I finished up Chi Chi and Naomi’s shoot from last weekend. You can see the full galleries here at my client site.
While it’s hard to see the difference in reduced resolution web jpgs, the first two are digital captures and the last two are film.
Part of the purpose of this project is to compare the two formats in terms of lighting, shooting dynamics, workflow and image processing. The early conclusions are that digital is faster and the files have more latitude in image processing but that I really am drawn to the film look. Film takes longer to develop and scan but the image takes less processing when the light is right. With digital I can crop harder, change ISO and manipulate and fine tune multiple speedlights on the fly (with eTTL metering to boot). But all of that comes at the cost of weight and bulk. I keep my kit as pared down as possible but it’s still a lot of equipment. With film I’d just rather not deal with all of that. The M3 is smaller and lighter. Rangefinder lenses are smaller and lighter. Two or three rolls of film fit in a shirt pocket and that’s it. And when you nail a shot it’s gold. I’m encouraged to keep going and see where it leads.
Digital:
- Canon 1D Mk II, Canon 24-70, ISO 400, F/4 @ 1/125
Film:
- Top – Leica M3, KM 9cm Hexanon-M, Kodak BW400CN, F/4 @ 1/60
- Bottom – Leica M3, Canon 5cm Sonnar F/1.5, Kodak BW400CN, F/4, 1/60
