My raw story. for anyone who likes film cameras

[(DE NH)]

***First, let me preface this by saying that I know this topic is the cause of much heated debate, however, I thought others might like my perspective. I am not a pro. I don't intend to offend anyone. And you are more than welcome to your opinion.***

I started getting into photography as a young teenager. My brother gave me an old digital camera which took terribly blurry photos at the age of twelve or thirteen and despite its poor performance I was hooked. As I got older I purchased a couple better digital cameras but the more I upgraded the less I really enjoyed the act of taking a photo. Even though the cameras got progressively better, I was constantly having to fiddle with the settings to get the photos I wanted. It seemed like the more settings were added, the less time I could take to just shoot.

Fast forward to 2007. I am signed up for a photography class in college and managed to get my hands on a beautiful Canon A-1. I loved and still love that camera. I found that I enjoyed my photography once again. The reason was that shooting film was all about the mechanics of the camera itself. I was able to choose an appropriate ISO before shooting... concentrate on composition, focus, aperture and shutter speed in the field... and then worry about development, color balance and contrast back in the lab. All those annoying settings on my digital cameras were gone and replaced with a physical darkroom where I could take my time to develop the way I wanted.

Fast forward again to current day. My wife is pregnant with our first child and I would really like to take some photos again. As much as I love my film camera, I have a hard time really motivating myself to take pictures. First of all is the sheer cost (I got diapers to buy!). Second is that I have to resort to letting someone else develop my film (not only is this more hassle and money, but I lose all control over developing). I decide to go with digital again and purchase a D3300 with a 50mm f/1.8 lens.

As I am researching to learn how best to use this camera I start reading up on raw format. I read all the benefits and drawbacks. At first I am on the fence about the whole "raw" thing. Seems like a fad more than anything. But then I started thinking of raw format as a digital negative. The camera settings like aperture, shutter speed, and ISO all still apply. But all those annoying settings like white balance, sharpening, noise reduction, etc. are left for later.

All the sudden I find myself enjoying digital photography again! I have all the benefits of a modern DSLR, but out in the field I can simply enjoy the wonderful mechanics of my camera!

All this is to say that if you are one of those people who avoid raw format because it seems like a fad or because you think you should just "get it right in the field", give it a solid try! Think of it like having your own digital darkroom to play with your negatives and find the right balance! Yes you can play with all those settings with a jpg in photoshop, but then why take the time to set them in the field in the first place? Why not enjoy your camera in the field and leave settings and adjustments for your new darkroom?

I did, and I'm much happier for it.

 

[KCPhotog]

Coming from a professional, I always have all my cameras set on RAW + sJpeg. Raw is exactly as you described it, an undeveloped negative. It contains all the information out of the camera about all the variables that you can adjust in that file whereas a Jpeg is just a static file. This is why your RAW files are so much larger. It allows you almost all the control over your photos that you would typically have in the darkroom. With programs such as Lightroom or Photoshop you can also setup(or download) processes that will do the same things to each photo for batch processing or even just one. For instance I have one setup for all my white background product photography shots, it ups sharpening, brings in a touch of fill light, takes exposure down a hair and sets a constant white balance. Then I have some for color tones like vintage, black & white, high key....etc. Doing it this way in RAW is far less detrimental to the image than trying to accomplish the same result from a jpeg because you are going off all the variables that the camera recorded versus adjusting what has already been made static in the jpeg. The only reason I shoot in RAW + sJpeg is that having that small jpg allows for fast proofing if I need to look at the photos on a computer without a program that can access the RAW files.

 

[BobLH]

As a very amateur photographer I found the same thing. Using Nikon NEF files gives me a lot more room to develop the file, like using a digital darkroom.

Bob

 

[LogisticEarth]

Sounds like a great story, and yes, RAW is absolutely the way to go. It's been industry standard for over a decade now, so it's absolutely not a fad in any sense of the word. A lot of beginners are intimidated by it because they're used to just opening up photos in Windows Photo Viewer or MS Paint or whatever.

It's exactly like what you describe. Worry about ISO, shutter, aperture, focus, and composition, and worry about the rest of it later. If shooting RAW, the in-camera white balance settings, color settings, B&W/Sepia filters, all mean jack squat, which is the way it should be.

It still doesn't really replace film, though. Film itself can be an artistic choice to provide a certain feel, and in larger format cameras, is really the only way to go unless you are Richie Rich.

 

[Mr Bob]

I think there is a time and place for both RAW and JPEG. Both are the equivalent of a digital negative. Both allow for manipulation. Raw has more exposure latitude than JPEG, and both can give you more headroom over film negative (this is variable - also, you have room with film during developing, but there are trade offs). And, they are both vastly superior in latitude compared to positives (actually, slides give you no latitude).

If you were to take an old 6 megapixel camera, the Fuji S2 for example, take a simple studio portrait, leave the shot at 100% crop, perform a small dimension crop, and edit (contrast, white balance, sharpness, etc...), you could not tell the difference between a RAW 13x19 print, and a JPEG 13x19 print. In that situation though, if you wanted to crop all the way down to the subjects nose, and print that at 13x19, then the edge goes to RAW. But that's not a probable use of that situation.

If you are shooting sports, or a month long photojournalism assignment, or any activity that requires hundreds or thousands of shots, you will likely shoot JPEG. RAW also brings little to the party over JPEG in very controlled studio work. If you are doing animal or bird shots, or landscape photography... situations where your trigger count is low, and lighting is mostly out of your control, then RAW can be a great benefit. (But in studio work or landscape, medium and large format are your friends.)

Take a look at old positive work (slides). They have no latitude for exposure error, but there is a mountain range worth of amazing photography that has been produced with that film type over the decades. I have not shot them in years, but goodness, I love Astia and Velvia. If you treat JPEG like slide film, your results, in most cases, will be indistinguishable from RAW. That is, get the technical part of photography embedded in your head so that it is second nature. Become able to change settings on your camera based on lighting conditions without much thought on your part. Let your mind worry about the aesthetic and emotive part of your photography.

I am in no way knocking RAW. I shoot a lot of RAW, especially when I'm hunting critters in the forests. I am just saying that RAW is a tool for the photographer that has it's place, but don't let it become a crutch.

 

[(DE NH)]

It still doesn't really replace film, though. Film itself can be an artistic choice to provide a certain feel, and in larger format cameras, is really the only way to go unless you are Richie Rich.

I do agree that nothing can truly replace film negatives. The tones and lines that you can get from a negative picture will always be unique. But I do enjoy that shooting raw can give a similar experience in the field as shooting film.

If you were to take an old 6 megapixel camera, the Fuji S2 for example, take a simple studio portrait, leave the shot at 100% crop, perform a small dimension crop, and edit (contrast, white balance, sharpness, etc...), you could not tell the difference between a RAW 13x19 print, and a JPEG 13x19 print. In that situation though, if you wanted to crop all the way down to the subjects nose, and print that at 13x19, then the edge goes to RAW. But that's not a probable use of that situation.

Valid point for sure. As far as raw versus JPEG goes, i'm sure that nine times out of ten I would not be able to tell the difference between a photo adjusted from raw and a photo adjusted from JPEG. I tend to lean more towards raw because I enjoy processing with raw and find it a bit more forgiving. Also being a relatively inexperienced photographer, I like that I could go back to my raw files years down the line and re-expose them as if they were taken the day before (as opposed to saving multiple Jpeg files to avoid image degradation).

 

[LogisticEarth]

Storage is so cheap and abundant now, I don't really see the smaller size of JPEG as a big advantage nowadays. A 32 or 64 GB card is relatively cheap, and can hold hundreds if not thousands of photos. A terrabyte hardrive can be had for under $100. Processing and transfer time can sometimes be a pain on slower machines, but that's pretty minor.

I agree with the point about how in many fields, JPEGs will get the job done, but why not just stick with the highest amount of information you can get if storage is so easy?

 

[(DE NH)]

I was surprised by how cheap it is actually. I got a 32gb sandisk card for $26. It's class 10 so it's plenty fast. And shooting raw+jpegfine (24mp nikon) I can fit over 650 shots!

 

[ZJ68]

I used to shoot RAW a lot. With my old Canon G2, it produced better results. Those old small sensor compact cameras could produce some really impressive images with RAW files. When I moved on to a Digital Rebel, I started out shooting RAW, but my workflow more often than not consisted of just converting the file straight to JPEG. RAW was adding nothing but extra work for me. Now I'm using an Olympus PEN and I shoot everything as JPEG. I'm thrilled with the results.

 

[dpm802]

Within the last few days, I got an eMail from my brother asking if I still had our father's Leica iiiF camera. This was purchased by him in 1953 when my mother was pregnant with yours truly, their first child. The camera was present and active throughout our childhood, and he did his own developing in the garage, too.

Well, yes, I still have the camera, and a bunch of the old original Leica accessories and even the official owner's manual, too. The reason he was asking is that his 19yo daughter is taking a film photography class at college, and it would be nice if she could use this family heirloom to work with.

So I bundled it up and mailed it off. He got it yesterday and his daughter is really excited. The camera has been in storage since about 1980 and the lubricants inside got gummed up, so the shutter sticks. The camera need to be completely disassembled and cleaned and re-lubed. Same with the two lenses. But he's already been in contact with a good repairman who has worked on many of this model and agreed to take on the job ... so our father's old Leica will be coming back to life again very soon!

 

[dpm802]

Regarding the OP's desire to do darkroom work again ... ask around at local camera shops and clubs, there may be a university that has a darkroom available for public use. If you take a class from them, you could probably continue to use the darkroom as an alumni of that school. Or you might find a professional photographer that rents out his darkroom for the right price. I'm sure you'll find something, without having to buy all the equipment yourself and set it all up at home.

 

[(DE NH)]

Within the last few days, I got an eMail from my brother asking if I still had our father's Leica iiiF camera. This was purchased by him in 1953 when my mother was pregnant with yours truly, their first child. The camera was present and active throughout our childhood, and he did his own developing in the garage, too.

Well, yes, I still have the camera, and a bunch of the old original Leica accessories and even the official owner's manual, too. The reason he was asking is that his 19yo daughter is taking a film photography class at college, and it would be nice if she could use this family heirloom to work with.

So I bundled it up and mailed it off. He got it yesterday and his daughter is really excited. The camera has been in storage since about 1980 and the lubricants inside got gummed up, so the shutter sticks. The camera need to be completely disassembled and cleaned and re-lubed. Same with the two lenses. But he's already been in contact with a good repairman who has worked on many of this model and agreed to take on the job ... so our father's old Leica will be coming back to life again very soon!

Very cool that you are able to keep it in the family! Lubrication of those old cameras is probably the biggest reason they fail so that is definitely a good place to start. I also had my repairman re-time the shutter intervals, so that may be something you want to suggest if your brother hasn't already had it done. I hope it works out for her!

 

[(DE NH)]

Regarding the OP's desire to do darkroom work again ... ask around at local camera shops and clubs, there may be a university that has a darkroom available for public use. If you take a class from them, you could probably continue to use the darkroom as an alumni of that school. Or you might find a professional photographer that rents out his darkroom for the right price. I'm sure you'll find something, without having to buy all the equipment yourself and set it all up at home.

I had checked for small photo labs in my area with no good result, but I have never thought to ask at local colleges. Guess I assumed it was just for students, but that is a great idea!

 

[Bob L.]

I shoot everything in RAW. When I need JPEGs it is easy to do a batch conversion with Photoshop.

 

[dpm802]

I had checked for small photo labs in my area with no good result, but I have never thought to ask at local colleges. Guess I assumed it was just for students, but that is a great idea!

Even if it is just for students, you can enroll in a class there and have full access to student facilities.

It need not be a photography class, either. You could take "The History and Appreciation of Pre-Columbian Basket Weaving" and that will get you the credentials you need to gain access to the photo-lab if they have one.

I did a google search for "Darkroom Rentals (zip-code)" and found there is one available about a 45 minute drive from my house. Major cities are filled with them, like NYC and LosAngeles.

You could even together just a very basic darkroom kit to develop just film at home. Get a lightbox to let you examine the negatives, and then take your top-picks to a lab to have them enlarged.

Put an ad in Craigslist in the Want to Buy sections ... somewhere out there is a widow who is sitting on boxes filled with her husband's old darkroom equipment. Or maybe the photog himself is still alive but no longer active, and would rather see his gear put to use by the next generation of film fanatics rather than just gathering dust and tossed in a landfill by his great-grandchildren when he passes on.

 

[Edcculus]

It's very easy to set up a home darkroom, especially if you are willing to do B&W only. The only place you need to be 100% blackout is where you change your film. An extra bathroom or utility room can house your enlarger. It's nice to have running water in the room, but you can wash in another room if that's not possible. Once the print is through the fix, it's not light sensitive anymore.

You could probably pick up a full darkroom setup (enlarger, easels, trays, beakers, developer tanks, timer etc) from eBay or Craigslist for less than $500.