What camera and accessories do I need for taking photos of paintings made with acrylics?

Question

I currently have a 2 year old digital camera and am looking into taking professional photos of my artwork, mainly acrylic paintings. I was wondering, starting out, what is the best kind of camera and accessories that are required and which items might be a good idea to have. Would any digital camera work, or would a film camera be better?

I realize that if you take a picture with a film camera you can better guarantee the number of prints made; yet I want a digital copy of the final print (to do different things with) so that is not brought into account.

Asked by Kyra

Answer

Digital is better than film:

1. easier
2. film processing requires a pro lab.
3. if using film, you should shoot on transparency which requires an accuracy of 1/3 of a stop.

Raw files have +/- 1 stop flexibility. Raw files have colour temp flexibility. Digital is more sensitive to subtle variations in tone ~ therefore You should mix daylight and flash lighting balanced across the exposure area. That's the best solution for paintings.

Answered by Ian Hobbs

Check more discussion of this question.

Do ISO values for Film and DSLR cameras have 1 to 1 correspondence?

Question

For example, if we have a film with ISO/ASA speed of 100, is it equivalent to setting ISO = 100 on DSLRs?

Asked by Akram Mellice

Answer

Sort of... because ISO values for film don't even have a 1:1 correspondence. For example, Fujichrome Velvia 50 is rated at ISO 50, but if you set your camera on 50, you will generally underexpose. Most film photographers I knew set ISO 40 instead. However Kodak E-100 typically did expose properly at ISO 100.

A digital camera set at ISO 100 will typically respond "as if" it were film that responded with a proper exposure at ISO 100.

Film photographers grew to understand the characteristics of the particular film they were using and adjusted accordingly. Digital photographers don't typically have that problem.

Answered by Steve Ross

Check more discussion of this question.

How did film photographers overcome constant ISO/ASA values in low light situations?

Question

Today in Digital SLR era, when I find myself in low light situation in a place that I can't use my tripod or I don't have it, and still don't want to get blurry images, I use the widest aperture which may not be enough, so I raise my ISO.

I'm curious what did film photographers do with their fixed ISO/ASA per film roll? Specially if they are using a low ISO film like 50 or 100.

Asked by Akram Mellice

Answer

There were several techniques:

• Carry extra film backs (MF) or camera bodies (35mm) with different film loaded
• Push process lower ISO film to sacrifice fine grain in favor of perceived higher ISO
• Rewind the film already in the camera until just the leader is outside the canister, noting what frame you are on, then load a different roll. You can then reload the original roll and expose black frames until you are on the "next" frame
• Use a flash
• Use a tripod for more shots

I've been in many situations where simply walking from a more open area in a city to a denser part where the buildings created shadows made 2 or more stops difference. Carrying multiple bodies or push processing were my technique of choice. Push processing is an all-or nothing thing, so you either push the whole roll or you don't. Push and pull are for carrying one type of film you feel covers the most general case and then adjusting ISO for specific cases outside those boundaries. Carrying a separate body is great because you can switch back and forth quickly. It's not all or nothing, and you don't have to take the time to rewind film, etc.

ISO 50 film, in particular, is dicey because photographers chose it for (among other things) its grain structure. Pushing something like Velvia gives it a different character -- somewhat grainier and even more contrasty. Probably not the effect intended when the film was loaded. Even more so with the slow B&W films like Pan-X.

Answered by Steve Ross

Check more discussion of this question.

What is “ISO” on a digital camera?

Question

What is "ISO" in general, and how is the scale defined?

How does the ISO scale for film speed differ from ISO sensitivity as used in digital cameras?

Is lower ISO always better?

Asked by mattdm

Answer

In photography, ISO generally refers to a measure of "Film Speed", which I use including reference to digital sensor sensitivity.

In short, the actual letters ISO are a name for the International Organization for Standardization (not, officially, an acronym -- more information here), and in photography it refers to the ISO 12232:2006 standard and other related standards: ISO 12232:1998, ISO 5800:1987, ISO 6:1993 and ISO 2240:2003. (Links on the Film Speed page.) Film historically has also used the ASA and DIN standards, the former using the same numbering system, and DIN using an entirely different scale.

The standards for film and digital are technically different (in ways I haven't investigated closely enough to report fully on), but generally they're similar enough that for practical purposes, they're essentially the same (notwithstanding Reciprocity Failure, which many films are quite prone to, though digital generally is not). So if you measure an exposure with your digital camera, you could use that exposure with a film of the same rating as the ISO setting you used in the digital camera, and expect to get a similar exposure (unless the shutter speed long or short enough for Reciprocity Failure to kick in for the film) (also assuming similar equipment otherwise -- no differences in filters, etc.).

In both digital and film, a higher number indicates greater sensitivity. A number twice as high is twice as sensitive (e.g. 200 is twice as sensitive as 100, 400 twice as sensitive as 200, etc.). So, when shooting in relatively low light, and wanting a relatively-fast (e.g. fast enough to stop motion) shutter speed, a higher sensitivity rating will be essential (so no, lower is not always better!)

In digital cameras (and similarly but differently in film), higher ISO ratings tend to create noise (the related effect in film is increased graininess). So, while it's not always better (that depends on what you're going for), lower ISO ratings are always (or at least almost always) lower in noise, which may be desirable. (In the case of low light photography where shutter speed is not a concern, long exposures mixed with lower ISO ratings will create a "better" image -- though it's conceivable that some may like the effects of the noise; certainly there's appeal at times to film grain.)

As for how the scale is defined, it is based on measurements of an image produced based on a certain scenario of illumination. The details are complex, so I'll leave the details as an exercise for the reader. A lay summary is that (for digital) it's a measure of how quickly the digital sensor becomes "saturated" with light. (For film, the process is related but different.)

In summary: higher ISO is more sensitive but noisier (but not necessarily worse), digital and film rated for the same ISO (or ASA for the film) will have similar sensitivity, and the scale is based on how quickly an image will become "saturated" given a certain amount of illumination.

---

NOTE: I'm gearing up to do some experimentation related to the controversial answer from Matt Grum. Hopefully, my results will create a nice clear noise-free answer to the important point he brings up: that a high-ISO image with a low amount of light will be less noisy than a low-ISO image with the same amount of light getting to the sensor, which is later amplified in post-processing. More to come, hopefully in... EDIT: Well, I've failed to make this happen for a while now. I may still do it at some point. In the mean time, I'll also point to this article that talks about comparisons of native versus non-native ISO values, and amounts of noise in them, which, while the article doesn't exactly say so, I think is probably directly related to exactly this question.

Answered by lindes

Check more discussion of this question.

Why does blue sky gets rendered as black in black and white film photos?

Question

I recently started using a film camera along with my digital camera. I took a picture with both the cameras. This one is from digital camera:

Left is the photo without editing and right after selecting "Black & White Treatment" in Lightroom. See the way sky is rendered white. This is what I was expecting from film camera without any filter. But I was pleasantly surprised to get this:

This is a scanned copy of the print I got from film. The blue sky is rendered black. I shot this on Ilford Pan F Plus at ISO 50 with sun towards the right of the frame.

Now my question is, what is it that rendered the blue sky black? Is the characteristic of this particular film or some contrast in the scene or the guy who developed this for me played some nice trick.

Asked by Vikas

Answer

Your printer appears to have done quite a bit of burning in of the sky area (and of the closer of the two rock faces, as well as some general vignetting). It's a pretty good job, but you can see some lightness close to the hill that wouldn't be there if the darkness was the film's response to the sky.

Panchromatic black-and-white film is generally more sensitive to blue than to other colours (although by how much varies with the emulsion, some being more sensitive to greens and others to reds than others). In order to get a substantial sky, you normally need to use some sort of colour filtration, normally in the light yellow to deep red range. Without filtration, a blue sky will normally be very light in tone, without much distinction between the sky and clouds.

When shooting black and white, you should consider a K2 yellow filter and a #25 "light red" (it won't look very light to you when you see it) to be standard parts of your kit. The K2 will render the sky more or less "normally"—that is, there will be a distinct tonality to the sky, lighter at the horizon and getting darker as you move up, with visible clouds. The #25 will give you a much darker sky and more dramatically contrasting clouds (assuming white clouds, of course). There are filters covering the range between the K2 and the #25, but they're sort of "neither here nor there"—they're not strong enough to really be dramatic, but are obviously filtered. To get the Ansel Adams-style black skies, you might want to use a #29 dark red filter.

You can approximate the look of filters when converting your colour digital images to black and white, but with a great deal more control over contrast than you can get with an ordinary optical filters.

Answered by Stan Rogers

Check more discussion of this question.

What kind of photography is still better done with film cameras?

Question

Are there any kind of photography left today which digital cameras are still in the disadvantage to film cameras?

Asked by txwikinger

Answer

Infrared photography is much more accessible with film. With digital it is possible, but generally involves modifying the sensor to remove the infrared filter, which is very expensive.

Answered by chills42

Check more discussion of this question.

What megapixel value is equivalent to which ISO film?

Question

Is there some kind of equivalency table or formula that expresses what kind of pixels you need in a digital camera to have roughly the same quality as a particular ISO graded film? What other variables would influence this (focal-length, exposure time, etc)?

Answer

I remember seeing a figure of 22MP was "as good" as 35mm resolution (of course, with film it isn't just the ISO, but the manufacturer and age of the film, skill of developer etc.)

Higher ISO film tended to have more grain; and higher ISO digital shots exhibit more noise - a similar cause, but the visual appearance is different.

Digital ISO noise is related to the size of each pixel, as the noise is per-pixel (so the more pixels you have, the less obvious noise is when viewed the same size). One analogy I've used in the past to demonstrate this is to ask several people to time with a stopwatch how long it takes a car to drive around a car park, and then to time how long a person takes to do the same journey - because the person is slower, the margin of error is a smaller in proportion to the overall figure, even though different people will give timings to within a few seconds of each other.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it possible to convert a film SLR to digital?

Question

This may well be a question to which the answer is "can't be done," but I was wondering whether it was possible to convert a film SLR to a DSLR by putting a sensor in place of the film. I have a bunch of old bodies and lenses which I would love to be able to use, but I just don't want to mess around with film, so I was wondering whether it's possible to convert them to take digital images.

Answer

This has certainly been done with medium format SLRs that have interchangeable backs (e.g., Leaf and Phase One backs).

For a 35mm camera, the situation isn't nearly so positive. There was once a company that claimed to be working on a digital sensor that would be shaped like a 35mm film cannister with the sensor sticking out roughly like the film tongue. I'm reasonably certain they never produced even a partially working prototype, and even more certain they never put a product onto the market. Personally, I rather doubt it could be done.

In any case, the market opportunity for such a product is mostly past -- the vast majority of people who want to shoot digital have given up on the idea and bought digital bodies. Most have upgraded at least once by now, so used digital bodies are fairly common and quite reasonably priced...

Check more discussion of this question.

Is there a difference in dynamic range between film and digital?

Question

Is there a difference in dynamic range between film and digital?

Answer

The following article is an excellent comparison of the dynamic range differences of film and digital. It is a few years old, so it is a bit out of date, but the underlying theory is basically the same with modern gear. It has a lot of empirical data, and the conclusions are pretty interesting:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

It should be noted that this article lacks some information about film. While digital does have good dynamic range in comparison to film in general, film does tend to edge out digital when it comes to highlights. Some empirical data is also missing due to the fact that the film images were scanned, which results in some loss of dynamic range and detail.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it worth investing in a used 35 mm Film camera?

Question

I've a Canon 60D and I'm mainly interested in shooting landscapes. I feel very interested in buying a used canon EOS film camera (since my EF lenses are compatible).
I would like to take pictures from my DSLR and then use the same meter reading on the SLR to take a picture. I'm planning on scanning the negatives myself to the maximum resolution and the assumption is that the picture from the film camera would be lot more colorful and sharper.

Would their be a noticeable difference by using a film camera? considering that my 60D comes with 18 Mega Pixels.

Sharpness and resolution matter to me only because I usually end up cropping my pictures.

Also I'm planning on using using films with ISO of 50 or 100.
The used camera I'm interested in cost around $200.

Answer

It certainly is not worth investing in a 35mm film camera for the perceived higher resolution, additional color, or sharpness.

To get results you will likely have to either invest in, or at least have access to a drum scanner that gives you the highest resolution possible right now. Otherwise you will likely be scanning on a flatbed that almost certainly does not produce resolution even near the Canon 60D.

Are you trying to print 24x30inch prints at 360dpi? Sure, grab a 35mm camera, a $20,000 drum scanner, and you may be able to achieve high resolution that would benefit images of this size. You also might not achieve that.

It sounds like the main issue is that you usually end up cropping your images. If this is the case, it sounds like you either need to frame up the subject better before you take the image, or invest in further reaching lenses.

Check more discussion of this question.

What advantages does 35mm film have over high-end digital?

Question

In this day and age, do 35mm film cameras have any advantages over high-end digital cameras?

EDIT: I was thinking more quality-wise but sure, other aspects are interesting, too.

Answer

I don't think we can talk about quality difference anymore. The definite difference, in my opinion, is the need of power of digital cameras. If you are going mountain climbing then a film camera might be more appropriate since mountains still lack power plugs.

Also, film cameras have a very low starting price. If you are a novice it is economically convenient to be able to have an SLR for almost nothing just to see if you like photography.

Other than that, there's the love some people have for manually developing film, but that's about it from my point of view.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it possible to make a 35mm digital camera with the same size / weight / price as a 35mm film camera?

Question

Why are full-frame digital cameras huge, heavy, $6000 beasts when 35mm film cameras fit in a pocket and cost $6?

Are full-frame cameras getting smaller, lighter and/or cheaper? If not, why?

If there are the technological or physical limitations, what are they?

Answer

When comparing film to digital cameras, you need to compare apples to apples. I searched for the EOS 1, EOS 1Ds and EOS 1DsMk3 and found a surprising fact: the EOS 1, when equipped with the battery and motor drive extender (grip) which brings it to about the same physical size as the EOS 1Ds/1DsMk3, becomes almost the same weight and even heavier!

• EOS 1: 1450g
• EOS 1Ds: 1585g
• EOS 1DsMk3: 1385g

More modern materials enable the built of lighter bodies. OTOH, more bells-and-whistles add somewhat to the weight. I assume the greatest contributor is the introduction of BIG LCD backs.

Check more discussion of this question.

Do you still bracket your photos?

Question

Do you find that bracketing your photos is still in general a good practice, or has photo editing software greatly reduced the need for this?

How To Bracket
(Why You Should) Bracket Your Important Photos

Answer

I'll put it this way: I've often regretted not bracketing, but rarely regretted bracketing.

Meters still make errors, and data which exceeds the dynamic range of the sensor is gone forever, regardless of post-processing software. I recommend bracketing any images which have complex lighting or any particularly important images, certainly until you understand very well how your meter behaves in the situation.

The alternative is chimping and checking the histogram, which provides immediate feedback but slows the shoot and is prone to error (as the histogram shows data processed as if for JPEG even if you're shooting raw).

Check more discussion of this question.

Is ISO 200 still considered to be a bad choice, on digital cameras?

Question

In times of film photography there was a rule to either use ISO 100 film (or even great Velvia 50) which usually had considerably less grain noise than ISO 400 film. So 100 for outside or well lit subjects and 400 for indoor everyday photography. It was also considered that ISO 200 film was a bad choice because it provided no obvious advantage over 400. It had more noise than 100 and was slower than 400.

What's up with ISO 200 these days on a digital camera? Can same rules with 100 and 400 still be applied to DSLRs or have times changed considerably and nowadays even 200 gets used lots?

Disadvantagaes/advantages in terms of colours, contrast, noise and any other factors. What ISO settings do you usually use?

And I'm talking here about cropped sensor DSLRs (Canon and Nikon brethren).

Answer

I think it's still generally true that one tends to either use lowest-possible ISO in bright lighting, or else higher-than-200 ISO settings in darker situations. But I wouldn't say I'd avoid ISO 200; it just often doesn't seem to be convenient. If I'm in the sun, there's usually no need for it, and if I'm indoors, I'd often rather get a little more depth of field or a faster shutter speed than worry about keeping ISO down. But if ISO 200 fit the exposure and aperture+time I want, I'd not think twice about using it.

One reason is that changing ISO is trivial now; I can choose ISO 200 for a particular shot with the press of a button and flick of a dial (or going into a menu), rather than committing to it until I change film. I can even let the camera automatically use it whenever it fits best.

Another other consideration is that modern digital SLR cameras, especially of recent vintage, have really very good high-ISO capabilities. The noise might not be attractive as film grain sometimes can be, but there's much, much less of it. So rather than going to ISO 400, one might not think twice about ISO 800, 1600, or beyond. I think you're right, though, that ISO 200 is still left in an awkward spot — if ISO 1600 looks great, why not use that instead?

On some cameras, though, there is a reason where ISO 200 is actually technically preferred over ISO 100. This is because on these cameras the base iso of the sensor is 200, and going below that is actually worse, since it reduces dynamic range.

Or, one might want to use a highlight-preserving mode, if you camera offers it. Because digital sensors clip highlights in an ugly way rather than the graceful analog response of film, having blown-out bright areas is particularly bad. Some cameras offer a mode where they actually underexpose by one stop and the adjust upwards — you get more protection for highlights at the cost of increased shadow noise. And since each shot is really exposed one ISO step down, the bottom of the scale — ISO 100, on my camera — isn't an option. So, when I turn that on, ISO 200 becomes the lowest setting.

So, overall: I don't think there's a special problem with ISO 200, but I do think it tends to fall kind of in a less-used middle point. If you're using a camera which, for technical reasons, makes ISO 200 a good choice, don't be afraid of it. If you're using a small-sensor point & shoot camera where ISO 200 is worse than 400, there may be times when it makes a good compromise setting, but on cameras which exhibit less noise at higher levels, you'll probably just use those instead.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it true that film SLRs are obsolete unless you develop your own photos?

Question

I have been told that most photo labs now use scanners and print your photos from these scanned images. I live in an area with only a few photo labs such as Wal-mart, Target, and the local Groceries, so it is unlikely that they are using anything but the least expensive printing method available. I do not have the resources to develop my own shots, but recently found an older 35mm SLR and have considered started to take some shots with it, however I worry if what I have been told is true.

So;

Is it true that because of current printing methods for 35mm, shooting in this format will be necessarily of lower quality than my DSLR?

Answer

You asked two slightly different questions.

Is it true that analog SLR’s are obsolete unless you develop your own photos?

No, that is not true. Film may have been supplanted by digital, but it is in no way obsolete.

Is it true that because of current printing methods for 35mm, shooting in this format will be necessarily of lower quality than my DSLR?

It's true, for places like Walmart and their ilk that use cheapo film scanners, however, I wouldn't necessarily say that Walmart, Target and your local grocer are photo-labs. They can develop prints, but like you said, they're going to use the most cost effective method (read: cheap) method they can get away with.

If you are serious about getting good quality prints from your film images, there are still a number of pro labs that develop film and most of them offer mail-in services. Many can be found on the web, and offer a range of service from your standard dip-and-dunk, to more specialized processing.

Also, check with local camera retailers (instead of the big chain ones), as they will often have an attached photo-lab.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why are blown highlights particularly bad in digital photography?

Question

I've heard that digital sensors are less "forgiving" of blown highlights than film. Why is this?

Can anything be done about it? Is this a significant advantage for film in some situations, or does it just mean that one's shooting style might need to be a little different? (Or, does it even mean that?)

Answer

Digitally blown highlight is worse than film because transition between blown and light areas is quite harsh. You don't actually need high magnification to see the digital blowing promptly plain white, while the film gives more gradual fading of details.

For example, here's wallpaper from my hallway shot with same exposure settings and same lens with digital and negative film. Film is shot at shorter distance to match field of view. Lighting is provided by off-camera flash in manual mode set on a lightstand just off the right side of frame. Lens hood is used to avoid stray light from flash.

Pentax K100d Super, ISO 200, JPEG, Sigma 28mm f/1.8 at f/5.6, 1/125s

Pentax K100d Super, ISO 200, RAW, Sigma 28mm f/1.8 at f/5.6, 1/125s, processed at -1/2 EV

Pentax MZ-6, Fujifilm Superia 200 (negative), Sigma 28mm f/1.8 at f/5.6, 1/125s

_{To be added: Pentax MZ-6, Fujifilm Velvia 100 (slide), Sigma 28mm f/1.8 at f/5.6, 1/125s; I just need to fill another 35 frames...}

The white blotch on digital image catches attention and annoys, while the film image is much more like what could be seen with similar side-lighting. Shooting in RAW can help a little, but the white will still clip quite harshly.

100% crops:

• digital JPEG

• digital RAW

• negative film

Check more discussion of this question.

How does flexible ISO make shooting digital different from film?

Question

I was thinking at the differences between SLR and DLSR (in Manual mode). In both cases you can change aperture and shutter speed as it suits you. But with SLR you are stuck with the ISO of the film which you happen to have in the camera at the moment, while with DSLR you can vary ISO as you wish, too.

Now maybe the question is naive, but how is this handled in practice?

I imagine that it requires more planning: you want to shoot today under this particular light and you choose a specific film roll rather than another. What if you find a nice shot but there is a shadow which changes the light: you can recover the exposure by changing the other parameters but this is not side-effects free obviously.

What are the effects of this "freedom" afforded by DSLRs? Is it making me (a complete beginner) lazy because I am not forced to think about it? Is it freeing me of a burden by removing an unnecessary constraint?

Answer

With film, you generally don't think of sensitivity as a free variable. Often your favorite emulsion is only available in one or two ISOs. So you have to reach proper exposure by adjusting aperture, shutter speed and/or lighting. Also, negative film is generally considered forgiving on slight underexposure.

In digital, you have more freedom to choose other variables, but you should still remember the simple truth that having more light on sensor will give you less noise in photo, so that is what you should consider first before pumping up ISO. But this does not mean that you should never use higher ISO values - noise would still be a far easier problem than excess blur or underexposure.

Actually, with film, you can change ISO by swapping film - take a note which frame you had the film on, rewind and when re-using take as many frames (plus one to be sure) with lens cap on. Some advanced bodies (such as Pentax MZ-S) also offer winding film to chosen frame. In medium format, many cameras employ interchangeable film backs. Large format film is handled as sheets, not roll film, so you can always change it between frames.

Check more discussion of this question.