Is film good in contrasty light?

I'm a landscape photographer doing a lot of work in woodlands. Currently I shoot with a medium format Hasselblad (digital).

I've been contemplating reshooting some of my images in analog to see if I can improve on the look. Specifically there are some that I (intentionally) want to shoot in full daylight that I haven't been satisfied with even after multiple attempts. I'm thinking of renting a 503CW and spend a couple days on this. I already have the exact shots I want to shoot so I'm thinking I'll pick up the camera, get to location at the right time, bracket a ton, process at a lab and see if I want to invest more time. Is this a good idea at all?

I have very little experience with film other than a bunch of years back when I first got started. From the research I've done online I've got the impression that film handles highlights much better than digital so for a very contrasty scene with deep shadow and strong backlight I'll have an easier time getting a pleasing look. Is this so? I don't see a lot of examples online because most everyone shoots woodlands in foggy or overcast light.

Is there any specific type of film I should look into? Ideally I want minimal grain to better match up with the rest of my portfolio. Appreciate any ideas you can share. Thanks!

My go to black & white film is Kodak Tri-X 400 shot at box speed. I use it with my Hasselblad 503 CX, Hasselblad 903 SWC and my Nikon F100.

What will be the end-use of these photos - prints, or?

If you shoot film will you wet print the negs in a darkroom or will they need to be scanned to digital for your end-use?

What, specifically, is causing you to be less than satisfied with the digital images?

Examples?

I wonder also about the problem with the digital files, unless you are using jpgs and bypassing camera RAW.
This is not a digital thread, but just responding.
For the analog question, I'd go for Trix and Pyrocat HD or MC

Sirius Glass said:

My go to black & white film is Kodak Tri-X 400 shot at box speed. I use it with my Hasselblad 503 CX, Hasselblad 903 SWC and my Nikon F100.

Click to expand...

Got it

runswithsizzers said:

What will be the end-use of these photos - inkjet prints, or ?

What, specifically, is causing you to be less than satisfied with the digital images?

Examples?

Click to expand...

End-use is whatever I can sell. Otherwise it will just be a digital scan on a website mostly.

The harshness of the light is not pleasing to my eyes. Usually the light filtering through leaves tend to get blown out so I bracket and try to blend images in photoshop, sometimes it works but mostly it turns out bad when the range is too much. I find using a narrow depth of field helps a bit in softening out the transitions so I'm thinking maybe a large format camera can be something to try as well (?)

Welcome to Photrio.
I tend to advocate for the qualities of film at every reasonable opportunity.
But I don't thank that you would be likely to achieve the results you want immediately upon switching.
If your plan is to experiment, I would recommend T-Max 400 and development in X-Tol.

khrisrino said:

I have very little experience with film

Click to expand...

Then don't expect a major improvement if you're going to try casually. The potential for messups with film is just much bigger than with digital, and it takes experience to get from a scene what you want. It does help that you're most likely going to scan, which brings you into familiar digital territory and allows at least to some extent to recover whatever is lost due to mishaps in the field.

khrisrino said:

so I'm thinking maybe a large format camera can be something to try as well (?)

Click to expand...

To be brutally honest, it seems to me that you're expecting some mild form of magic from film-based photography. It's magic alright - the experience of shooting film is unique, and each of us here takes something out of it that they like a lot. But I don't think it's what you're looking for in terms of a technical solution to a particular problem, or set of problems.

Don't get me wrong - definitely do give it a go. Perhaps you'll like it, and perhaps it'll open up new avenues for you to pursue, also commercially. But I'm going to take a wager on that it's not going to bring what you're expecting now, and certainly not in the timeframe that you seem to envision it.

Oh yes and take the light meter reading without the sky in the view. That way the subject is exposed correctly and the sky will fall in its proper place.

koraks said:

To be brutally honest, it seems to me that you're expecting some mild form of magic from film-based photography. It's magic alright - the experience of shooting film is unique, and each of us here takes something out of it that they like a lot. But I don't think it's what you're looking for in terms of a technical solution to a particular problem, or set of problems.

Don't get me wrong - definitely do give it a go. Perhaps you'll like it, and perhaps it'll open up new avenues for you to pursue, also commercially. But I'm going to take a wager on that it's not going to bring what you're expecting now, and certainly not in the timeframe that you seem to envision it.

Click to expand...

Makes sense. I framed the question in a more technical way but I guess what I'm really optimizing for is to get a look that works for me. I'll keep the timeframe in mind.

MattKing said:

Welcome to Photrio.
I tend to advocate for the qualities of film at every reasonable opportunity.
But I don't thank that you would be likely to achieve the results you want immediately upon switching.
If your plan is to experiment, I would recommend T-Max 400 and development in X-Tol.

Click to expand...

I wonder also about the problem with the digital files, unless you are using jpgs and bypassing camera RAW.

George Collier said:

This is not a digital thread, but just responding.
For the analog question, I'd go for Trix and Pyrocat HD or MC

Click to expand...

Thanks! Sounds like T-Max 400 is a popular one.

For what's described, I suggest two words (and the learning curve that goes with them): Zone System.

This is a method of controlling both exposure (to ensure enough light in the dimmest parts of the image where you want detail) and contrast (to ensure, after getting enough light, that the highlights where you want to preserve detail don't block up).

You'll need some additional equipment -- it's easiest to apply Zone System with sheet film, so you can develop exposures individually (or at least control their development in groups that might be smaller than 10-12-16 frames). If you're shooting in harsh light, you'll expose to keep your desired shadow detail, and reduce development to rein in the over-bright highlights. If you're shooting in very dull conditions, you'll still expose for your shadows, but you'll develop more to put punch back into the image.

It's possible to learn these techniques with 35 mm by cutting the film in a darkroom or dark bag, to expose a few frames and develop those, but the end point is usually sheet film which, these days, pretty much means 4x5 or larger (smaller sizes typically have only one or two emulsion choices).

Want to see what kind of results the Zone System can produce? Look at landscapes by Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and the other masters of the 1940s and 1950s. Especially with Adams, he's written about what he did for each negative to produce the image he visualized before firing the shutter. In fact, he wrote an entire book just about exposing and developing negatives and using the Zone System to produce the image you see in your head: The Negative.

Donald Qualls said:

For what's described, I suggest two words (and the learning curve that goes with them): Zone System.

This is a method of controlling both exposure (to ensure enough light in the dimmest parts of the image where you want detail) and contrast (to ensure, after getting enough light, that the highlights where you want to preserve detail don't block up).

You'll need some additional equipment -- it's easiest to apply Zone System with sheet film, so you can develop exposures individually (or at least control their development in groups that might be smaller than 10-12-16 frames). If you're shooting in harsh light, you'll expose to keep your desired shadow detail, and reduce development to rein in the over-bright highlights. If you're shooting in very dull conditions, you'll still expose for your shadows, but you'll develop more to put punch back into the image.

It's possible to learn these techniques with 35 mm by cutting the film in a darkroom or dark bag, to expose a few frames and develop those, but the end point is usually sheet film which, these days, pretty much means 4x5 or larger (smaller sizes typically have only one or two emulsion choices).

Want to see what kind of results the Zone System can produce? Look at landscapes by Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and the other masters of the 1940s and 1950s. Especially with Adams, he's written about what he did for each negative to produce the image he visualized before firing the shutter. In fact, he wrote an entire book just about exposing and developing negatives and using the Zone System to produce the image you see in your head: The Negative.

Click to expand...

For a one time trial, one should not get burdened with the Zone System, especially with the endless. constant testing retesting and the self doubt. The OP wants to get the feel of using film and see if it meets his needs. He did not ask for learning to develop film, use an enlarger and become a expert on masking and pin registration. Nor did he request how to do daguerreotype so that he could touch the roots of photography.

Sirius Glass said:

For a one time trial, one should not get burdened with the Zone System, especially with the endless. constant testing retesting and the self doubt. The OP wants to get the feel of using film and see if it meets his needs. He did not ask for learning to develop film, use an enlarger and become a expert on masking and pin registration. Nor did he request how to do daguerreotype so that he could touch the roots of photography.

Click to expand...

All good. I am familiar with Ansel Adams but I had not read how he did it. But yes it will be a bit too much for me to jump into right away. I think at most initially I can bracket shots and try to simulate over/under development digitally while scanning … not sure if that’s a good proxy

Have you have tried stand or semi-stand film development to tame contrast? With stand development, the highlight part of the film with stand development exhaust while leaving the shadow parts to continue developing. You will have to do some test of course. I shot this photo with Foma 100 film stand developed for 1 hour with HC-110 developer at 1:100 development at 68°. This is a backlit shot.

khrisrino said:

All good. I am familiar with Ansel Adams but I had not read how he did it. But yes it will be a bit too much for me to jump into right away. I think at most initially I can bracket shots and try to simulate over/under development digitally while scanning … not sure if that’s a good proxy

Click to expand...

When the time comes for learning the Zone System, it can be distilled down to the logic and steps to do the Zone System for exposure only. While some will disagree for the most part the film development part is no longer necessary since the exposure latitude of film is much greater now. At that time, ask and we can walk you through that.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

Have you have tried stand or semi-stand film development to tame contrast? With stand development, the highlight part of the film with stand development exhaust while leaving the shadow parts to continue developing. You will have to do some test of course. I shot this photo with Foma 100 film stand developed for 1 hour with HC-110 developer at 1:100 development at 68°. This is a backlit shot.

Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that friends do not let friends do stand development, the OP is looking only a using film to see if it can give him the results he would like. He is not nor has he requested training as a expert film chemist with a full darkroom. One step at a time and see if you can be weaned away from stand development since we do have therapy for stand development recovery.

One advantage to film is the ability to hold detail into the highlights, something digital is still working on. Getting that detail out is a different story, in either digital or wet darkroom methods. If you're going to scan your film, then scan it at as low a contrast as you can, then put the contrast you want back in later in post processing. If you are going to wet print, then I strongly suggest learning about split-grade printing. The too-high-level, too-brief overview of the technique is that you make two exposures, one with a grade 0 filter, and a second one at grade 4 or higher.

It would be OK to post one of your digital image examples for which you would like suggestions as to how film might be an improvement.

khrisrino said:

From the research I've done online I've got the impression that film handles highlights much better than digital so for a very contrasty scene with deep shadow and strong backlight I'll have an easier time getting a pleasing look. Is this so?

Click to expand...

koraks said:

To be brutally honest, it seems to me that you're expecting some mild form of magic from film-based photography.

Click to expand...

Hi, I'd agree with koraks. I expect that you'll be disappointed with your film results. It's true that the film(s?) mentioned do have the ability to record a very long "brightness" range. But when you try to actually put this range to use you're gonna run into the same issues as you did with your digital back.

Something that is not well appreciated has to do with the "tonal reproduction" of a scene. In order for a print, for example, to look good it has to have a tonal response that is roughly proportional to the original scene. Consequently the extreme "brightness" recording range of the film is gonna be out of reach for the reproduction medium. It's true that you could work with a very low contrast to get the "brightness" range to "fit" onto photo paper, for example, but the result will have a flat (low contrast) appearance that just doesn't have much "snap."

I'd say that you have basically two ways to get this to work. First is to use something akin to what they call "stand" development. The idea is that you use a developer/technique that the developing agent sorta runs out of strength before it can fully develop the brightest part of the scene. So the brightness range on the film is not so extreme, and MAY be able to fit on paper ok.

The second method is to use some sort of strong "mask" at the printing stage. This is basically a mechanical method to locally reduce the range of the negative while still keeping the local contrast more or less normal.

By way of explanation of the mask, consider if you could make a "contact print" of the problem negative onto another piece of film. Imagine if this second film - a negative of a negative - were sandwiched together with the original film. Assuming that it had exactly the same brightness responses (except in reverse) it could theoretically cancel out the first image. Obviously there is no point to doing this, but IF the second film is only weakly developed then the overall "range" of the negative is effectively reduced. There is still a problem, though. The overall contrast is low, still giving a print that lacks "snap." But... if this second film is made "unsharp," the effect is over broader areas. Within those areas the "local contrast" can remain normal, thus the print looks fine. But the problem parts can also be brought into a usable range.

Here's the rub... when you shoot and combine multiple images with your digital back you are already (probably) doing something similar. So if you're not happy with that already...?

In short I don't think you'll find film to be the magic bullet you want. But.. I think you may still have to try it to settle things in your own mind. Fwiw even if you can find a lab willing to do these things you're gonna be paying for it. It may well be out of (sensible) financial reach unless you do it yourself.

Personally, and I'm not a landscape guy, I'd probably just be much more selective of the scenes I shoot. I'd just pass on the ones that are too far out of range. And concentrate my efforts on more workable scenes. Waiting and waiting for more favorable conditions, if needed. But again, I'm not a landscape guy.

Ps, if you want a better understanding of unsharp masking techniques (and extreme capabilities) look for info from astronomer David Malin. He pioneered many of these techniques maybe 50 years ago. Most of his online info has now disappeared from the internet, but my understanding is that his 1980s book, the Colour(s?) Of The Stars, supposedly has a good technical explanation in the appendix.

Best of luck.

Ps, see. https://www.davidmalin.com/dfm/general/bibliography.html

I think you have the right approach. If I can offer some specifics on what I'd do : rent a medium format camera and buy a bunch of high quality "modern" medium speed film like kodak TMAX 100 or ilford delta 100. Bracket your scenes while also shooting one roll at box speed (EI 100) and an other overexposed by one stop (EI 50). Carefully mark the EI you shot at. For the one shot at 50, ask a trusted lab to pull one stop in development. IMHO, it should give you a decent starting point.

B&W film is very amenable to darkroom trickery in order to achieve "impossible" results, but if you shoot it at box speed and have someone else process it normally, don't expect miracles, as tonal values in over- and under-exposed regions of the negative become compressed, and don't necessarily separate out again nicely during the printing process.

Have you also tried multi-image HDR with your digital setup?

khrisrino said:

I'm a landscape photographer doing a lot of work in woodlands. Currently I shoot with a medium format Hasselblad (digital).

I've been contemplating reshooting some of my images in analog to see if I can improve on the look. Specifically there are some that I (intentionally) want to shoot in full daylight that I haven't been satisfied with even after multiple attempts. I'm thinking of renting a 503CW and spend a couple days on this. I already have the exact shots I want to shoot so I'm thinking I'll pick up the camera, get to location at the right time, bracket a ton, process at a lab and see if I want to invest more time. Is this a good idea at all?

I have very little experience with film other than a bunch of years back when I first got started. From the research I've done online I've got the impression that film handles highlights much better than digital so for a very contrasty scene with deep shadow and strong backlight I'll have an easier time getting a pleasing look. Is this so? I don't see a lot of examples online because most everyone shoots woodlands in foggy or overcast light.

Is there any specific type of film I should look into? Ideally I want minimal grain to better match up with the rest of my portfolio. Appreciate any ideas you can share. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Don't shoot in the woods on a sunny day with the sun shining through the leaves. Everything looks spotty and the range between the bright spots and dark areas is just too much. Film won't help. That's why other people wait for when it's foggy or overcast. They've been through this problem as well.

One other thing. Could you post a sample so we can see the issues in detail that you're objecting to?

You can learn to shoot a modified Zone System approach without too much time and investment. Although written for 35mm photographers I recommend a fast read of Carson Graves The Zone System for the 35mm Photographers. He teaches how use a ring around to determine personalized ISO, use a standard meter to determine your shadow and exposure and development time to determine your highlights. In terms of films and developers I recommend TMAX 400, has a long exposure scale, for a developer all good advice, I would add Tmax developer or ILford DDX, which formulated to work with Tgrain films.

I know what to do! Lets form two lines with clubs and have the OP run between the two lines while being beating with the clubs. Way to go welcoming a new member who will not be here much longer if you keep making it much harder than it has to be. Soon the OP will be running back to his digital Hasselblad in tears.

ic-racer said:

It would be OK to post one of your digital image examples for which you would like suggestions as to how film might be an improvement.

Click to expand...

+++++

This in essence is what the OP wants to know. isn't it? Currently in trying to help we are telling him what the problems are and possibly without trying to, are persuading him that his is a forlorn hope

Once we can see what it is he wants to achieve, we'll know how and if we can help him

pentaxuser