A Fool and his Film

[russelljtdyer]

For some inexplicable reason I have been buying and using film cameras for the past nine months. What I'm learning about film is that there are quite a few factors involved to make high quality photographs. Each factor in the process has to be at its best, or at least above a certain level in order to produce high quality images--either in print or digitalized. I'm not trying to achieve necessarily high resolution images with film. Instead, I'm looking for the clarity that I've seen in the photographs of many famous photographers during my lifetime.

Little by little I have been resolving problems with each factor. For instance, I've learned not to use film purchased at a grocery store. It doesn't compare to professional film like Kodak Ektar 100, Kodak Portra 160NC, Fujicolor Superia Reala, or Ilford Panf 50 (for B&W). Another factor is the quality of the camera and lenses used. At first I was using a couple of old Canon rangefinder cameras. I like using them, but I began to wonder if the age of the equipment, as well as the limits of engineering at the time are factors.

In a previous post, I mentioned how I had bought recently a Canon EOS Elan 7n (33v) film camera to go with the better Canon EOS lenses that I already owned. I reasoned that by using the last film camera that Canon engineered with current model, L-series lenses, I should get excellent results. Well, the first couple of rolls of film I took didn't come out as spectacular as I had hoped. This lead me to consider two more factors which may be reducing the quality of my images. One is the abilities of my neighborhood camera stores to develop film properly with their one-process-fits-all Agfa machines which develop, print, and write to a CD. I wondered if a professional lab would return better results.

A friend of a friend recommended a lab a couple of weeks ago that's on the other end of town. At first the manager of the lab was leary about taking my film since he only handled big accounts. So I told him my story about learning about film. He reluctantly agreed and told the receptionist to take the order. She took my information and wrote up the order. She also asked me at one point if I wanted an estimate. Like a fool I told her it wasn't necessary and that I'd pay whatever it costs--I didn't want to come across as so amateur as to want a quote. Well, it cost me € 172 today. That's more than eight times what it cost at the camera stores I've been using. It's more than I paid for the camera!

As for the photos, they are a little better than I was getting elsewhere. Below are two samples from the roll. The digitalized images are much better in resolution, but they don't look eight times better. Obviously, I'm not returning to that lab again. Instead, I'll ask more well informed people for recommendations of reasonably priced labs and get prices in advance.

Looking at the results of my digitalized photos, though, I'm wondering about one of the improvements I achieved. Is it possible that I received higher resolution image files because the lab is better at developing the film? Or is it just that they have a better film negative scanner? Is the quality of negatives going to be the same at any lab when using the same film? Or is it both the development of the film and the scanning of the negatives? Could they have given me a higher quality digital image if they had set the resolution higher on their scanner? The images files were originally tif files at 300 dpi, about 1024 pixels wide, 2 megabytes in size. My Canon 5D Mark II makes those numbers look like the images were taken with a kiddie camera. I know it's not the same, but am I leaving pixels on the scanner table? I'd appreciate any advice that would help me to get better printed and digitalized results from film. Thanks in advance.


Canon EOS Elan 7n: 1/8 sec., f/8
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM
Kodak Portra 160NC


Canon EOS Elan 7n: 1/10 sec., f/8
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM
Kodak Portra 160NC

[eeyore]

Re: A Fool and his Film

There are a number of factors that can affect film development, e.g. age of film, how long has it been in the store, the storage of the film and the temperature, the chemicals used to develop the film, if the chemicals are old - as film processing is not so common now, the chemicals are not replenished as often ...meaning they're not fresh.
I don't think it is the negative, but rather the development process which could affect the negative in terms of quality.

[alggomas]

Re: A Fool and his Film

Basically,everything else being equal it is the photo lab problem.
It also depends on your requirements. it may be better to send a film to Lab A another to lab B etc. Send the same brand of film and ISO!!

Some films like Kodak Gold emphasise rich colours. Others skin tones. Also certain subjects will "look" better irrispective of the film or lab.

You have to ask yourself " What do I really want from my photographs?"

[Petros]

Re: A Fool and his Film

A high price to pay for one roll of film, I can understand why you are asking for other recommendations! It is always possible you have been stung in order to discourage you from going back of course - it looks like this lab has a certain market clientele. Is it worth calling the manager and asking him to justify the price charged, and whether he would be prepared to give you a bit of a refund as you clearly explained your amateur status before he agreed to process the film?

Having said that, the images you posted have a nice look to them - the colours are good - I like the way the table covers have come out in the first shot - and there is good skin tones and shadow detail. Maybe at least you have a reference point to use in your search for a suitable, affordable lab.

Peter

[Nathaniel]

Re: A Fool and his Film

I was using Slides for a very long time and the main advantage of it being that you send the slide film for processing to the makers. This ensured that you received the slides back properly processed/developed. Later on as it was getting to be a nuisance to pull out the projector and the screen etc to view the slides at their best, I switched to film. Here I found a lot of difference in the way the film was processed and the prints varied from very good to very poor. I stuck with Jessops and Boots as they seemed to be about OK. If you really want high class film processing and prints you have to go the specialist labs which are advertised in the EOS mag and other camera mags- however the cost is very high.

Now that I have become fully digitalised, I send my images for digital photo prints to either Bonusprint (highly recommended by Consumer which?),Photobox, Truprint. They come back to me in about 2 days and cost about 10p for a 6x4 print.

[Nathaniel]

Re: A Fool and his Film

Russell,

I moved away from Slide/films only a few months ago and I don't have any regrets. I have also owned Pentaxes, and the EOS range from 1000,300,300X,30,to the EOS 3. They were all brilliant cameras and very well made,plus being mature technology. However, having given way to new technology I have no regrets but I am having to learn all over again, the digital technoligy of Canon cameras. I know I am getting there, although very slowly.

[Woolley]

Re: A Fool and his Film

Firstly, I admire your task. The pursuit of quality is a good trait and should be encouraged. The images you've posted - especially the first one - suggest you're heading in the right direction.

I wouldn't dream of advising you, you've clearly got a good idea of the target. Your post raises a few questions in my mind and leads to what seems to me to be an obvious conclusion. I have no experience of this and could well be completely wrong and misguided. I post it merely as a thought process which you can ignore, take on board or use as a starting point.

You talk of developing the film and then digitalizing it. This seems to me to be a little odd. If you want a digital image iI'd suggest that it's better to use a camera that produces digital images. You're unlikely to improve on a RAW file by scanning a print.

You're always going to be hampered by a lab. There's three probable problems:

1) They have generic automatic processes as you described. Any print/scan is going to be a compromise based on producing average prints for average users.
2) They're not doing enough print work and so their materials may not be up to scratch, reducing the quality.
3) They're used to this work, are highly specialized and so portentially very expensive. You've already experienced that, but for that price you should expect a highly individual service and it doesn't sound like that's what you've got.

So... for the cost of a specialist lab developing one roll (!), you could set up a darkroom and do the printing yourself. If you want ultilmate quality I suspect you need ultimate control, and the only person you can trust is yourself.

Whatever you decide, good luck and keep posting the results.

[russelljtdyer]

Re: A Fool and his Film

Woolley,

You make some excellent points and raise some interesting questions, questions for me and perhaps others who are interested in film photography. Part of the appeal of your comments, I confess, is because you write in a style similar to mine: you speak my language. There is one main question you bring to mind, or rather a set of questions, that I'm considering: If I want both printed images and digitalized images, is it better to use a film camera or a digital one? I have equalized many factors among my equipment by purchasing a good film camera which uses the same lenses as my best digital camera and was made with fairly current technology (e.g., through-the-lens light meters).

Consider this experiment: I take a photograph of something with my Canon EOS 5D Mark II, using one of my L series prime lens on a tripod and properly exposed. Then I put my Canon EOS 33v (Elan 7n) on the tripod in the same position, with the same lens and same settings as I had on the 5D MII--using top of the line film, mind you. I then take my memory card to a high quality lab and have them print the digital image for me. I also have the lab develop the film, scan the negative to a CD, and print the image from the negative for me. If I were to compare the digital images of both cameras and compare the printed images of both cameras, would they be identical, or very close at least? Would the digital camera produce the better digital image and the film camera the better printed image? That's what one might think: digital begets the best digital and analog cameras begets the best analog images. However, the Canon EOS 5D, Mark II is pretty impressive. Would it beat the older Canon EOS 33v on both counts? If I used a Canon EOS 1v, would that help to equal the results? If I set up my own dark room, as you say, could I get the film results to measure up?

To me, comparing the results from film to digital cameras has been like comparing oil paintings to colored pencil drawings. They're different mediums with different results. However, as I'm working through my deficiencies with film, I'm getting results close to that of my digital cameras, but with an artistic flare to them. As I'm learning how to use Adobe PhotoShop and related components over the past year, I know how to get an artistic flare from digital camera images. One could say that I am abusing my film images when I get them into Adobe, and that I'm creating artificial images when I tweak my digital camera images to look like film. I would first argue that that's art. More practically, though, what I am doing in Adobe is similar to what Kodak and Fuji are doing with chemicals at their factories when they make the films I use. Kodak makes two professional films that I like: Kodak Portra 160VC and Kodak Portra 160NC. The VC stands for vibrant colors and the NC stands for natural colors. This is like using the Picture Styles in my Canon EOS digital cameras or playing with the Saturation and Vibrance settings in Adobe PhotoShop. The only other effect that film can have directly on the results are related to grain and clarity. Better film and better processing of film can reduce grain. I can add graininess to digital camera images with Adobe.

The point is, besides the delayed results of film and not immediate feedback from an LCD panel on the camera, do I get better results from film? It certainly costs me more money. Well, film cameras are now cheaper than the equivalent digital cameras. Where the costs hit me is in the charge for the film and developing it. So, given that film costs me more and I already have good digital equipment, once I have my routine and the components at their best, will I get better for printed and digitalized images from film? A decade ago that was an easy answer of 'yes'. Now I'm thinking that the answer is 'no' and that the best I can hope to do is to get almost equal results at a higher cost per image (above equipment costs). If I'm wrong, anyone reading and inclined to do so, please correct me. If I'm right, please reinforce what I'm saying with your own observations and thoughts.

Thanks,
Russell

[Woolley]

Re: A Fool and his Film

To me, comparing the results from film to digital cameras has been like comparing oil paintings to colored pencil drawings.

I like that analogy. I don't know if it's right, but it seems logical.

I don't know the answer to your questions, not being big on printing myself. I suspect with properly calibrated printers and monitors, the newer digital camera will probably outstrip film for printing purposes. I'm absolutely sure they will for digital images. Where film will score will most likely be in the less quantifiable judgements of esoterics and satisfaction. If it were me, I'd be looking to take full control of the process and print my own rather than being reliant on someone else finishing arguably the most important bit.

[diandmo]

Re: A Fool and his Film

A few years ago (3) I was having great difficulity in getting regular excellent prints afetr many years of using a lab which closed due to competion. I was using a 1n and 1v with various pro film. I spent many hundreds of pounds trying to find a reliable lab. I even sent the same roll back to them and appeared as a new customer, you guessed, the pictures came back totally different.
I spoke to the manufactures of the equipment whenever I could find out who they were. The equipment can produce almost anything from anything if the operator is skilled enough. But cost prevents them from providing a truly personall service unless yoy are invited to sit beside the operator.
One of the problems appears to be the operators eyes, we all see things slightly differently. They are often not really fully trained in the intricacies of the machine. We probably would not stand the full cost, someone mentioned euros172.00, that for a roll of perhaps 36 negs and only 1 or 2 realy good. All operators alter the image by filters for various reason or allow the automatin use which is where the machine scans and alters to the average.
So I kind of gave up in late 2008. But in 2010 I was dragged kicking and screeming in this century. I now have a 5DII, The L lenses I had work beutifully with the full frame 5DII. I have bought a second hand HP photosrt Pro B9180 As+ printer. I am absolutely amazed and thrilled.Using the Canon DPP software I can acheive excellent results upto A3. and quite a bit under my control. although little needs to be done. I shoot in RAW.
I am now starting to ressurect my wedding photo business. Also I have to learn photoshop (elements I expect).
I used to be quite guilty, thinking this is not photography, but what is? should we all go back to the Box Brownie? and as we can buy film for special purposes is that not the same manipulation of the image.
I probably will not be as skilled as used to be with the "old"stuff as I am alraedy 70 but its good too learn. Now I have a couple of bodies and other kit to get rid of. ah well Ebay

Have fun

[colin C]

Re: A Fool and his Film

A very, very, interesting first post diandmo.

I had a very similar problem with processing, although mine was on transparencies, so it was the film processing only. I used to shoot on medium format, 5"x4" and 10"x8" and the sources available for processing were a little more limited.

In the end, I set up my own lab and fully agree that the skill of the operator is of prime importance, but secondly is the chemicals. They will only process so much film before they deteriorate and in order to be competitive, many labs push their chemicals to exhaustion. There were also "refresher" chemicals that you could add to the various baths to extend their life and they were ok up to a point, but couldn't produce the results of fresh chemicals. Even if the chemicals were still relatively fresh, they oxidised overnight and lazy staff (not wishing to drain and clean the machine), or cost conscious owners would often leave chemicals in the machine over the weekend, to use on the following Monday.

Unless you were a very important customer to a good local Lab and could specify your work would only be processed first when the chemicals were changed and you could specify who the operator should be, you wouldn't have a hope of obtaining consistent results.

Thank goodness for digital and home printers.

Colin