 |
Photojournalistas.com |
| Jan-Feb, 2006 |
|
Page 2
|
|
Slow Progression:
My Slow Transition From Film Cameras To Digital Cameras...And Why It's Taking So Long. By Lee K. Marriner |
 Digital camera photography also negates the need for scanning film, something I’ve always found time consuming and frustrating, especially when scanning negative film. Slides and digital camera images look pretty much the way they were seen when taking the pictures if they are exposed properly. When negative film is being used, a certain amount of scene memory is required to get it scanned properly. Most film scanners also tend to add a lot of noise (that film grain looking stuff) to images, particularly those on negatives. Negative film’s greatest asset is its wide dynamic range, yet the limited range of many film scanners often blunts this advantage. It seems to me that film scanners, which have been around a lot longer than digital cameras, would be at the point by now where these problems would be long past, but that issue is for a later story. Think that film scanners aren’t really necessary anymore due to digital cameras? Think again: Anyone who has been a photographer for more than five years probably has a boatload of slides and negatives that have important professional or sentimental value. Imagine the joy of rescanning these into the computer with a scanner that doesn’t degrade them.So why, with all negatives associated with negatives, do I still use color negative film? The answer is that it can still do things that slides and digital camera images can’t do. Most of these things have to do with the wider dynamic range of negative film, and that is why I’m still a big fan of it. Most professional photographers other than photojournalists and wedding photographers seem to hate negative film, choosing to use slide film for all that they do. Negative is often overlooked because it doesn’t have the same density that slide film does, and as a result doesn’t have the contrast and saturation of slide film. Slide film, however, must be perfectly exposed, or perhaps slightly underexposed. An exposure made on slide film that is more than slightly off can result in overly blown out highlights or blocked detail in shadow areas. This can make the image unusable. Digital camera images are still extremely sensitive in the highlight areas, and still lack in the shadow areas when compared to color negative film. Negative film, because of its wider dynamic range, can pick up more shadow detail on the dark end of the exposure and more highlight detail on the bright end. Because of this, negative film can record broader range of tonal detail. This means it is more forgiving of minor underexposure errors and medium overexposure errors. It also means that you can shoot, and get good images, when there are extremes of light in your scene. This is one reason that before the wide use of digital cameras, most newspaper photographers used color negative film rather than slide. Currently, the dynamic range of digital cameras is closer to that of slide film than negative film. When fast turn around is crucial, like deadline work, speed wins out over the gains in dynamic range that negative film provides. That’s why I use digital cameras for tight deadline work. When a deadline is weeks or months away, I often use color negative film. I almost always use color negative film when I’m working on self-generated/self-assigned projects. Why not use slide? Because I want to be sure I come away with good images after working for weeks arranging a shoot. I would rather have the wider margin for error that color negative film provides than the extra pop that slide film gets. Sometimes it takes weeks or months to arrange shoots and find the right subjects or place for a story. To get to the shoot, time and money must also be expended. I often shoot in conditions where the subjects are constantly moving from one place to another in light that is constantly changing. When that perfect shot for the story is in the viewfinder for a millisecond, I want to make sure I have a usable image before it disappears forever. In journalism you don’t ask people to reenact what they just did. You get the shot or don’t. To do otherwise is unethical and would jeopardize ones reputation in the field. Because of this I want some cushion or margin for error if for some reason my exposure might be off. Slide film and digital cameras are very unforgiving of errors, especially with highlight detail. A great shot on negative film always trumps a perfect lost shot on slides or digital. Usually, even in conditions that are tricky for good exposures, I do get good exposures. I use a handheld incident light meter to get a feel for the light and what the exposures are for various angles on the subject. I then use the meter in my camera, a Nikon F5 when shooting film, to back up what I feel is the right exposure. Properly exposed negative film can flat out provide extra detail in the image’s highlights and shadows that digital and slide film can’t. This is probably the biggest reason that I’m still a fan of C-41 color negative film. Sometimes when trying to achieve a certain effect I’ll expose for the highlights, but I don’t have to worry about the shadow areas totally blocking up. |
|
|
|
|
|
