Top 5 Reasons Your Film Photos Look Bad or Underwhelming
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- Head to squarespace.com/kylemcdougall to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code KYLEMCDOUGALL
Today in this video I'm going to talk about the top five things that can cause your images shot on film to look bad or underwhelming-causing problems like colour casts, muddy shadows, flat contrast, or even just images that don't meet your expectations.
There's nothing worse than getting started with film and not knowing why certain things look the way they do. The goal of this video is to help you lock down a simple but effective workflow that will allow you to get the most from the film you shoot.
►Follow me on Instagram: / kyle__mcdougall
►Order my new book 📚 ‘An American Mile’: bit.ly/3Og6Z45
►*DISCLAIMER*
Some of the links below are affiliate links, where I earn a small commission if you click on the link and purchase an item. The money I earn helps me make this type of content consistently.
My '35mm Film Photography Course' on Skillshare (FREE with this link): skl.sh/2JrGhFs
My 'Medium Format Film Photography Course' on Skillshare (FREE with this link): skl.sh/3r7KLta
Where I source music for my videos (One FREE month with this link): fm.pxf.io/c/1953156/1347628/1...
Videos on this channel are filmed using the Fuji X-H2s: bhpho.to/3UEjFVs
►FILM PHOTOGRAPHY GEAR (*these are affiliate links):
My go-to medium format camera: ebay.us/GaK9Kp
My favourite 35mm film camera: ebay.us/82WyVI
My favourite 35mm film lens: ebay.us/u0V817
My favourite medium format travel camera: ebay.us/FVcfWk
My go-to light meter: ebay.us/QIFXF0
My favourite film stock: ebay.us/orbudp
My favourite 645 medium format film camera: ebay.us/ydY4HK
→Instagram: bit.ly/2GuYV21
→Website: kmcdougall.com
The biggest mistake I see new film shooters making, is this idea that color negative film "isn't supposed to be edited". They think something is wrong when they don't see their photos looking like someone else's. Negative film literally has to be edited. Shooing negative film has always been a two step process. Developing the negative and making the print (now mostly replaced by digital scanning). The negative has an orange mask for a reason. If you don't want to "edit" your film photos, you could always use slide film.
Yep, and there's so much variation (as mentioned) with scanning that I think it leads to confusion or unmet expectations. So important to test and find what works for you, and then develop a workflow for consistent results.
isn't technically a positive conversion "editing" too? xD
@@whosjozikolnik Yep and before scanning your choice of paper mattered as well. Negative film's greatest strength is that it can be edited. That's how it was designed. It's not slide film.
The "reason" for the orange mask has nothing to do with editing the images, its to colour correct away shortcomings in the dye layers. CN film is no more "intended" to be edited than anything else... alter it if you want, dont if you dont.
@@RHLW The point is the orange mask is present in CN film. If you want a positive scan/image, it must be dealt with. Sure if you don't want to "edit" your images you don't have to, but nobody shoots CN film to look at an all orange image.
your 5th point is really important. I feel LOTS of people (usually starting out) get frustrated because they see piles and piles of amazing looking images and think "oh all I need is to buy xxx film stock and xxx camera and mine will look like that too". I am a professional photographer who has been shooting film for 20+ years. YES - film can look amazing right out of the tank, but let's be real - to get it to really pop and shine - post editing is always done. Id say getting a good grasp on photoshop/light room is very, very important.
I absolutely agree Hunter. Social media and photo sharing platforms are full of the same amazing looking but completely generic images that have all had extensive post processing. Newbies to film shooting are absolutely mistaken if they think that buying a Nikon F3 and a fridge full of Portra 400 or a Pentax 67 and bag full of Cinestill 800t is going to make them a photography superstar.....but sadly that is what youtube and insagram keep telling people....
For a while, it bothered me that hardly possible to get film scans to look the way a film stock "really looks", until I saw a video that compared the work of photographers using Kodachrome, and they all looked very different. Before that, I didn’t realize that even before the digital era, a lot "editing" was done in printing in order to get the color and contrast that the photographer wanted. In a way, editing a digital scan is the same, necessary step, just easier. Life’s easier now. =)
Yep-conversion + editing workflow is key!
Exactly, Ansel nailed it, the most important part of the camera is the 12" behind it. Thinking shooting film is going to turn meaningless crap into works of art is a big mistake. Ansel also said there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy idea and I would add, no idea at all just a snap shot. @@royce3859
Starting back in the early 70s used the Zone System for my B&W, then shot weddings with daylight and flash, worked as a lab technician at National Geographic where I did halftones and color separations for photos and maps in the magazines and books and did film testing, then moved into printing starting with analog and converting to digital work flows.
Optimal reproduction with full tonal range and “seen by eye” detail is only possible on film when the contrast of the scene lighting, measured in EV or f/stops, is less than or equal to the range of the print or scanner.
With B&W negative / print one needed to expose for the shadows but the density in the highlights would vary depending on lighting - cross lit sunlight, flat sunlight, open shade, overcast, etc. Before 1930 film was orthochromatic and someone using sheet film could develop the negative by eye until experience told them the highlight densities match the range of the only grade paper they had available.
Panchromatic film requires total darkness leading Ansel Adams to develop his system of testing to find the development time needed for various scene EV ranges because he preferred to always print on #2 grade paper. That approach is not practical for roll film unless the camera has interchangeable film backs, one for each EV range encountered.
Kodak made photography something for the masses by creating different contrast print papers 1 to 4 and instead of changing development based on scene EV range the lab would develop all film the same then measure the EV range of negative density on each frame printed changing paper grade to match. Later Kodak invented polycontrast paper which could be changed with yellow/magenta filters when enlarging to match paper range to the EV range of each frame.
I shot with a Nikon F and measured exposure with a 1° Honeywell spot meter. To calibrate shadow exposure I metered directly on a Zone 1 black object in the scene (not a gray card) with the ASA setting on the meter about 3 stops below the 400 rating of Tri-X until I got the desired Zone 0 / 1 separation on a print exposed just enough to make the borders max. black. Once I had the exposure locked in shot scenes with EV ranges measured from Zone 1 smooth black to Zone 9 and with testing found the Polycontrast yellow/magenta filtration needed to get optimal Zone 9 smooth white / Zone 10 specular highlights (paper base) using an enlarger with a color head. I created a chart on the wall which showed what filtration was needed for any negative EV range.
That can’t be done with color film because there is only one grade of paper and development can’t be changed because to alter negative range because it messes up the color balance between the three emulsion layers causing color casts. If the EV range of the scene exceeds the EV range of the paper you lose detail somewhere UNLESS you can change the range of scene with flash.
My first job was assisting Monte Zucker who introduced off camera flash to shooting weddings on color film. A fill flash on bracket was used to control shadow exposure and the off camera key flash overlapping fill controlled highlight exposure. With two identical flashes making the key flash 2x brighter by moving it closer than the camera / fill would capture detail in black suit and white dress. If shooting from 11 feet the off camera flash was placed at 8 feet to get the one stop difference. Moving to 8 feet for a tighter crop the off camera light would move to 5.6 feet and the aperture was closed by one f/stop to keep exposure the same. The distance were based on the inverse-square law.
When I switched to digital in 2000 with a Kodak DC290 camera I found the same one stop difference between key and fill recorded the entire tonal range meaning the sensor had the same range as a color print. The same was true for my Canon 20D.
I can’t believe I read that whole comment.
@TeddyCavachon
Thank you for your very knowledgeable comments on that photography subject. It is great to learn from your extensive experience.
RS. Canada
The developing and scanning + editing make a HUGE difference I've learnt! Like when you showed your editing process for a brief moment, the image went from looking like bleh to wow with just a drag of the knob.
This is an extremely important video for people who are starting out with film photography. When I started, I almost gave up and transitioned completely to digital just because I was spending so much money and time on film and getting back poor results because of the labs I went to, luckily I found a lab that know what they are doing and are very consistent and i havent looked back since. Extremely valuable video.
100%, great value in this video. Especially talking about underexposure. Negative film needs LOTS of light.
This makes me worried for my most recent roll 😂
4:00 I have this issue with my early bunch of rolls of film. I used to take it to Jessops in the high street before covid. Now i get it sent to a pro lab to get my film developed. Plus my earlier work most of my under exposured. But some few good ones. Plus the downsider is that my 50mm lens I had at the time the focus was out meaning I would had to unscrew the lens and realign the focus. Most of my shots where out of focus! Plus to find out later on that I was short sight and need glasses also! 😂 Shooting Blind!
I rolled my eyes when I saw the headline and clicked anyway. But this is a really nice, informative video. Thanks for sharing ;)
Grat video! I'd like to add a 6th point why some people are underwhelmed by film photography although it ties to the 5th point: These people do perfect metering, use a serviced camera with a modern high end lens, fresh high resolution film, development, by the book, an expensive scanner and a lot of editing and after all of that effort the result doesn't look 'analog' at all. The pictures look like a modern camera's film simulation at best while all the guys on the internet create these cool looking analog photos with a $10 point and shoot camera, expired film, eyeballed development and a smartphone negative scan...
I guess it all depends on what you define as an analog look. A dialed-in and detailed process using film with good equipment will still always look different to digital, for me. Of course, the beauty of it all is there's no right or wrong, and everyone should embrace the tools and final output that they enjoy the most.
This video is gold! Thank you Kyle.
I am a very experienced photographer, but I enjoyed your video very much. Your advice is very good. I learned a lot from Fred Picker's books and newsletters. He taught me to not get hung up about equipment. Get good equipment but it does not have to be the best. Your creative brain is your best equipment. A lot of photographers love to talk about equipment and won't talk about creativity. Get to know your equipment well enough so you don't need to think about it. You can just get on with being creative. Another very important aspect of photography is light. Not just the quantity of light, but the quality of the light is very important. It took me several years to learn that. The quality of the light needs to fit your subject - the thing being photographed. It's also very important to do film testing as you did in your video to make sure your exposures and film developing work together to get the results that you are happy with. Fred Picker taught his modified Zone System: using a hand-held spot light meter, take a reading of the high value in which you want detail and place it on Zone 8 and let the shadows fall where they may. If your camera has a built-in meter, you can set the film speed to half what it is on the box and usually get good results. Underexposing your your film is a total bummer.
Such a great video!
Excellent video.
Love your videos !
Great videos, as always. well presented, thorough and comprehensible, which is exactly what I hope for when looking to a video like this. Thanks for sharing your knowledge Kyle!
You're welcome. Cheers.
great video for beginners, particularly the underexposure tip
Great video!!
Great great great video! Love the honesty and down-to-earth advice. Perfect channel you have Kyle!
Thank you.
Great tips. I am adamant of seeing that film photography is a chain of processes and the weakest link is what will show. I tend to run to other people and even help out with learning at a local darkroom and one sees quite a bit. Some unfortunate trends as well, labelling such defects as virtues. A few times I got compliments about my results, which are not perfect, but rather resulted as per doing things on the book.
A bit forgotten and labeled as scary: Slide film. I learned on it (K14 and E6) and I think it did help out a lot to get precision, as well as making it feel that ISO 400 is a high speed.
Expired and used film, in most cases I see are not worth it. Local auctions are of the sort "you think this 30 year old film from the attic is worth as much as fresh?!".
The last point is great, as people also label results to the film characteristics (as you mention Portra or T-Grain BW films). Also, pointing to another video you did about 35mm, and now that digital is crazy high res and fine (I sometimes am amazed at the 1" results from the RX100) the resolution on screen is not that impressive. But then, on print it holds differently.
This was great! I'm just starting out with film photography and am loving your videos.
Glad to hear it!
Some great tips here 👍
Thanks for sharing your insights man.
You're welcome.
Really great exposure demo. Thanks.
You're welcome.
Amazing video Kyle!!
Glad you enjoyed it
Excellent.
Thank you. 👌
Awesome video! Might have to start sharing this one with beginners!
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed.
Great video. I also think people will see differences between film and digital captured images. The tonal characteristics between the two, and between different films, is something to embrace.
Absolutely.
Great video!
You talked about every point that was imminently coming to my mind when I read the title and I think your presentation of the individual issues is on point.
Something I'd like to add to getting the right exposure, is to not expect film to do magic in a situation where there already wasn't what you were looking for. This also plays into the “wrong expectation” issue, but what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't expect a warm and airy look if you went out to shoot a film on a cloudy day. Digital photography often makes it feel like you can pull light from anywhere, because RAW files are extremely flexible, and masking and editing can push these files to their limit. But film does not have the same latitude. It has fantastic DR when handled right, but it's not the “apply film look filter” solution to any and every situation.
A few other smaller issues why things can look “bad or underwhelming” as your title says, can be gear. It usually isn't the gear / equipment itself, but how people use it. There's i.e. plenty of cheaper 50mm primes for all kinds of systems, and a lot of brands rebranding lenses and cameras. Not only can this gear deteriorate over time, like explained with the exposure meter, but some lenses are very soft wide open or have other optical “flaws” that can be undesirable (fogging, mold, tints). So knowing when to step down the aperture and what to expect from the gear you use can also be a big part - or knowing how to fix it or when it's “gone bad” and needs repairing. Especially if it turns out to not work as well anymore as it used to. This can start with the exposure meter, but of course also apply to things like misaligned prisms resulting in bad focus or unsycned shutters, going at a different speed than on the wheel.
So while it is important to emphasize that good gear doesn't make the image look perfect, it's important to know what a gear in good condition looks like, how to keep it that way and then also how to use it under respect of it's potential flaws and quirks.
Great points! Test, test, test. I'm a big advocate of testing, understanding, and locking down your gear and workflow, so you can get on with the image making process.
thank you.
I love that you mention that film characteristics are just a base departure point. I can't help but smile when people online make universal and absolute statements that Portra is this and that, and Fuji is this and that. The same with lenses. It's all so variable. Great video.
I left film inside a little automatic point and shoot camera in the middle compartment of my car for a whole year and it gets really hot in that specific compartment and when i finally shot and developed it, it was fine lol! and it was also that cheap kentmere stuff as well
Too late to the party but thanks for this video Kyle, I was thinking about giving up :(
This is great stuff! I don't know how many times on reddit I've seen people asking why their film photos look bad. Often citing x-ray damage or camera issues when it almost always is the scanning or underexposure that is the culprit.
i've travelled all over the world with film in my bags.... the amount of X-Ray radiation needed to ruin film would probably be a nuke
@@LoFiAxolotl nowadays CT scans equipping big airports do ruin all films though.
Glad you enjoyed it.
You produce the best Videos!
Skewed expectations!!
Brilliant to call that out.
Rest of the video is great but you saved the best for last.
🙌
6:00 honestly I think this is one of the beauties of film photography. When you get an image back if you scan or develop yourself your process will look different than someone else's. It's a unique fingerprint to you and I think it's very underrated or underappreciated at the uniqueness of each negative.
I think you just described digital RAW editing. Film shouldn't be that way - in my opinion.
@@wojt4spes other than color positive/transparency film which can be viewed directly with a light source which in turn has an "objective" look, theres bound to have a conversion process for color negative (whether its traditional enlargement where u have to adjust colour filters, or scanning), there is no "objective" look for any film stock.
Great video! I have been having some inconsistencies with the lab I have been using and I thought it was me but turns out to be them watching this video. the over exposing of the film even by 3 stops I thought that would be a no go but in your examples it looked just fine, I know with digital you wouldn't normally want to do that but this is what I have to get my head around. I'm currently using a phone app called viewfinder to get my metering but it is a bit inconsistent which is why I will be looking at getting a proper one with a spot metering ability with a zoom for accurate readings.
Fantastic video!!
A spot meter is a great investment and will absolutely help you understand light and exposure better. As for overexposure, yes, always good when starting to lean on over rather than underexposure. Just keep in mind when you see the overexposure examples, that three stops over is alot of overexposure. You'd have to be waaay off. As mentioned, the best thing you can do is eventually get to a place where you understand metering and try to nail your exposure as best as possible.
A hand held light meter such as a relatively simple SEKONIC is great for my film and camera hobby. My exposures are always excellent with no guessing. Easy to use. I have bought new and good quality used meters and they are great to use. I know some people may feel that a hand held meter is not necessary but I use one all the time. Thanks.
RS. Canada
I think your video is spot on! The biggest leap for control and consistency is scanning. I'd still recommend most people get a Plustek or Reflecta dedicated 35mm scanner and get learn Silverfast 9 inside and out. Camera scanning is good, but the amount of variables that affect consistency is more than a film scanner. And with Silverfast and their film profiles, you'll get a very consistent scan at a reasonable price.
I often point people to your videos about scanning, the Nikon, the Plustek and your GFX setups as the standard to follow. Love that you take the time to give back to the community.
Thanks, Patrick. Although nowadays I'm camera 'scanning', if you don't mind the slower pace, a dedicated film scanner can be simpler when it comes to setup (not having to worry about things being level, film holders, etc). The Plustek is a great option.
I agree with you about Silverfast scanning software. It is very good.
One of the main reasons I stopped shooting film it's because I realized that I have to edit the images in post processing to get the look I wanted. I struggle with editing especially when the film/image has a color cast due to my colorblindness. I sold my film cameras and went to Fujifilm GFX, and I have been happy with my images.
If I were color blind, I would use black & white film and digital for color photos.
It's such an important topic but very rarely covered - people new to film wondering why (or even thinking that film is supposed to have muddy shadows) their shots don't look good but not knowing how to fix them. I have shot thousands of rolls of Portra 400 and I always shoot it at +2 unless I am in a situation where I am hitting up against 1/30th and then I dial back from there. You still have to think about what you're doing but it solves almost every issue with camera meters being "wrong" - even something like my F6 can't figure out my partner is in front of a sunset and the shutter speed should not be 1/1000th second at 7pm 😀 Oh and definitely try to stick to one film stock. Going from Ektar to Lomo to Cinestill in one outing is only going to add to your frustration.
dude thousands of rolls of the same film stock is impressive. congrats.
@@familymanbarrett 😀 I quickly learnt that it saves an enormous amount of time once you know what you are getting as the end result before you even shoot it. Portra 400 is the perfect stock (for me) that can pretty much do anything you throw at it, day or night.
Yep, I agree with the sticking to one film (if it makes sense for what you're doing). I've found it takes time to learn how to expose it, and also convert and edit it, all to get the look you want. It definitely simplifies things in the end.
Realistically speaking most films handle a stop of underexposure just fine. Some can handle even two stops. Where it becomes problematic is using a scanner that can’t pull all the information out of the shadows or underexposing even more because a lot of people don’t understand how to meter for middle gray.
Interesting you mention scanning-I was just scanning a 4x5 colour neg the other day, with a lot of shadow area (that I want to be dark in the final image) that is lacking density. Using a GFX to scan, I'm getting bad flaring of the lens from the stray light passing through the shadow areas, which is leading to strange colour casts in the final conversion. Similar to what I'd experience if I didn't mask my light source. So yes, I'd agree with you, a stop of underexposure can be fine depending on what you're after, and if you can scan it properly.
@@KyleMcDougall Usually if you want crisp black it's better to overexpose a bit and push the exposure down during scanning. You will have some more information in the shadows but you can have much crisper black levels with good mid tone range.
I use a Frontier SP500 and I can get a good two stops of underexposure out of quite a few films. Because it's so closely matched to the way darkroom paper reacts you actually get brighter highlights when you underexposure since they're less dense and more light gets through when compensating for a normal midpoint. But in that process and with a lightmeter with a luma sphere I found most films perform best at box speed or 1/3 stop over. Going much over that will just change color reproduction and unless you're shooting a super high dynamic range scene, not really better shadow detail. Since blacks are not only created by the neg but also the simulation of the paper, I find the biggest issue with underexposure is grain and not shadow detail. Yes you can only go so far but if you're not doing big enlargements ie enthusiast level stop underexposure isn't as big of an issue as its offen made out to be. Although I do need to scan for that differently. If a lab just leaves it close to what the scanner spits out by default you get shots that look more underexposed than they actually are.
For some reason i like those over or under exposed shots. They like if you do faded color edits like you take contrast little bit out and if you go on levels and you rise shadows corner up then blacks looks more like gray or maybe i understand something wrong but i mean same edit as your profile picture like faded style
A wonderful video Kyle. As all the other comments already mention I also totally agree that you found 5 very important aspects every film shooter should be aware of. If you don’t mind I have a short side question as it would be very helpful for me. At 7:04 you show a full border scan of a panoramic negative and it seem like you camera scanned it using a Valoi holder. I use the same holder but cannot get a full border crop. Do you mind letting me know how you have achieved this?
For those pano's I just shot them taped to a light pad with a cardboard mask on top. Not the best solution, but worked fine for what I needed for the video. For higher resolution, I did do multi frames using the Valoi system and then stitched, but it's a much longer process.
@@KyleMcDougall Thank you so much for the information 😀
May I send this video to, at least, 600 people ? Excellent work, once again m8
Great video, mate. You basically covered all of the experiences that I’ve had with film that have left me confused, disappointed, confounded and deflated.
Great to hear!
I have liberally for the first time got into film photography and the quality of the older cameras and images produced are superb. I might ditch digital.
Maybe keep my digital macro set up as that works rather well.
I had delivered yesterday the Yashica MAT TLR.
In regards to exposure, I always metered the highlights, and the shadows and then set my exposure settings somewhere in the middle. If it is something you know you don't wanna miss out on, then take 3 pics, one that has the actual exposure settings from you r light meter and then one over and one under. I know that is expensive if you shoot medium format, that's why I love digital :)
Called bracketing in the digital world and full format 120 film aint cheap.
Just a little correctin, 120 film is medium format not full format :) but still expensinve if you can only shoot 12-16 images. That's why I really don't miss film anymore. I do however take my old Rolleicord out once or twice a year, just for the fun of it :) @@thegroove2000
When using negative film, take a reading of the high value in which you want detail and place it on Zone 8. Try it. It works. Your meter gives you Zone 5 so open up 3 stops and snap the shutter. You just have to decide which f/stop to use. How much depth of field do you want?
My biggest dissapointment from shooting with film is the inconsistency in colors between images on the same roll of film. Scanned the same way, but still with change in colors.
It all boils down to the lighting conditions on your different exposures. If you shoot one roll for an entire week for example, you'll certainly get morning light, golden hour, cloudy day, inside shots under LED lights, low light shots, etc... In that case you can't expect to have an even colour balance on the entire roll, you'll have to edit the white balance in post.
Digital cameras are pretty good at evening out the white balance with their Auto WB setting, but film is at a set white balance (either Daylight or Tungsten).
It can be a few things - as mentioned by others the colour of light across the day makes a huge difference on film, far more so than digital where the camera mostly fixes that for you with AWB but with film it is baked in...garbage in, garbage out.
Also if you're using Auto settings on your camera it may be changing from 1/500 at f8 to 1/250 to 1/1000 for exactly the same sunny day in the same one hour on the same beach depending where you point the camera. The under or overexposure will give a slightly different look unless corrected by the scanner operator at your lab. If you're under the same light, go to M and shoot at the same settings for the next hour and everything will be perfect. Shooting film you have to be very aware of what the light is doing if you want great results each time.
Secondly the popular lab scanner - the Fuji Frontier (which I own) - doesn't balance the same settings across all the frames on the one film. So 10 shots on the beach in the same light can look slightly different with maybe more cyan in one and then more yellow in the next frame or whatever. The Noritsu does a better job at this so it will depend on how you get your photos scanned.
Well, I should have been more specific. I mean in the same conditions, pure minutes apart in the same lighting conditions but slightly different crops, positions and angles.@@stratocactus
You could be encountering "curve crossover," a nasty phenomenon that was well-known in the days of chemical darkrooms but is even more of a factor now when people are trying to digitize their negatives with limited-tonal-range scanning processes. "Curve crossover" means that the response curves of the film's various color layers don't run parallel to each other; at some points they cross. The result is that it's impossible to get equally good correction of two different subject colors -- trying to make one better makes the other one worse and vice-versa. Color labs would do a daily setup using a standard negative supplied by Kodak, with an image that contained (among other things) a skin-tone reference of a light-skinned white woman (called a "Shirley" because that was the original model's name) and a neutral gray test card. It was a well-known fact that you couldn't get a perfect color match on BOTH the Shirley and the gray card, because color neg films would have crossed curves somewhere in the range between them.
Are you scanning yourself, or lab scans? If if you're doing it yourself, how are you converting?
@DeeRosa keeps mentioning you in his videos and I am like "I'm subbed to Kyle too!"
Maybe you can do a video on UV filters and film.
My experience with UV filters taught me that I can take them or leave them. I've used them just for protecting my lens from dust, dirt, or moisture.
Great video. Not sure I agree about doing your own scanning. I've been shooting films for decades and I use a good professional lab to develop and scan my films. These days I ask them to send me flat TIFFs for the scans, meaning that they don't do any post processing in Negative Lab Pro etc. before they send the files to me. I do that myself which means I get the benefit of their very high end scanner (and technicians) but I have some control over the post-processing myself. Seem like a good compromise to me, although maybe one day I will get my own scanner.
Definitely a good compromise. If you have a good lab that also has good communication, lab scanning is still a great option. I think what's most important, is just being able to have some control and understanding of what's happening to your film when it's being scanned.
Exactly - I realised I was losing connection with the negative having someone else make decisions about contrast, saturation etc. before I'd even got the scan into Lightroom. I miss old school printing sometimes. Kyle, there are a lot of film photography TH-cam channels out there but I have to say yours is the one I come back to.
This is why I almost ALWAYS overexpose black and white! You can always print through the density.
Do you have a video on scanning at home?
Film photography is expensive enough just in the cost of film these days. Not only does developing and scanning your self cut your costs by 2/3 but it gives you consistency and most important control. No person sitting at a scanner 1000 miles away knows what your vision is better than you. Instead of my 67 shots costing $3.25 per shot, outrageous, it is reduced to $1.15 totally acceptable. 645 even less and 35 mm down to 40 cents a shot. Learning to consistently meter will increase your success rate substantially.
Digital photographers should be made aware of reciprocity failure when using film. Shutter speeds longer than 1 second and shorter than 1/1000th of a second will be underexposed so more exposure will be required.
That is a very good point. Thanks for that.
Biggest mistake is following the trend or the style of someone else and not finding your own
If my meter says one thing in one spot, but one inch to the left gives me two extra stops... well who am I to argue with good news? Bonus stops, I'm not going to question it.
I take my film to a lab. They do it all way better than I ever can. I have seen Kodak Ektar schott by many photographers. They always said it would go Blue in shadows. And yes it does. I have used it in shadows and it gets a blue tint to it which I am ok with. The new Harmon phoenix film . I have seen many photographers test it. And it has an orange tint to it unless it is edited out. Again. I like that so no complaints there. And Yes I have seen the muddy underexposed look of film photo podcasters here on youtube. They would rather pull highlights out in lightroom and photoshop instead of getting it near better the first time. Many don't seem to use fill flash, light meters or opening up the fstop to let more light in. As my late uncle always said. He was a photographer. Get it right in the camera the first time.
Film shooting is orders of magnitude more difficult than digital shooting. Digital photography is relatively easy, it's one of the reasons it was introduced in the first place. Film shooting is a long learning curve. However if you enjoy the challenge then the challenge of film can lead to excellent work.
New film shooters struggling with #1 (exposure) should invest in one or more early digital cameras to practice with. Their limited exposure range will teach how to work with light and speed lights.
I saw a comment on here talking about how color negative films are meant to be edited but I’ve seen photos from the 70’s and 80’s that look good on their own without editing (and never had an orange tint). Were the films used back then different or was it just luck?
Первая причина - это ты,
А вторая - все твои мечты,
Третья - это все твои слова,
Я им не поверил едва
Четвертая причина - это ложь,
Кто прав, кто виноват - не разберешь,
А пятая причина - это боль,
От того, что умерла любовь
When you say overexpose, are you talking about changing the ISO to 200 on a 400 ISO film? Or changing the EV value to +1 or +2?
EV value obviously
interesting how film seems to be the opposite of digital in the case of exposure correction - overexpose on digital and your image is cooked, underexpose and it can at least somewhat be salvaged
Digital is an absolute scale you have a value range (usually 0-255) and once you exceed that range, that's it, film is the opposite, there's always room to store more info, but it's quite difficult to get info from nothing.
@@thelonelytimbit appreciate the explanation!
The limitations of digital are more akin to slide film (albeit with much more dynamic range).
*Negative* film is the opposite of digital: overexposure is okay up to a point, because you can correct up to a point during the printing or scanning step by adding more print or scan exposure to power through the dense highlights. (But only up to a point -- if you overexpose negative film too much, eventually you hit the film's maximum density, aka "d-max", and then you get blown-out details.) *Positive* film, also known as transparency film or slide film, works the opposite way: overexpose much at all, and you will bleach all the tone out of the highlights, leaving basically clear film behind. But you can underexpose it a bit and recover that during the scanning step by adding more exposure to lift the shadows (although again, you can't go far with it because you'll reveal color shifts and excessive graininess that lurk in the shadows of underexposed transparency film.
In the old days we were taught that you had a range of about five stops with transparency film or seven stops with negative film before you got outside the range from which good-quality images could be recovered. Since each stop represented doubling or halving of exposure, you could treat that as being roughly equivalent to "five bits" or "seven bits" of high-quality image data. Your creative task as a photographer was to choose which five to seven bits of tonal range in the subject were the most important, and then fit those into the film's response curve, letting the rest of the subject's tonal range go to near-black or near-white.
Today, shooting in raw format with a modern digital camera, you get 12 or 14 bits of data (represented as a 16-bit number in the range 0 to 65,534) which means that while you still have to fit the curve to the most important tones of the subject, you have a lot more room to work with and can get higher-quality results under a wider range of circumstances.
Brother!
7:00 How did you scan with camera 6x17 so well?
Just a full frame shot with the GFX of a negative on a light pad with a mask.
@@KyleMcDougall well, with a GFX is like cheating haha! Nice done, I always scan 120 film in multiple shots and merge them with Lightroom, but it is unsatisfying
Excuse my probably trivial question. So when scanning film in what format should it be saved in order to edit the files afterwards ? I assume TIFF but just asking to make sure.
If you scan with a scanner, TIFF 16bit is already on the very good high end.
Some scanners can do a format literally called ".RAW" which will give you a bit more, but is rarely worth the extra space it takes up. Another nondestructive format is bitmap (.bmp). Those files tend to hold up extremely well even though the format is older and displaying them on most devices is no trouble at all. But TIFF is often used because it saves layers, has good quality, can be losslessly compressed to save space and some flavours even have error correction for bitcorruption built in. So long-term, diskspace aware archival is fine to be done with TIFF form my experience.
Yes, TIFF is best. But, if someone you share photos with prefers JPEG, that will work, too.
In a negative way Kyle, in a NEGATIVE way !
I don't think the word "workflow" really existed, or at least was used, until youtube
How do I transport the film if I am traveling abroad? Help! 🙏🏻
Check the manufacturer's website. They should have information about how many times their film can be x-rayed before the film is ruined.
Does anyone know how Kyle achieved that long stretch of film with a single wide exposure on it?
Use a Widelux or Kraken panoramic camera or a cheaper camera with a panorama feature.
this might be a dumb question but i’m new to film photography when u mention overexposing are u changing ur iso, or are u changing shutter speed , aperture i know that changing either or does the same thing but what are you doing sorry again if it’s a dumb question just need to be educated
Either shutter speed or aperture. The only way the ISO would change anything automatically is if you were using a camera with auto exposure.
If your camera has a built-in light metering system, I think it's easier to set the ISO to either half (or lower) than what is on the box. For example, if you are using 400 ISO film, set the ISO on the camera to 200 or 100. If it is 100 ISO film, set it to 50 or 25 and see how the photos look and adjust as necessary on the next roll. However, some cameras set the ISO automatically according to the DX code on the film cassette and it cannot be changed. Some cameras have an exposure adjustment feature, so you can set that to +2 or more and see how the photos look and adjust as necessary on the next roll. You can probably find a good used camera online that has the features you need at a reasonable price. Have fun.
💛
00:15 in a negative way
I recommend choosing one black and white quality film like Ilford, stick with it and learn to develop it yourself. You are in total control and you will eventually master it. It's cheap to set up and the developing cost is pennies per film. Then move on to color or other black and white films. It's a very enjoyable and rewarding experience. Some recommend trying multiple different films, Don't do it, you'll be going around in circles forever. 35mm film can also be bought in 30 meter rolls for bulk loading, again low cost for a bulk loader and it halves the cost of film. None of the above requires a darkroom.
Thanks Jon, I appreciate the wisdom. Is this how you taught yourself?
Yes although I was taught by the photo technicians at university art school. It was their advice. Keep variables to a minimum and once happy with one developer and film combination only then move onto the next.
Over time you will be familiar with a number of films and can then select the appropriate one for each job.@@arthurclery5731
I have developed a lot of black & white film (35mm, 120, & 4x5) since I started in 1983. It is a lot of work. But the results can be very much worth it. However, developing color film would not be worth it. You have a lot of leeway when developing black & white film and none with color film.
The only advantages in developing your own color film are, You have total quality control, It is quicker, it is about half the cost.@@rolfhesse4828
Your +5 EV shot looks almost the same as normal. And +5 is a huge difference.
Keep in mind that the brightness of the overexposed photo is compensated in post. But yeah, it’s pretty crazy. I was surprised.
@@rickbiessman6084 This is why folks often say "expose for the shadows" when talking about film. You basically have the ability to pull back overexposure in the same way you can pull up underexposure with digital.
Depending on the film, there can be alot of flexiblity. B&W is easier to correct as well as you aren't dealing with colour shift. But yeah, +5 is a TON of overexposure which you'd likely never hit by accident. Although once I was shooting the Pentax 67 and completely gapped and forgot to set my aperture along with my shutter speed. This was shooting TMAX, and although the negatives were incredibly dense, I was still able to salvage a decent image after scanning and converting.
If you overexpose by 5 stops, you will have a very dark negative and it will take a long time to scan it so it looks good. +2 should be good enough, but it depends on the film.
En regardant votre vidéo, je vois que vous faites des essais sur la pellicule et voir l'acceptation de celle-ci, avec le film poussé ou retenu au développement, et voir le contraste en même temps. Avec le révélateur conseillé par la marque en noir et blanc et en couleurs. Je vois aussi la pellicule g o l d 200 et 400 i s o. En partant de ce principe, si votre sujet est terne, vous prenez une pellicule qui donne plus de contraste. Pour la pellicule en noir et blanc, avec -2 normal et plus 2, pour celui qui vous écrit préfère le plus 2.
“In a negative way” ? 😊
Zing
I am the only one strugeling to get good positives with NLP?
I agree with you. It takes a lot of work with each frame. First when you hit convert I think the results are sometimes awful, sometimes good. Then you really need to find a workflow that fits your look. And then continue in LR. So much work makes me understand high prices from film labs who do all the work. I used a pro lab for many years but it got too expensive. But now I have to do all this work myself instead. No way around this really.
The out-of-the-box conversion varies for me-from great to needing a lot of work. But I've found that after using the software and learning how to edit and adjust things, I can pretty quickly get the look I'm after. It's usually pulling a lot of contrast, and using the colour balance tools in the shadows, mids, and highlights. I am going to be testing a new conversion software for an upcoming episode, so I'll be curious to see how it compares.
Solution: shoot digital ; )… great video as always.
It's definitely easier, haha!
To me....they don't look good is because our pictures are not printed light through negative onto paper. The scans are crap and the pictures are worse because they are printed digitally... just crap.
it's more like 5 pro tips from Captain Obvious )
basically - your photos look bad if yow do something bad in a process of making them. and it's not a secret knowledge.
if you need your photos exposed correctly - then expose them correctly. amazing huh ?
it's almost painful to see people taking broken/toy cameras with bad lenses, loading them with expired film then expose it without metering and "scan" with shoebox and smartphone.
and after they get completely ruined photos they think that this is what film should look like. "oh it so vintage", "such character", "love that film lofi look"
People seem to have totally forgotten that we used to create exceptionally clear, crisp, color accurate images from film and that it actually took quite a while before digital even came close to film quality.
Ofcourse there is a set standard. That is exactly why C41 and E6 were brought into life. So everyone does exactly the same!
Because film photography sucks. Its first those who didn’t grow up in the film era and have money to burn.
I shot pro on film back in the day. It makes me cringe thinking about the tedious expense of film.
Hooray for digital. 😅
F A C T S
#6- because i suck and should never try another hobby again.
Cool, but please no "Top 5", "Best 10", "5 reasons (not) to..." etc.
That's what the video is about though... not sure what else I'd call it 🤷♂️
Pretty much one reason, you think that scanners produce final images. Meaning, you lack the skills to print your images.
Even this video propagates this nonsense. If you profile your scanner, they will produce exactly the same output regardless of the scanner. You then have to print the image, meaning know what you want it look like.
If you use black & white film, it's easy to adjust. You can only change 2 things: density (how light or dark it is) and contrast. With color film it is more challenging. It's easier if you use a program like Photoshop Elements or other photo editing software. It can adjust color balance, density and contrast automatically. Also, a good scanning program like Silverfast can help a lot. You really don't have to print your photos, you can email them to your family and friends. It's a lot cheaper, faster and easier. They can look at your photos on their phone.
wow this is just the same video as any other film youtuber has done already
Wrong exposure for film is exactly the opposite of digital: in digital you can recover the shadows but wrongly exposed highlights are gone; while in film you can recover the highlights but wrongly exposed shadows are gone.
In essence:
Digital: underexpose, you'll be fine;
Film: overexpose, you'll be fine;
I gotta say I really HATE the term “muddy”.
What the hell does that mean!!!!
Muddy means that it is not a good black. It's a blah looking dark grey. If you look at great photographs, you will notice that the whites are very white and the blacks are very black even in color photos. Fred Picker referred to a good black as Dmax (maximum density).
As a very excellent example see "Clearing Winter Storm" by Ansel Adams.
2:25 was this shot 3 stops over and then you pull processed (under-processed) 3 stops?? Or was this shoto 3+ and then you developed normally and adjusted in post? (or third option: this was shot three over and processed normally and nothing was adjusted in post). Let me know. Curious, because depending on the answer, I'll probably always just shoot at least a full stop over. If anything I prefer the shot that's 3 stops overexposed.
2:43 uhhhhh, given your examples dude... I like EVERYthing you overexposed better than your "precise as possible" shots. Even the +5 stuff. Damn, I might just start overexposing everything AT LEAST 2 stops. And it's just hitting me now: Film manufacturers and camera companies were setting everything to THE LEAST exposure they could get away with. Because film used to be so slow. But there's somthing called reciprocity, where you can only expose the film so much before it starts doing nothing. I think there's a little bit of this at play.. because even the 5 stop overexposed stuff seems great.. .nay, better than your "precise as possible" shots. I'm curious what the infamous hard to meter slide film would do a couple stops over. I have a hunch it would look great.