"The Lost Frame"
or: Reason #9 Why I Use Film
What's the best digital camera? That question is asked a lot, I suppose.
One of the most important ratings for a digital camera is how many
stops of dynamic range it has. The question there is: Where does it start to clip highlights?
A related question is: how badly can you overexpose a picture and
still get something out of it?
Maybe, when we're asking these questions about digital cameras, it's worth
stepping outside the box for a minute. So here's another question. Why is it that so many people
insist on using film in 2014?
We're going to find out that all three of these questions are connected.
I went back to film, and I'd like to share one of the reasons why.
Check This Out
These are scans of 35mm film. I think it was CVS color film, ISO
400 (I believe this is Fuji Superia film stock). What you're about to see is from a test roll I was shooting
with an old Yashica Electro 35 from a yard sale (I enjoy using old
cameras). I think this one has the notorious "POD" problem, which
can cause the metering to be wrong sometimes.
Photo # 10 is there just so you can see a normal picture.
(Actually, I was using a color polarizer there, but don't worry about
that.) Now that you've seen Photo #10, let's move on now.
It's Photo # 9 that I want you to pay attention to.
I scanned these together so you can see what the scanner saw. With
the identical setting that made # 10 look normal (along with all the
rest of the pictures on the roll), # 9 looked almost like a blank
When I hold the negatives up to the light, I can pick out # 9
immediately: it's the one that's almost black. It has a little
bit of detail. How many stops over is that? Whatever it is, it's a lot.
Anyway, check this out: I
re-scanned # 9 by itself and turned the settings way up.
And behold, there was still information in that 35mm negative:
Compare again with the first scan. Now that's what you call latitude.
All I had to do was go back to the negative, and there was still tone
Digitized images are different. The information has
been collapsed into a digital file. I can't think of a good
analogy for this, except it's like collapsing three dimensional info
into two dimensions. Sort of. One problem with that collapse is that it throws away certain info that you would want.
Real negatives and slides have something that digital never will. They have a real, tangible
original. That's kind of a big deal.
Now, I know this example here was blurry and overexposed (or impressionistic, if you
prefer), but the point of this little exercise is to show the amazing latitude of film. It's just one more reason why film is worth using in 2014.
This site is made possible through the support of readers like you.
Please help keep it going by shopping through any of the links on this
site, such as this one. It doesn't cost any extra, and it lets me bring you new articles and reviews.
I hope you enjoyed this article. Thanks for visiting this site.
o.t o .1 2 0 s t u d i o.. c o m
This won't directly copy and paste. Please manually type it into your mail program.
No spaces between
All photos on this site are Copyright 2010-2014