Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
...is different than with a digital camera"
The opening statement in a book "written by experts that have been shooting outdoors for decades..." and published by Focal Press.
Not being a Landscape 'togger', I would value the opinions of those landscape photographers who have made the transition from film to digital - or indeed, still use both mediums - to enlighten me as to where the approach to this challenging subject differs between the the two mediums.
(I love some of the 'Marketing-speak' used to push product these days!)
Up front I would ask that I be forgiven if I don't follow and respond to this thread 'blow-by-blow' but it occurs to me that the incredible talent here might provide some useful input for those members aspiring to grow in this particular discipline.
I believe that negative film, colour or black and white, has more latitude.
For example, having used mainly E6 and then digital for a few years, I tried some large format sheets on a day when the sky was quite bright, and was surprised how much of the grey cloud was visible in the result, I expected the sky would be featureless. I'm not an expert landscapist at all, but I think there is a difference there.
I wonder also about long exposures. People would talk about reciprocity failure with film, whereas with digital I don't think that happens, but you can get bright spots from overheated pixels,and it can really turn quite grainy, or noisy. That was a problem I never has with 120 E6, exposing several minutes by moonlight. The reciprocity thing never bothered me either, exposure was 50% guesswork anyway.
With digital the possibilities of stacking images and of HDR are there as well, much more easily than with film.
Thanks for the input Keith...
Quote: I believe that negative film, colour or black and white, has more latitude.
That I find VERY interesting in that - depending on who one reads - digital sensors can (apparently) have a 4-stop 'advantage' over transparency film.
I'll explain. I was always advised/am of the opinion that an E6 emulsion had 6-stops of latitude. Accepting that at face-value, I have read recently that a dSLR has a 10-stop range.
Instantly let me say that I refute that and, in terms of 'practicality', I work on a digital sensor (currently D300) having similar latitude to an E6 emulsion - until one starts adding 'tricks' such as Nikon's 'Active D Lighting' in-camera.
I should also add that - based on the opening statement (albeit 'unqualified') one is assuming a 'like-for-like' scenario here i.e. same scene and light / same time / my F5 with an E6 film / my D300 /shoot the scene.
With digital you're not tied to a fixed ISO or white balance
Admittedly with film you could swap mid roll and fit filters but it's not really the same
Lol Mike, well I almost got myself an xpan late last year and now regret not getting it 
I don`t do landscape well maybe just a little.
I guess the biggest difference has to be in grain, if you don`t want it fine, if you do and it can be used affectively using film you would be completely stuffed using digital.
Quote: With digital you're not tied to a fixed ISO or white balance
That's one Alan. Thanks for that
Grain (or lack of) - another good point Paul. Thank you.
And the chances are, you would more than likely use greater care and spend more time with each exposer using film.
Oddly enough I`ve now realised that`s its possible to do HDR using film.
[quote]And the chances are, you would more than likely use greater care and spend more time with each exposer using film.quote]
Exactly!....particularly if working in large or medium format. My best landscape work has been done using a Mamiya RB 6x7. It's not just the extra quality with 120 film, but the heaviness and bulk of the camera, particularly with a long lens, forces you to use a tripod. This slows you down, but with the positive result of making you study the scene, and wait for exactly the right cloud formation etc. etc.
You also take more care to get the exposure right, and when you do, all the contrast and colour vibrancy is there in the film. You don't need to spend time on the computer artificially creating these qualities as is often the case with digital.
Quote: Thanks for the input Keith...
I believe that negative film, colour or black and white, has more latitude.
That I find VERY interesting in that - depending on who one reads - digital sensors can (apparently) have a 4-stop 'advantage' over transparency film.
I'll explain. I was always advised/am of the opinion that an E6 emulsion had 6-stops of latitude. Accepting that at face-value, I have read recently that a dSLR has a 10-stop range.
Instantly let me say that I refute that and, in terms of 'practicality', I work on a digital sensor (currently D300) having similar latitude to an E6 emulsion - until one starts adding 'tricks' such as Nikon's 'Active D Lighting' in-camera.
I should also add that - based on the opening statement (albeit 'unqualified') one is assuming a 'like-for-like' scenario here i.e. same scene and light / same time / my F5 with an E6 film / my D300 /shoot the scene.
Mike,
When you talk about 6 stops or 10 stops above, you are not using the term "lattitude" in the same way as I used it about film in the "olden days".
What you seem to be describing is the dynamic range of the film or sensor.
Traditionally, "lattitude" was the exposure error that the film would tolerate and still give usable results (and I certainly knew of no film that would tolerate an exposure error of 6 stops!!)
Where it did become a little more complicated was that one could deliberately underexpose by up to 2 stops and then recover some of the image by altering the development time or, indeed, using specialist developers. But it was usually accepted that "push-processing" a film in that way led to some degradation of tonal range and exaggerated grain.
I think we're confusing "latitude" with wrong exposure here. The greater "latitude" of film refers to the superior tonal range it has over digital.
The recently launched Kodak Ektar range of colour neg. films, has a far wider tonal range (ideal in sunny "contrasty" weather) than any colour film, neg., or tranny that I've experienced. The only digital camera I've used that comes anywhere near this long tonal range is the Fuji Finepix S3. I've not sampled the latest "full frame" Nikons or Canons in this respect (too expensive to consider).
Black & White is another area where film users consider that the tonal range is greater than digital.
Quote: "Photographing landscape with a film camera...is different than with a digital camera"
The opening statement in a book "written by experts that have been shooting outdoors for decades..." and published by Focal Press.
I'm not in a position to give an opinion Mike as I have never used film before but being curious as you are, I'd be inclined to read the rest of the book to find out......
If the answer is in there let me know, I'd be interested to find out the difference, of course they may not give the answer and just making bold 'caught you' statements ultimately leading to disappointment.
John
Yes, I agree with the book. There are some differences, although they are subtle.
Digital and film are both recording mediums, but you can approch them in different ways.
For example - while it is true that many (most?) of the things we do in Photoshop can be done in the darkroom - they are much more difficult and time consuming in the darkroom, so in practical terms there is a limit of what you would do in the Darkroom in most cases.
When shooting transparency film - if the light was greater then the latitude of the film, then we would usually expose for the mid tones, and 'except' and blown highlights/blocked out shadows (it tended to be more of a problem with the shadows than the highlights).
However with digital, we can expose for the highlights, and then correct the exposure for the rest of the image in post processing (either from the same image or a second exposure).
Or if you want to go a step further, you can shoot HDR. Maybe technically possible in the darkroom, but practically it's a non starter for many.
And another key difference between film and digital is that I take less shots with digital. With digital, you can check comp, exposure and focus stright away. But with Film, you could not do this, so I was always taking a second shot for safty, bracketing shots to make sure I had the exposure etc. Before you know it you have taken 15+ exposures on one shot.
Quote: That I find VERY interesting in that - depending on who one reads - digital sensors can (apparently) have a 4-stop 'advantage' over transparency film.
Its smaller than that. 1-2 stops over transparancy film, but negative film has another couple of stops 'advantage' over digital.
There is still a certain 'look' you can get with film that digital fails to match and I think it must come down to a greater tonal range and smoother tonal gradients. But that's only part of it.
I used to use 645 a lot but now I have a DSLR to fill the requirement for something a bit more mobile than my 5x4 camera. However, I am increasingly finding that my best work is still taken with the LF gear and this must come down to the greater time taken to 'build' compositions in my head before I even set the camera up. With the DSLR I find myself simply reacting to what I see a lot more. I'm not a machine-gunner by any stretch and I still take time to get the composition 'just so' but the lower investment of time, money and energy in each image seems to result in generally poorer work. Plus you can't beat seeing the image come together on a 20 sq. in. ground-glass screen before you even press the shutter.
Quote: There is still a certain 'look' you can get with film that digital fails to match
You have made an important point here. I have seen superb quality giant enlargments from digital, yet that very quality is clinically smooth and "plasticky", giving an air of unreality.
Film has inbuilt grain, which, providing it is sharp, tends to lend a certain "atmosphere" to a picture (particularly with black & white) which just isn't there with digital.
Quote:
However with digital, we can expose for the highlights, and then correct the exposure for the rest of the image in post processing (either from the same image or a second exposure).
Or if you want to go a step further, you can shoot HDR. Maybe technically possible in the darkroom, but practically it's a non starter for many.
Ah. But therein lies a major part of the superiority of film for certain subjects and certain conditions. To quite a large (but obviously not limitless) extent, film captures a considerably greater dynamic range. Hence no need for "HDR" in the darkroom for some images that will be enhanced by the process if captured digitally.
Even using a bog-standard roll film such as FP4 in my RB67, I can get much better tonal gradation in some landscapes than I can ever achieve with my digital SLRs. But there are provisos to that statement. Firstly, I have to identify the scene as one that I want to produce in monochrome before pressing the tit. Secondly, who can tell how much better digital sensors might be in 20 years time? Thirdly, maybe I could achieve better monochromes with my D3s if I was more skilled in doing monochrome conversions in Lightroom/CS5.
To some extent it is "horses for courses" and in other respects it is just hobbyists exploring their craft.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top