argue how usable it actually is to the average user making darkroom prints. (and it's probably less usable if scanning)
But if you consider the ease of shooting RAW or HDR in digital then for practical purposes that average user can achieve extended dynamic ranges in digital that require far greater skills to achieve with film.

JSouthworth wrote:
General purpose 200 ISO film, as used in single-use cameras has a much better dynamic range than digital sensors. Black and white film can also have more dynamic range as this article shows;

Why is dynamic range so unimportant in digital cameras in comparison to film cameras?

the higher inherent dynamic range of digital sensors, their linear response to light, and the availability of post-processing tools make dynamic range less important in digital cameras compared to film cameras

Chris Macan wrote:
This doesn't really address usable dynamic range so much as how badly can you can get your exposure and still wind up with something kinda usable. And it doesn't really say what kind of digital file was being created. Is this film vs. jpeg  or film vs. RAW? (cause it kinda makes a difference)

Also, When I'm talking about dynamic range I'm talking about usable latitude within a properly exposed frame
I've always shot slides.... so the basic DSLR generally has slightly greater usable dynamic range when properly exposed as a jpeg.

Negative film (color or BW) typically has a bit more dynamic range than digital shot as jpegs, but I would argue how usable it actually is to the average user making darkroom prints. (and it's probably less usable if scanning)
But if you consider the ease of shooting RAW or HDR in digital then for practical purposes that average user can achieve extended dynamic ranges in digital that require far greater skills to achieve with film.

The basic problem with digital is that anything overexposed by more than about four stops will be a washout. And that can make it difficult or impossible to expose the main subject correctly without ruining the picture in some situations.

JSouthworth wrote:
The basic problem with digital is that anything overexposed by more than about four stops will be a washout. And that can make it difficult or impossible to expose the main subject correctly without ruining the picture in some situations.

This is only a problem for photographers that don't know or understand how their DSLRs settings work and how to use them. Ref. bracketing and HDR images.

Bracketing in Photography: The Ultimate Guide

JSouthworth wrote:
The basic problem with digital is that anything overexposed by more than about four stops will be a washout. And that can make it difficult or impossible to expose the main subject correctly without ruining the picture in some situations.

Yes, if you are shooting jpeg which most people do, that can be an issue.
Of course my preferred film was until recently always transparency file... so same problem.

Chris Macan wrote:
Yes, if you are shooting jpeg which most people do, that can be an issue.
Of course my preferred film was until recently always transparency file... so same problem.

You would have the same problem with transparency films, but general purpose 200 ISO negative film has a much greater dynamic range. Note though that some professional medium speed negative films optimised for portrait photography have a limited exposure latitude and dynamic range.

JSouthworth wrote:
You would have the same problem with transparency films, but general purpose 200 ISO negative film has a much greater dynamic range. Note though that some professional medium speed negative films optimised for portrait photography have a limited exposure latitude and dynamic range.

In my opinion "general use" 200 ISO color negative films were pretty horrible,
and 400 speed was worse....

Kodak Gold was OK, but Fuji, Konica, and most supermarket/drug store brands medium speed c41 films were bleah!

Chris Macan wrote:

In my opinion "general use" 200 ISO color negative films were pretty horrible,
and 400 speed was worse....

Kodak Gold was OK, but Fuji, Konica, and most supermarket/drug store brands medium speed c41 films were bleah!

I liked Fuji C200 but they have apparently discontinued it. Lomography 100 has finer grain and is my colour film of choice right now.

Lachance Photography wrote:
There are still film directors who only shoot film like Nolan and Tarantino as it transfers better to large formats like imax and 70mm.

70mm film can be used in some still cameras, including Hasselblads and Bronicas, if you are prepared to track down the 70mm backs and suitable film stock. Spirals and tanks for developing 5m lengths of 70mm film also exist.

At one time you could buy 70mm film in special cassettes for use in these 70mm film backs, but not for a long time now. The cassettes are however reloadable;

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/h … le.177435/

Lachance Photography wrote:
There are still film directors who only shoot film like Nolan and Tarantino as it transfers better to large formats like imax and 70mm.

There was a Mail Order company in the late 70s early 80 advertising motion picture film in 35 mm canisters. They were bright Red, can't remember the name or film speed but I did like the way colors were rendered.

Lachance Photography wrote:
There are still film directors who only shoot film like Nolan and Tarantino as it transfers better to large formats like imax and 70mm.

IMAX just announced a new film camera that's coming soon.
https://petapixel.com/2024/04/23/the-ne … -friendly/

Great video showing the tech behind IMAX cameras, screens, and 65mm film.
https://youtu.be/6DAFkaGUiT4

Red Sky Photography wrote:
There was a Mail Order company in the late 70s early 80 advertising motion picture film in 35 mm canisters. They were bright Red, can't remember the name or film speed but I did like the way colors were rendered.

Seattle Film Works was the main company selling and processing 35mm ECN-2 (35mm Movie) film in the 80s/90s.

You did not want to accidentally run that stuff through your C41 processor.

rxz wrote:
I gave up film around 20 years ago when I could no longer live with the smell of chemicals when developing and printing in my house.  I sold some of my cameras early this year.  But I still have my F4 and darkroom equipment.

There are "ecologically friendly" black and white chemicals available for sale that do not have any odor. I use those. You might like them.

Chris Macan wrote:
quote=samreevesphoto As they say film is not dead: I'm pretty much sticking to B&W while I remodel my garage for a full service darkroom. Fuji GW 690 + Fomapan 100: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47940417 Canon Elan 7 + Fomapan 100: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47786938 Mamiya C330 + Fomapan 100: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/48125966 I also have in my collection a Canon F-1, A-1, AE-1, AT-1, FX, FT, FTb, EF, Tachihara 4x5 Field, and a Yashica-C.

Have you tried Ferrania P30?
It's a bit more expensive and harder to get than Fomapan but I think the high silver/low grain nature of it would work well for the images you shoot. https://www.filmferrania.com/

You might also like Ferrania P33. They just started making it. It's contrasty. So far I've only tried P30.

Chris Macan wrote:
quote=Shadow Dancer This, not exactly but mostly. I also worked at a film based photo lab, we were the only lab in the Central Valley of California that printed Type R - slides to positives. There were some individuals printing Cibachrome, which is a different process for positive to positive. I ran the E-6 and Type R labs, developed slide film and printed positives.

I was also a E6 and R3 devotee.

Studied both processes extensively at The Rochester Institute of Technology and managed an E6 line for a few years after I graduated. (my E6 Z manual is still sitting on the shelf here in my office)

I loved nothing more than shooting Pinhole camera images directly onto R3 paper.
(fortunately the lab round the corner from my office had an R3 processor so I could keep shooting R3 pinhole images after I graduated from RIT)

I missed my chance try Cibachrome. I would love to see a good Cibachrome print in person.

JSouthworth wrote:
quote=R.EYE.R With current film and development price hike it quickly becomes rather impractical, unfortunately.

Colour film and processing are not getting cheaper but the supply situation for colour negative film is improving a little. Black and white film is not expensive and home processing is pretty easy. Of course you need a film scanner to digitise your images. Film photography is a little more complicated and time consuming than digital. But the cost of professional digital cameras is well beyond what I want to spend on something with a useful life of about 5 years.

Scanning is the part of the process that I find tiresome! I only scan frames that go on my site or here.

Chris Macan wrote:
Not everyone needs or wants to digitize their images.
There are galleries and foundations built around the preservation, display and sales of analogue photography.

I have a scanner for my medium format and polaroid work,
but anything in 35mm or 4x5/8x10 I send out if I need scans.

What do you use to scan?

R.EYE.R wrote:
Fuji transferred the film looks to their recent lines of digital cameras, which may explain the film price hike as well as dwindling production.
Basically it's a process of phasing out film entirely.
It all reminds of the COPAL unwillingness to continue manufacturing leaf shutters, which saw cancellation of several Rodenstock and Schneider lenses for Alpa cameras.

I will probably hold on to the freezer stock for a while, but sadly I didn't stock up on Velvia50 in time.

Another pain is realisation that my GX680 will soon be just a decorative piece.

I was curious about trying the GX680. The shots I've seen with those lenses look astounding. Then again, I've only ever seen that camera used by hard core professionals. Why don't you put a few rolls through it again sometime?

Lachance Photography wrote:
There are some people, particularly wedding couples that still want images shot on film.  They then still want digital images so everything will have to be scanned which requires more work and you can charge more.  However, I don't understand why anyone would request film as today's full frame dslrs and mirrorless cameras far surpass the resolution of even the best film.

I need to find them and serve them. Film is not cheap. Even with black and white.

Someone I know was kind enough to loan me a 4x5 monorail camera so that I can start studying movements. I took it out to the city this weekend. I haven't managed to line up a TFP shoot with it yet to get some practice:



For those of you that did portraiture professionally when film was the only (or main) option what was your absolute favorite film camera setup including lenses, tripods, and lighting? What camera set up caused you the most headaches?

Also @Chris how do you shoot your Aerochrome portraits? I've been thinking about trying that film out someday despite the shocking price for a single roll.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
quote=Lachance Photography There are still film directors who only shoot film like Nolan and Tarantino as it transfers better to large formats like imax and 70mm

IMAX just announced a new film camera that's coming soon.
https://petapixel.com/2024/04/23/the-ne … -friendly/

Great video showing the tech behind IMAX cameras, screens, and 65mm film.
https://youtu.be/6DAFkaGUiT4

If you find film cinema cameras interesting then look up the Logmar 8mm camera. The 8mm footage looks incredible.

Chris Macan wrote:

Seattle Film Works was the main company selling and processing 35mm ECN-2 (35mm Movie) film in the 80s/90s.

You did not want to accidentally run that stuff through your C41 processor.

When I worked at a photo lab we ran a roll through the E-6 slide processor once. It made hideous prints, as we expected.
Running slide film through C-41 process was pretty grotesque as well.

Shadow Dancer wrote:

When I worked at a photo lab we ran a roll through the E-6 slide processor once. It made hideous prints, as we expected.
Running slide film through C-41 process was pretty grotesque as well.

Aaaannnnddd….what did your process control strips look like the next day? A few rolls of C-41 going through the E-6 processor would consistently through our replenishment numbers off and speed up the next time we had to replace the chemistry by a good 30%.

Studio NSFW wrote:

Aaaannnnddd….what did your process control strips look like the next day? A few rolls of C-41 going through the E-6 processor would consistently through our replenishment numbers off and speed up the next time we had to replace the chemistry by a good 30%.

A few rolls of C-41 in a typical sized processor would definitely change the chemistry. We never did that, it was not an available service and it's unlikely anybody would have ordered it more than once since it wasn't exactly a good result.

We ran 1 roll in a processor that held rolls on racks of 6 rolls each. The tanks were long enough that 36 exposure rolls with a weight clamped on the bottom would be about 4 inches above the bottom of the tank. Dip and dunk with automatic chemistry replenishment, Flash Foto ran dozens of rolls daily of slide film and more C-41 in a separate processor.

Just a single roll experiment. In a small processor one roll might make a notable difference, in a large tank system not so much. We ran 35mm, 120 and 4x5 several times a week and maybe once or twice a month customers would bring in 8x10 film. In a city of well over 350,000 people we were the largest film processing lab. We also printed Kodak Type R (positive to positive) which was my primary job., black and white film and printing up to 8x10 (contact prints only for 8x10, we had huge Besseler enlargers for 4x5 and smaller sizes.

Usually if a control strip was out of tolerance it was due to needing to add more distilled water to the chemistry. I don't recall there being any problem with running the one roll. We ran control strips every morning before running film and we kept busy making prints while the films were being developed.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Back in the film days anything that was slated for enlargement (portraiture and wedding) was shot on negative film was Kodak VPS, which went through an olde and well worn Hasselblad 500C.  I also had a Kiev 88 but lord, what a piece of shit it was…mechanically felt like it had been whittled from aluminum with a jackknife dipped in sand and Vaseline.

Your Kiev description made me chuckle. I wanted to try out a Hasselblad but I went with a Mamiya RB67 because it is more affordable on the used market and cheaper to get repaired. I'm realizing that I might need to change my workflow to suit the strengths of the RB67 though. I normally shoot outdoors to save on studio costs and the camera weighs a ton! It's comparable to a 4x5.

I might look for some cold stored VPS to try it out.

Studio NSFW wrote:
It was a cheap find at the time and did quickly inspire the old REAL hasselblad purchase and the sole 80mm lens that came with it. I did also  have a Hasselblad Superwide (the 1957 model before it became the SWC) for a while.  I sold off the Blads along the way, and felt good about it (until recently, when I adopted the modern blads and ended up rebuying a newer one (555 ELD) to work with the new CFV 50ii  and now the CFV100…

Did you enjoy using the Superwide despite the lack of a viewfinder? That must be tough for portraits or anything really. I like the focal length though.

Studio NSFW wrote:
My work back then was maybe 60/40 people photography and commercial catalog and technical work. Technical work in Black and White was done on almost always on Plus-X, in 35mm, 120 or 4x5. Later it was the T-max 100.  Color stuff for volume printing was shot on Trasparency- I LOVED the old Fujichrome 50, especially after those cool little packs came out that you could use with a Polaroid back for 4x5.  I did use the Kodachrome for personal slides for a while but really just swung over to E-6 Fujichrome even for that. 35mm kit was (and still is) Olympus- a pair of OM-1s, one of which is still in the quicpver, fully operational.

Thanks - interesting stuff. Did you decide on the OM-1s after trying several 35mm cameras or did you just happen to start there?

Studio NSFW wrote:
My 4x5 camera was a TERRIBLE Calumet model 1,  that would drop the gear drive front standard after adjustments were done about every third shot it seemed. I put all my money in the Glass, which was a 90mm Caltar f8 and a 150mm Schmieder f8.

I've never heard of those lenses. I'll check them out. Any recommendations for a solid head and shoulder portrait lens in the 200mm range?

Studio NSFW wrote:
That old rail camera you borrowed is obviously an old Sinar Norma, and aren’t they a joy to use? (you may not have a frame of reference on how terrible a First gen Calumet was…but I still do).  As Sinar cameras have gone through the floor compared to what they were in those days, I couldn’t resist picking up a used Norma and  it’s last generation counterpart, a Sinar P2…

Guess again! It's a Plaubel. Those are still pricey on eBay. From what I've read the Norma and P2 are still lusted over.

Do you still shoot any 8x10? I've gone back and forth about whether or not to give 8x10 a go because of the cost. I keep reading that 8x10 contact sheets are unrivaled though.

Shadow Dancer wrote:
When I worked at a photo lab we ran a roll through the E-6 slide processor once. It made hideous prints, as we expected.
Running slide film through C-41 process was pretty grotesque as well.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Aaaannnnddd….what did your process control strips look like the next day? A few rolls of C-41 going through the E-6 processor would consistently through our replenishment numbers off and speed up the next time we had to replace the chemistry by a good 30%.

I don't think you understand the actual issue of ECN-2 film in e6 or c41 processors.
Replenishment isn't the issue, contamination is.
E6 and C41 films share the same basic film construction and behave similarly in development.
ECN-2 films have a carbon Remjet coating that will come off in the developer bath of other processes and tends to stick to other customers film.


E6 and C41 cross processing doesn't generally cause any real issues.
We did tons of it and had no issues keeping our E6 processors in Qlab specs (I didn't manage our C41 process but they stayed in spec as well).

I'd say 10% of my portfolio is cross processed. (both e6 to c41 and c41 to e6)

Chris Macan wrote:

Seattle Film Works was the main company selling and processing 35mm ECN-2 (35mm Movie) film in the 80s/90s.

You did not want to accidentally run that stuff through your C41 processor.

That's it, thank you. They came with a return mailer for processing in my case