Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: torger on February 20, 2012, 04:33:27 am
-
I'm continuing my investigation of moving to large format film (I'm brought up on digital, so it feels kind of scary), and one aspect that is hard to find information about is quality in film development. I'm fully aware of that film is insanely impractical compared to digital, but at the same time I don't want to make as impractical as possible just for the sake of it. Thus, if quality result can be had I'd use a good professional lab rather than develop myself. The chemicals are not too fun to deal with.
I plan to shoot on reversal film, probably mostly Fuji Provia, and have a digital print workflow. It is nice to have good looking transparencies but I'd rather use a lower contrast more neutral film like Provia for the transparency rather than Velvia although I might pull a bit in the saturation slider when post-processing the scan so the end result may look more like Velvia :). Anyway, transparencies that I like enough to make it to a print will be drum scanned.
My guess is that when the print workflow is digital, the quality and dynamic range of the drum scan is key and more important to the final result than details in film development, that is that a good drum scan can bring out post-processable shadow detail that in an analog workflow would just have been black. In other words, while getting a 100% exact exposure and being a "master developer" may have been key back in the days when prints where made the analog way, there's some more slack now in the digital days.
Does this hold true, or do you need to develop yourself if you want to make quality prints from film exposures?
-
You'll find your answers here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/
Kumar
-
You'll find your answers here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/
Thanks, I'll register there and ask around. I'm a bit afraid it can be hard to get a balanced view though, it seems like most large format amateur photographers do it for the sake of film and develop by their own because that's how you do to get the complete film experience, rather than having hybrid film/digital workflows.
-
The german company Tetenal has a E-6 process with 3 baths. Doing the development by your own is easy, but you need a processor like the Jobo ATL 800 (out of production).
http://www.tetenal.com/index_c.htm?AKT=01120020002000300000&L=UK
http://www.jobo.com/jobo_service_analog/us_analog/instructions/instructions_tetenal_e-6_three_bath.htm
Manuals for processors - http://www.jobo.com/jobo_service_analog/analog_frei/bedanleitung_pdf/index.html
-
Thanks, I'll register there and ask around. I'm a bit afraid it can be hard to get a balanced view though, it seems like most large format amateur photographers do it for the sake of film and develop by their own because that's how you do to get the complete film experience, rather than having hybrid film/digital workflows.
They were actually nice to me :). From the replies I got there it seems like E-6 and C-41 processing is a quite straightforward process, that is there is not much art in it (unlike in B&W photography), just as I hoped. Doing it yourself is thus to save time and cost. There are ways to push exposure if you have messed up when taking the picture, but if you have exposed correctly there's just one way to do it.
I guess Mark Dubovoy's Ansel Adams story in the latest essay "Everything matters" scared me a bit :), but that's about black and white photography, and a full analog workflow.
I actually might develop film myself anyway at some point, but like the fact that it is not mandatory to get high quality.
-
I'm the pessimist here (only because I've discussed this with local peers).
- Transparency films have about 6 stops in exposure latitude. Less than digital capture, which now stands at about 8-10 stops with the better cameras on the market (and it's getting better every few years).
- By scanning your films, you're not expanding this dynamic range. And you're introducing a digital workflow that produces better results with digital capture.
- Scanning film is the most critical step in the process, after actually exposing the film. You will spend significant time scanning film, and if you seek the ultimate scan then you will be using a drum scanner (I did, and it's worth the cost and effort).
- For a better dynamic range, consider using color neg films and using an enlarger to make prints. A 100% analog workflow! Presto! You're a fine artist! :D
- Film labs are not ubiquitous any more. Film is a dying medium, so consider processing your own films & prints with JOBO equipment (found on eBay) or the equivalent.
-
I've thought about exposure latitude. When I've digitized fuji velvia slides I've noted that the dense shadows contain a lot of detail if you go HDR in digitalization. I found similar results to this shadow recovery demonstration: http://cheapdrumscanning.com/why-drum-scan/shadow-detail/
I'm suspecting that the DR of film is underestimated, because HDR scanning techniques have not been used until recently. Consumer flatbed scanners have truly bad dynamic range for sure. Anyway, with HDR scanning, either through drum scanning or repro setups it does actually look like you can expand the dynamic range compared to what you get in standard analog processing, possibly even more than what a digital camera will capture. Film also have a bit nicer highlight behavior than digital.
I have not deep-dived into the DR issue yet though (it is an important factor), so there may be more things in there.
I found this test on film dynamic range
http://archive.bigben.id.au/tutorials/360/technical/hdri/index.html
it is on color negative though which is supposed to have a bit wider DR than slide film. Anyway it matches the feeling I have that it is more about the limitations in scanning/presentation than that film cannot capture high DR. The film has an S-curve and compresses several stops of highlights and shadows in there, so it depends on how well the scanner can extract that.
-
You really might want to consider shooting C-41 rather than E-6. Color negs record a phenomenal amount of information in both the shadows and the highlights. Yes, E-6 is sharper and less grainy, but the modern color-neg emulsions are very good, very low-grain and very sharp. And who says that grain is the enemy anyways? It can be very beautiful. And if you're shooting 4x5, you'll probably never see it in the print.
For scanning, West Coast Imaging does high-quality drum scans at good prices. Or you can scan the negs yourself. High-quality flatbed scanners are easier to find at cheap prices these days (used), as are drum scanners. Drum scanning carries a steep learning curve, but once you've got it dialed in, the quality is great. And you can do HDR scanning, as you say, by scanning once for the overall, a second time for the highlights, even a third time for the shadows if you desire.
For labs/developing, The Icon and A&I in L.A. are both operating and good.
ethan
-
My experience with scanning is with an Imacon Flextight, then a Howtek HR8000. I tested them side-by-side and the difference in quality was stunning. I wrapped up the Imacon and sold it the next day. My Howtek lasted 10 years, and I sold it a few years ago. It was a tank. The PMTs typically read up to a DMax of 3.8, and this is tested/evaluated by using a transmissive Stouffer Scale (http://www.stouffer.net/TransPage.htm).
The "HDR scanning process" is a technique used when a scanner cannot read the entire DR of a film, and this is typically a flatbed scanner. A drum scanner will not yield more detail in shadows of a chrome or highlights in a negative when the input parameters are modified. The PMTs already "see" beyond the DMax of all photogenic films.
By over exposing and under processing (i.e., pull processing) you can extract about a half-stop in DR when using Fuji chrome films. It introduces a very weird pink/blue crossover color, but good scanning parameters can eliminate that.
For a color film that has the widest DR, it used to be the Kodak Portra films. The Fuji portrait films had punchier colors but less DR by about a half-stop. (I only know this because I've scanned them all and it's easy to get a read on the DMax of films with drum scanning software).
-
My thoughts having gone through the same digital to 4x5 conversion a year ago.
- Scanning can only copy whats on the film, no more. You'll actually loose a little data, not gain it.
- Drum scans will get you more information then flatbeds - resolution, color and contrast.
- No one film is the best for everything. You're going to wind up trying a lot. Your first box may be Provia (it was mine), but you'll find that each has it's advantages/disadvantages. For example, Provia picks up blue in shadows very easily, so it's not always the best film for shots combining both deep shadow and sunlit areas without compensation.
- One of the major advantages I've found going from digital to 4x5 is the ability to choose my sensor (film) for a given situation. For example, a low contrast shot with a DSLR that covers say 4 stops will get you a very flat raw file that's only using about 1/3 of the available data. You can add contrast back in, but you're still working 1/3 the data and it'll show in the image: you won't have optimum tonal and color separation. However, what if you could change your sensor to one that recorded the same max amount of data but over 4 stops instead of 12? Now you'd have 3x the data for the same image. While the ratios aren't exactly the same, this is analogous to switching between C41 and E6. If the range you're trying to capture will fit on E6 you'll have more data to work with (in fact E6 is even denser then C41). When the range won't fit, you've got C41 to capture it.
- I've been using labs for my processing. One for color and one that does BW tray processing. I stick with the same labs for repeatable results and send in some test sheets when I try new films/techniques. I work more in color then BW, but if I were predominantly a BW shooter I would be processing myself as there are a lot of variables and the only way you can be sure of the results is doing it yourself.
As someone else said, spend some time on largeformatphotography.info, it's a great resource.
Anyways, good luck, you're going to love it!
-
I'm one of those amateurs who develops their own film (6x6 and 4x5). Astia and Provia are both easy, but you need some practice to get your process smooth and consistent. Buy an accurate thermometer.
The german company Tetenal has a E-6 process with 3 baths. Doing the development by your own is easy, but you need a processor like the Jobo ATL 800 (out of production).
You don't "need" a fancy processor. You can buy a small Jobo tank (probably still in production) and develop 6 sheets at a time. Not feasible for commercial photography, but works perfectly for amateurs like me. People spend €€€ on agitators and spinners and heaters and other crap, but I don't see the point of them with low volume shooting.
-
For what it's worth -
I always used to process my own E6 films on the kitchen table - no fancy heaters or processors, just a warm water bath (the washing-up bowl) and a thermometer. Float all your chemicals (in tupperware containers) and the tank in the bath. The trannies always came out fine, and thirty years later are still looking good.
People make too much fuss about this stuff.
John
-
I agree with everything said so far in this thread about developing, drum scanning, neg vs. e-6, etc.
However, before I started shooting 4x5, people made it sound like slides barely have any DR at all. So I intentionally overexposed some portraits.
Shooting in the studio with strobes, the Fuji instant films I took were clearly overexposed, so I popped off 10 sheets of Provia. The Provia actually held detail in the "blown" highlights, and had detail in the shadows. I don't know the exact amount of DR that's available on whatever film, but I do believe E-6 slides have more DR than people usually say they do.
If you shoot color neg, Portra is hard to beat (or unbeatable?).
-
I agree with everything said so far in this thread about developing, drum scanning, neg vs. e-6, etc.
However, before I started shooting 4x5, people made it sound like slides barely have any DR at all. So I intentionally overexposed some portraits.
Shooting in the studio with strobes, the Fuji instant films I took were clearly overexposed, so I popped off 10 sheets of Provia. The Provia actually held detail in the "blown" highlights, and had detail in the shadows. I don't know the exact amount of DR that's available on whatever film, but I do believe E-6 slides have more DR than people usually say they do.
If you shoot color neg, Portra is hard to beat (or unbeatable?).
I've searched around the web a bit but it is hard to find dynamic range measurements. Film behave non-linearly so when you push it too hard you can get color shifts etc, so it is a bit subjective what the dynamic range is. In the 100% analog days (i e when you did not drum scan and had only limited possibility to push shadows etc in post-processing) what you saw on the neg/reversal out of the camera was the range you got, especially for reversal films - finished product out of camera. The aggressive S-curve of say fuji velvia has given its reputation of "low DR".
Of what I have found it seems indeed that Portra is hard to beat. Portra 400 has something like 19 stops (!) of dynamic range, and is ideal for those that use film as a starting point for drum scanning and then digital post-processing. Without post-processing it often looks kind of flat for landscape use.
Reversal films has clearly considerably less DR, but I have yet to find any good test of what it actually is. I suspect that with proper scanning techniques you get at least as much as you get from a digital camera. Since I don't plan to scan everything I shoot I'd prefer reversal film since it is so nice too look at on the light table :), actually looking at slide film is what started my quest for 4x5"...
Here in Sweden it is much easier to find labs that do C-41 than E-6 though. If I finally make the move to film I surely try out both reversal film and negatives.
I found Tim Parkin's color film test very interesting:
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/06/colour-film-comparison-pt-3/
-
I've searched around the web a bit but it is hard to find dynamic range measurements.
A film's characteristic curve provides that information.
Kodak Tri-X (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf) (page 11)
Fuji Provia (http://photo-element.ru/ts/transparent/provia_100f_datasheet.pdf) (page 6)
Kodak Portra (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4040/e4040.pdf) (page 8 )
A film's characteristic curve (and therefore its maximum density range) is 100% dependent on the film's processing. These curves are from film measured with a densitometer after the brand's recommended processing.
But enough of this! Go out and expose some film! ;)
-
Well, I did process a lot of colour material many moons ago as part of my work within an industrial photo-unit. We were working with jet engine flame tubes, where colour (of the tubes) indicated much to those scientists who required the photographs.
My experience there, with both colour tranny and negative processing, was far from the easy-going attitude that has been expressed so far in this thread. Of course, it could well be that the subjects of the stuff that the photographers here are talking about don't require any great accuracy - but temperature, agitation and pretty much everything in processing requires a high degree of control if you seek the holy grail, which in this case, is standardization and repeatability.
I would also add that the same holds for black/white negative material. You simply have no choice but high accuracy if you seek repeatability and one less variable within the photographic equation. You'd be a fool to do less for yourself. You've all heard of the weakest link in the chain... don't let it be you.
;-)
Rob C
-
So far no answer for you. Because I have no answer for you just a few questions: What do you want to photograph? Is your image worth the extra mile for working with a format that is unusual today? Do you think it will ad something to your work?
I want to photograph landscapes, but chances are that I suck and still do so in ten years :). However, I have the luxury of being amateur so I can do whatever I want without being worried about what others think of it, I do all for myself. I do have some artistic ambition, but it is not life-or-death.
I'm actually more interested in the compositional process using a view camera with movements and fine-tunings than of using film, which enters just because there is no other affordable option. I still look for an old but usable digital back to do some stitching in some occasions, but film would be the main medium.
I'm fascinated by the process from where I decide that "I'm going to make a picture of this piece of nature" to framing everything in a suitable way, where small adjustments change how the elements in the picture interact. I think the hardest part will be to get used to see everything upside down :)
Anyway it is as much about the process as the results. Making compositions using a nice well-built view camera = fun. Developing film = not so fun. The result is still important though, I'm a resolution junkie and like large sharp prints, so I would not do this if it the result would be a lofi film look.
I plan to get a modular view camera, so format can be changed, so I can go to larger formats later if I get hooked. 4x5" seems like a good starting point, since I then also easily do medium format 6x9 and 6x12 rollbacks which is good low-cost way to get the necessary training in the technical aspects of exposing film.
So it was a long answer. What I think it will add to my work is a composition process that better suits my mind, and higher resolution input to my digital post-processing workflow. From all the responses I've got in this thread it does not seem that developing the film on my own would add any significant to this (just a larger risk to mess up), so I'll just use a lab.
-
I think the hardest part will be to get used to see everything upside down :)
That was actually pretty easy. I think you'll be surprised how quickly your brain compensates - it already does this naturally anyways. The surprising part for me was getting used to the "overload" effect. Coming from a small view finder you've suddenly got a ton of real estate that looks fantastic when composing. On some highly detailed scenes I'd find myself adding too much to the frame because it looked so good on the ground glass, but didn't necessarily add to the composition.
-
I develop my film with an ATL 1000. Check the auction site for used ones.
-
I'm shooting film currently with a Mamiya 7 ii, but I definitely want to go for a view cameras - but with a 120 film back.
When I scan my 6x7 negatives at 4000 DPI (Nikon LS 9000) I get about 500+ megabyte files with nominal 100 Megapixels.
Effectively maybe something around 50 MP (wild guess).
4x5 inch sheet film will not give you that incredibly much more but a lot more hassle:
Development, scanning, storage.
So - you have to decide whats important for you:
If you want ultimate image quality with film - maybe 8x10 inch is the way to go.
If you want camera movements but would be happy with the quality a good MF scan can give you, then a view camera with a roll film back could be the solution and with 2 or 3 backs you have all options to use what film you ever need - C41, E6 or b/w.
Cheers
~Chris
-
That's certainly not true. 4x5 clearly has an advantage over 6x7.
Read Tim Parkin's Big Camera Comparison. http://onlandscape.timparkin.co.uk/2011/12/22/big-camera-comparison/
-
That's certainly not true. 4x5 clearly has an advantage over 6x7.
Read Tim Parkin's Big Camera Comparison. http://onlandscape.timparkin.co.uk/2011/12/22/big-camera-comparison/
I didn't want to imply it has no advantage.
I just wanted to relate the advantage to the significant amount of additional hassle you'll get.
And when wanting to stand this additional hassle for better IQ, 8x10 might be an option.
-
I didn't want to imply it has no advantage.
I just wanted to relate the advantage to the significant amount of additional hassle you'll get.
And when wanting to stand this additional hassle for better IQ, 8x10 might be an option.
I don't see much additional hassle with sheet film versus roll film with a view camera, especially considering you get 95x120mm versus 60x70mm of film real estate (significant to me).
Development - Better with sheets, you can vary development to suit the intended photography. You'd have to carry a LOT of roll backs to accomplish that.
Scanning - Yes, it's cheaper to drum scan 6x7, but that's a cost of resolution. If you're flatbed scanning at home the only difference is the number of images you scan at a time.
Storage - ? It's pretty easy to store 4x5, I use index card boxes.
The only extra hassle I see is loading and carrying film holders, but it's worth it for me. Now, a long trip in the backcountry traveling light? A 6x9 back loaded with Portra 400, camera and two lenses becomes attractive.
-
[...] Now, a long trip in the backcountry traveling light? A 6x9 back loaded with Portra 400, camera and two lenses becomes attractive.
Actually thats one of my future plans. ;D
-
I've got a setup just for that purpose ;D
-
I used to develop all of my own B&W film. I used to buy bulk chemicals and mix my own developers, etc.
When I switched to shooting all C-41 film in 1998 (and converting to B&W from color - incredible control in LR to do that now) I started to send all of my film to the lab. There just is not teh creativity involved with color film developing as there is with B&W.
I also went to all digital output with film capture in 1998. I chose Portra 160 NC for scanning because of the dynamic range it captured. You can always "throw away" information to get higher saturation/contrast. You can't go in the opposite direction as easily.
When I got my Canon 1DsII in 2004, I stopped using my 645 and 6x7 film cameras. It wasn't exactly planned, it was just what happened. That was the tipping point for me in terms of quality & work flow & cost. My 6x7 pro film with lab developing was $1 per frame.
I continued to ship my 4x5 film to E-6 Lab in Atlanta (they also do C-41.)
With the newest generation of 35mm FF cameras coming, I have sold all of my 4x5 film equipment. Again, it is the tipping point of quality vs. cost vs. what I can get by stitching, etc.
That is not to say there is equal quality, or no reason to shoot 4x5 or MFDB anymore. It is just that the marginal value and incremental cost at $5 per sheet tipped the value to the latest generation of cameras for me.
Michael