Film - The Color of Truth

[Benjamin]

Just gotmy Nikon 9000ED film scanner,dozens of films stored deep in my drawers will see the light within days!


Yesterday I spent nearly 3 hours playing around with the settings of the scanner to get the best out of my color slides and negatives. B&W films are so, so, so, so, so mucheasier to deal with comparing to the color ones. If I know what I'm doing I think film is still the way to go. 4000dpi resolution from the Nikon scanner willstand against (though photos are not as clean)the Canon 1Ds III - which costs more than my 1V-HS + iMac + 9000ED + allmy films shot to date...


Film still rules. If you know how to get the most out of it.[]


Open for comments!





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.70.My+Gallery/Guelph-Church-in-Winter-2009.jpg[/img]


Church of Our Lady Immaculate, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Canon 1V-HS + 16-35/2.8L II @ 16mm, F11. Fuji Pro400H.





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.70.My+Gallery/Victoria-College-in-Autumn-2008.jpg[/img]


Students & Professor, Victoria College @ the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Canon 1V-HS + 24-70/2.8L @ 70mm, F5.6. Fuji Pro400H.


Benjamin

[Joel Bookhammer]

Awesome dynamric range in the first image,as well aswith the second. If it wasnt so much "hassle" I would start shooting again with film, but the quantity that I can shoot with digital trumps the little if any increase in quality with film. Although as you've shown Ben, film still has its place.

[Keith B]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the 35mm film front. I had the 8000ED which was 4000dpi with a slightly lower dmax.


I was never too impressed with shadow detail I got scanning 35mm slides even my BW film scans were "eh". 35mm in my opinion too small for all the detail to come through whether through the lens or on the scanner. I'd put my 5Dmk2 up against them any day. They would have similar pixel counts but I'm pretty sure when all was said and done you'd find the 5Ds images was better. It is less expensive than the 9000ED and the 1V put together.


If I had all the time in the world, I'd get a medium format camera and then scan them in on the Cool Scan. Scan some 6x7 or 6x9 and see how amazing film can be.


The 8000ED was incredibly slow. To get a decent scan out of it you had to set it to the highest quality and set it to do 4 passes. It would take about 20 minutes to scan a tray of 5 35mm slides.

[Benjamin]

I was never too impressed with shadow detail I got scanning 35mm slides even my BW film scans were "eh".

In this regard I agree that the scanned pictures show some noise, in comparison the 5D's image should be cleaner. The shadows may not be that great but all the details are still there at 4000dpi. Even the 400H print film still hold enough detail at such resolutions. I still left lots of my slides for evaluation at this moment. I'll love to do medium format when I have both enough time and pocket $[]





As the title shows, I went film mainly because of the color reproduction, it is simply great and looks natural and real.


Thanks for the thoughts!

[Daniel Browning]

I went film mainly because of the color reproduction, it is simply great and looks natural and real.

I kindly disagree. Film has a certain "look" when it comes to color. That look (which varies from film to film) is what people have come to know and love over the last 30 years. However, it is not natural, real, or accurate color.


Film has a spectral response curve that is not very close to human color perception, and the effect is multiplied by the nonlinear response. It can't be improved either, because there are huge limitations to how the curve can be shaped, since it depends on colors penetrating to certain layers in the emulsion.


Yellow, orange, and green are accurate on film. But red, blue, and violet are terrible.


Today's DSLR has a much more accurate spectral response curve. There are three separate filters, and each filter can be fine tuned for the desired spectral response. On top of that, the response is completely linear.


The inaccuracy of film is well documented. If you want to prove it to yourself, take a picture of a violet flower, or a color checker chart.


There are plenty of reasons to shoot on film. Dynamic range, resolution, contrast, "punchy" colors, "my favorite" colors, "dreamy" colors. "Colors that the world has been used to for 30 years."


But "accurate" colors is not one of them.

[Benjamin]

Daniel,


Every time you say something I learn from it. I think the problem this time might be my English. I would have said that the color from film is my favorite. I agree when it comes to accuracy film is horrible. If I use Velviato photographmy girlfriend in dusk, she will have been scared away long ago... I'm notsure about thetheory behind it but I alwaysfound digital to have perfect skin tone, that's why most of my portrait shots are taken with my XTi or 50D.


I love film because I found when I use them correctly and take care of the processing procedures, everything just looks so nice. I care about color/tone/contrast the most, I even put sharpness secondary. So for this reason along I'll stick to film. (maybe later on when I have enough time I'll learn how to simulate film color on photoshop)


Bob,


I should have agreed that the digital shots are cleaner... However, IMO the resolution is still there. I found my film resolves every little detail and my scanner picks it up and shows it to me. What about commercial drum scans? Is it any good? I haven't tried it yet.

[Daniel Browning]

Thanks, Benjamin. As someone who enjoys film's color rendition, tones, and contrast, you will find yourself in plenty of good company, even among those who switched to digital for other reasons.

I care about color/tone/contrast the most, I even put sharpness secondary.

I think you've got your priorities in the right order.

(maybe later on when I have enough time I'll learn how to simulate film color on photoshop)

When that time comes you will find that there is a bevy of software to choose from. My personal favorite is DxO Optics Pro and their DxO Film looks.


By the way, I meant to say earlier that those two photos are really great. I bet the prints are fantastic.

[Bob]

Benjamin


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Drum scanners cannot scan slides in mounts, so you need to un-mount every slide - big pain, but they are the best - cost about $11K.<o></o>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Bob<o></o>

[Jon Ruyle]

I guess digital has more accurate color because it is so much easier to calibrate.

There are plenty of reasons to shoot on film. Dynamic range, resolution, contrast,

Are you saying film has better resolutioin, contrast, and resolution than digital?


I think I read somewhere that film has 9-10 stops of dr.
Doesn't that mean that digital has surpassed film here, too (5D II has
11 stops at iso 200)? Or am I wrong about the 9-10 figure? Or... ?


As for resolution, I have the figure "100 lines/mm" in my head for film... maybe that's an old number, or maybe it is wrong, or maybe better film does better. But at 100 lines/mm, 35mm film has about 9 megapixles (no bayer array, though, obviously...).


What are limitations on contrast for digital? How is it quantified? I would have thought, both for film and digital, contrast was limited by optics.

[Daniel Browning]

By the way, I didn't give any resources above for the color accuracy stuff, so here's one:

"The Science of Digitizing Two-Dimensional Works of Art for Color-Accurate Image Archives - Concepts Through Practice", Berns, Roy, 2000, Munsell Color Science Lab Journal.

They tested 24 colors, the average delta E was 2.8 for digital but 4.9 for film. Colors that were difficult for film, like reds, had three times the delta E.

Are you saying film has better dynamic range, resolution, and contrast than digital?

Essentially, yes, I was saying that they are valid reasons for shooting film if it happens to be true in the given set of circumstances. I guess the underlying assumption is that it's *possible* for it to be true, and everyone agrees that it's possible under the right circumstances. But the truth is that I don't really have enough knowledge to make a judgement one way or the other for the "general" circumstance, so I probably should have refrained from stating such an underlying assumption.

I think I read somewhere that film has 9-10 stops of dr.

Good negative films have 14 stops of dynamic range. 16 (!) for carefully processed B&amp;W. The 9-10 stops may have come from Roger Clark's film-vs-digital test, which was badly flawed in several ways. (The clarkvision site has a lot of reliable data and few flaws, but that is one of them.) I don't have any references on this, but I'm pretty confident about it, and I would like to think that GIYF could do it for me if pressed to action.

Doesn't that mean that digital has surpassed film here, too (5D II has 11 stops at iso 200)?

Film's dynamic range is sort of fixed, no matter the film size or print size, due to its nonlinear nature. However, on digital, one of the advantages of linear response is that print size can be traded for dynamic range. In other words, exposure can be reduced, then increased nonlinearly in post production (increasing noise power at the nyquist frequency), then the nyquist frequency is moved by using a smaller print size, resulting in the same noise as the original frequency.


Using this method I can easily get more than 14 stops with my 5D2 for wallet-sized prints. I think dynamic range in digital will *really* improve when someone finds a way to simulate larger full well capacities (e.g. read-reset seamlessly inside a single exposure). Read noise will continue to improve as well.

As for resolution, I have the figure "100 lines/mm" in my head for film... maybe that's an old number, or maybe it is wrong, or maybe better film does better. But at 100 lines/mm, 35mm film has about 9 megapixles (no bayer array, though, obviously...).

I don't really have anything interesting to contribute to a discussion about resolution because I haven't tested this myself, nor have I researched it thoroughly. The only thing I will say (and this is not an assertion) is that the various film tests I've read seem to place 35mm film close to what 17 MP Bayer would be with a good OLPF. I don't have any references handy, so I'm not going to stand behind that.

Whatever the actual resolution of film is, everyone would readily agree that it's multiplied by the format size; so that 645 has more than 35mm and 8x10 has more than 645. Of course, the standard assumption should be that we're talking about 35mm film.

What are limitations on contrast for digital?

Contrast is such a nebulous and all encompassing term that I can now make up any definition I want and apply it retroactively [6]. I was actually thinking of the tone curve, which is automatically built-in to film and has well known and documented characteristics. With film, you get a certain attractive tone curve, with a very good amount of highlight headroom and nice midtones/shadows.

Whereas on digital you can have any tone curve you want, but sometimes it's difficult to get a good one, especially if your idea of "good" is film-like. The reason it's hard is that all the JPEG engines and raw converters are tuned for just 2.5 - 3.5 stops of highlight headroom, which is not enough to get smooth film-like highlight rolloff. The reason they are this way is that they were designed when digital was more noisy, and have not been updated (in most cases) with improvements in cameras. So the difficulty is in getting more stops without losing contrast in the midtones, color casts in any zone, or too much noise in the shadows/midtones. Some software is better at this than others.

In short: film isn't dead yet, but the last will and testament has been signed.