Sun & Elliot at Sutro Baths, San Francisco, California

Theresa & Rob at Muir Woods, Marin County, California

Debby & Justin in the Mission District, San Francisco, California

Jenny & Kevin’s Anniversary Shoot in Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, California

Connie & Tony’s Engagement Session in downtown Los Angeles, California

Magali & Sam’s Engagement Session in San Francisco, California

Silvia & James’ Engagement Session at the Palace of the Legion of Honor, San Francisco, California

Shelly & Mark’s Surprise Proposal at China Beach, San Francisco, California, and their Engagement Session at the Palace of Fine Arts, San Francisco

Evelia & Joseph’s Engagement Session at the Atlanta History Center, Atlanta, Georgia

Raquel & Andy’s Engagement Session at Lullwater Park, Atlanta, Georgia

Mega & Jason’s Engagement Session at Baker Beach, San Francisco, California

Catherine & Joe’s Engagement Session at Baker Beach, San Francisco, California

Janey & Lee’s Engagement Session on Treasure Island, California

Kristen & Ryan’s Engagement Session in Sunol, California

Cat & Dan’s Engagement Session in Buffalo, New York

Nina & Fernando’s Engagement Session in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California

Cami & Eric’s Engagement Session at Pike Place, Seattle, Washington

Anny & John’s Engagement Session at Baker Beach, San Francisco, California

Related posts:

1. Best of 2010: Engagement & Couples
2. Catherine & Joe | Baker Beach | San Francisco Engagement Photography
3. Raquel & Andy | Lullwater Park | Atlanta Engagement Photography

It was just over a year ago that we were all gathered in Southern California for Jenny and Kevin’s beautiful wedding. I was their official photographer, and we were also there with our brand new videography company Seaglass Cinema, which Kevin and I had co-founded.

We had already been friends before their wedding, but in the months since, we have all become closer than ever. Even though we live on different ends of California, I’ve seen Kevin just about every other week this year, and I’ve come to regard Jenny & Kevin’s place as a second home. In fact, as I am sitting on Jenny and Kevin’s couch right now on Thanksgiving Day, it’s no understatement to say we’ve become family in many ways– just one of the many things that I’m incredibly thankful for this Thanksgiving.

The anniversary shoot was initially Jenny’s idea as a followup to their engagement session and their wedding photographs, and I immediately jumped on it. I love absolutely everything about the anniversary shoot idea. It’s a celebration of love and life and a reminder that yes, weddings are fantastic (and I love them too), but they are only the beginning. The years that come afterward are just as important and worthy of celebration (if not more!).

So on a lovely fall weekend, we dressed up Jenny and Kevin and headed to Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, to kick off our new anniversary shoot tradition.

I should mention that being close friends with your photographer has its perks. Our other friend Jon and I spent the week leading up to the shoot playing stylists and shopping for a variety of outfits for Jenny and Kevin. Jon actually bought Kev a whole new wardrobe, not just for the shoot. Jon helped out for the actual shoot too, driving us around and playing assistant. I’d like to think our styling efforts paid off!

We pulled off some quiet moments in the Far Bar alley tucked between two buildings.

Love the soft sun flare and long shadows stretching across the frame. And Jenny’s pristine white TOMS complete her second outfit.

More fun with shadows.

Jon drove us to his favorite ivy wall and to a bridge underpass.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

Technical note: half these images were shot on digitally and processed with VSCO Film (and other tweaks). The other half were shot on a 35mm film on Fuji 400H and processed by Richard Photo Lab. Can you tell the difference? Probably not! (Success!)

Related posts:

1. Jenny & Kevin | LACMA | Los Angeles Engagement Photographer
2. Jenny & Kevin | Aliso Viejo | Orange County Wedding Photography
3. Jenny & Kevin’s Wedding Albums | Kiss Wedding Albums

I was drawn to the look. I’ve described it as buttery and soft, the colors are just beautiful, and there’s just something qualitatively different about the look of film. But I wasn’t sure what the differences actually were. So in this post, part 3 of my Shooting Film series, I compare not only the aesthetics but also many other key differences between film vs. digital.

For the examples in this post, we’re revisiting Debby & Justin’s lifestyle session in the Mission District of SF.

1. Aesthetics. The Look of Film vs. Digital

First of all, this is not a scientific experiment. Many of my declarations of “winners” between film and digital are subjective, and many of the variables in my comparisons could be manipulated. For instance, color or grain could be changed in Photoshop to an extent. However, I still think all of these are useful baseline comparisons for understanding the differences between film and digital photography.

All of the film examples were shot on a Contax 645 with Zeiss 80mm/2.0 lens on 120mm Fujicolor 400H film and processed by Richard Photo Lab.

All of the digital examples were shot on a Canon 5D MkII with various lenses and processed by me in Photoshop.

Color:

The number one thing I hear about the look of film is that skin tones look great. Color on film is often dependent on specific film types. It is also dependent on the lab that processes it. But based on what I’ve seen, the hype is true. I prefer the color that comes straight from my film. Here are four examples of the color that came out of my cameras. The top two were film, and the bottom two were digital. See the technical specs above.

Film:

Digital:

Overall, my digital color on the bottom has a lot more red in it, while the top two film photos came out more yellow. Looking at the shady areas alongside the garages on the very left side of the photos, you can also tell that the film tones are colder (more blue) while the digital tones are again redder. Could I adjust my processing on the digital photos to match the film photos in color more? Yes. But again, with what I’m given, film wins.

Better color: film

Highlights:

Film tends to retain highlights without blowing them out or overexposing them. For instance, if you’re shooting with a very bright area within your frame such as a bright sky, you run the risk of overexposing the sky in order to get the correct exposure on your relatively dark subjects (especially if you are shooting your subjects backlit). If your highlights are overexposed, then they look completely white with no color information at all in that area. Many people don’t mind this look (myself included) but it’s technically a photography no-no.

Why is film better at the highlights? With film, exposure is all about a physical process of the film reacting to light coming into the camera. It’s actually a more common problem for film to be underexposed than to be overexposed. Exposure on film is more logarithmic than linear; that is, when you give it more and more light, it slows down in its reactiveness to the exposure instead of continuing up and reaching complete overexposure right away. Of course, the opposite is true for digital, because exposure is much more linear on a digital sensor. So if there is a very bright sky in your photo, it is probably going to be overexposed, and it will look pure white.

Here are two examples below.

Film:

Digital:

Now, pay attention to the right side of the pictures above, the highlights. Both of them probably look white to our eyes, but if I adjust the levels to see what information is actually in that space, we see this:

Film on left, Digital on right:

In the film version on the left, there is actually still a lot of information in that highlight, whereas in the digital version on the right, most of the highlight is completely blown out; no matter how much I bring down the levels, there is no information in the highlight; it’s completely white.

Again, film wins in this situation!

Better highlights: Film

Sharpness & Grain

In general, film has more grain than digital. And film grain has a specific look. Granted, I was shooting ISO 400 film vs. ISO 100 digital, but even digital images at ISO 400 are going to have much less grain than film. Again, grain is going to vary not only with the film but also with the camera, the lens, scan, and the post processing. But here are my comparisons from the basic edits I had:

Film:

Digital:

Film on left, digital on right:

In this first instance, the film actually appears “sharper” but also grainier. I would have probably sharpened the eyes more in post on the digital file. But you can also see the difference in grain in all the shadow areas. In this case, the digital file looks a lot smoother.

One more example.

Film:

Digital:

Film on left, digital on right:

Based on this example, I think film tends to soften hard light. Look at the shadows cast by her eyelashes– soft and feathery vs. individual lines. Again, the film is grainy; you can see the texture of the grain as if it’s a layer of ground glass over the image, but it’s not unpleasant, depending on your taste. However, the digital file is much more crisp and clean. It’s definitely a matter of preference and also depends to a certain extent on the scan quality. I’m torn on this one. I prefer a little less grain, but I love the soft shading over crisp hard lines. So… it’s a tie?

Better Sharpness & Grain Look: Undecided

Overall Aesthetics- Film Wins.

Basically, film wins on color, highlights, and I am undecided about the grain/softness. But overall, based solely on the aesthetics of film vs. digital, I have a strong preference toward the look of film. Not everyone feels this way, but I think film wins. I will give the caveat that film’s strong point is the brightly lit, often backlit outdoor look that Jose Villa has made his signature style. If you were to look only at film shooters’ indoor, dark ballroom high ISO photos, I doubt you’ll be convinced that film looks better than digital.

2. The Process/Experience

Shooting

Buying film, storing film, and loading film are all definitely more difficult than dealing with their digital memory card counterparts. Just the act of loading film is intimidating enough to keep plenty of people from attempting to shoot film (myself included for a long time!). And even after you load it, there’s a much steeper learning curve of figuring out how to shoot properly so that your photos turn out reliably. There’s no instant LCD feedback that assures you’re doing things correctly. Most film shooters also use external light meters (handheld devices that take light readings) instead of trusting their cameras. Again, this will vary depending on your gear, but a lot of film cameras are manual– manual focus, manual settings, etc. Other film cameras have less controls but more variation/unpredictability. So yes, digital is definitely easier to shoot.

One more thing– when you load a roll of film, you are tied to that particular film speed for the rest of your roll. So you have basically no way of moving between very dark spaces and bright spaces unless you have multiple cameras on hand. Digital cameras are equipped to adjust to changing light conditions all the time.

Better Shooting Experience: Digital.

Post-Processing

The major difference here is that when you send film off to be developed by a good lab like Richard Photo Lab in Los Angeles, it comes back FULLY READY TO GO! You can choose to have prints made, or you can (like me) have the negatives scanned. All of the images you have seen in the examples above were developed and scanned by RPL and came back just like you see them here. I may have done a bit of brightening here and there, but that’s it. And they look amazing! Is this a quality inherent to film? No. Because it does take a good lab to make it look this good. In the next part of this series I’ll be comparing two different labs, and you’ll see what I mean. But when you do send it to a good lab, it comes back beautiful and blog/client-ready!

As for digital, you can definitely send your digital files off to be post-processed by an external company too. But a lot of photographers, myself included, do their own post processing in Lightroom and Photoshop. It’s a basic trade of time vs. money.

And I will point out that the reason why (I think) film is extra viable now as an option is because in truth, what you’re getting from a lab like RPL is the best of film AND digital– you can actually have an analog thing perfected through digital means, and then you get the convenience of having the digital file as your final image. It’s no longer either or. It’s actually the best of both worlds.

So it seems like film processing is great, but there are two major drawbacks. One is time. Especially if you are mailing it off, it will take 1-2 weeks before you see anything, whereas a digital preview is instant, and retouching can happen as fast as you can make it happen. The other major drawback of film, of course, is cost. Which will be our next topic.

Better Post-Processing Experience: Digital. I do love being able to just send film off and have it come back all wonderful, but factoring in the time and the money, I think Digital still wins. For the cost of film processing, you can probably pay to have more digital files processed, maybe even to mimic a filmic look, and probably get it faster too (but I haven’t actually tried, so I don’t know).

Overall Process/Experience- Digital. Pretty much everything about shooting digital is easier and faster. Of course, I haven’t mentioned the “magical” experience of shooting film, which probably wins people over more than the convenience factor, but I personally think digital is still so much more usable overall.

3. Cost

Film is definitely more expensive than digital. By far. Here are some lowball estimates for the cost when you shoot film:

At minimum, to buy a single roll of Fuji 400H 120mm film and process and scan it at medium resolution at Richard Photo Lab, it would cost
$5.09 (film) + $18.50 (process+scan) + $9.90 (shipping there & back) = $33.49! For a total of 16 photos!

If you were to save on costs by buying in bulk, 5 rolls is $22.22, with 16 frames on each roll.
That’s $22.22 total, $4.44/roll, $.28/photo.
Process + Scan: Processing and doing a medium scan of five rolls at Richard Photo Lab is $92.50 + ~10.50 shipping (I’m guessing).
That’s $103 total, $20.60/roll, $1.29/photo.

So even in bulk, you are paying $1.57 for every frame you take, or $125.22 total for five rolls (80 photos).

As for the digital comparison, can you even imagine a digital memory card that only holds 16 frames? Probably not. A 2GB memory card holds a bit more than 80 raw files from a Canon 5D MkII, so for comparison’s sake, a 2GB CF card (~5 rolls of film) on Amazon is $12.95. Even if you were to add digital post-processing costs, there’s no way it would come close to the $112 more that the film costs. And besides, CF cards are reusable, so it’s not like you would buy a new CF card every time you take 80 more photos.

$125.22 vs. $12.95. Film costs almost 10 times more.

Yes, I’m leaving out camera and equipment costs and photo storage costs, and you could save by shooting 35mm instead of 120mm (which is what I will be doing!), but I’m still pretty sure film is more expensive in the end, by far. Even going to a local lab doesn’t save that much in the end (and again, I’ll talk more about lab comparisons in the next post of the series). The one thing that Jonathan Canlas points out is that when your cost of materials is actually higher, it will force you to charge clients more, and along with that comes a whole point of differentiation that you can work to your advantage. It’s a valid point. But this one still goes to digital.

Cost: Digital is better by far.

4. Ultimate Considerations- Film vs. Digital

What kinds of portrait photographers would be ideal film shooters?

• People who value the art of photography above the commercialization or the “cool” of it.
• People who love to shoot with natural light.
• People who want the look of film as their signature style.
• People who are ready and willing to charge a premium to cover the cost of film.
• People who can be very selective and disciplined about their shots.
• People who love all things vintage/analog to begin with.

What kinds of portrait photographers would probably hate shooting film?

• People who love off camera flash and likes a high tech/glossy/ultra modern photography style.
• People who like to take a lot of photos on rapidfire and select the frames to keep later.
• People who prefer flexibility and like to be all over the place/fast paced in their work.
• People who charge very little or can’t afford to spend a lot of money on materials & processing.
• People who want instant feedback on results.
• People who prefer digital everything overall.

Ultimately, I would consider myself the pragmatic film shooter. On many of these points, I fall under the “ideal film shooter” category. Most of all, I love the look of film. However, I would not want to shoot film all of the time, the biggest reason being cost, followed closely by the overall inconvenience. While film is beautiful for a certain look, it is also very limited and limiting. Plus, I am not actually one of the people who loves film for film’s sake or prefers all things analog. To the contrary, I prefer the flexibilty and the instant nature of digital, and I prefer the rest of my life to be digitized as much as possible (paperless organization. google docs, please).

So what is my solution? Ideally, I want to be able to mimic the look of film even in digital, so I can have digital work that blends seamlessly with film work. Before you say it cannot be done, I assure you, people are already doing it– my favorite photographer Caroline Tran, for one, shoots mostly digital, interspersed with film, and yes, it all looks cohesive. I do not think I personally would want to shoot an entire wedding in film, because I don’t want to have to buy or be running around with that many rolls of film and having to reload it constantly, and I don’t want to have the uncertainty of not knowing whether any of my photos would turn out or if I’d miss entire chunks of the day due to technical error. But would I want to shoot parts of a wedding in film? Sure! Would I want to shoot special projects or certain sessions in film? Absolutely. So in my ideal arrangement, I would get to keep the best of both worlds. I think it’s possible. I just have to figure out how to work my digital post processing to my advantage.

So that concludes my extremely long analysis of film vs. digital photography. To reward you for making it to the bottom of the page, here are a couple more examples from Debby & Justin’s lifestyle shoot in the Mission District of San Francisco. Film on top, digital on bottom.

Stay tuned for Part 4 of the Shooting Film series– when Richard Photo Lab and my local Oscars Photo Lab face off, and I explain which is the best buy! Then, in Part 5, one more experiment that integrates digital and film. You can look back to the previous parts linked in the “Related Posts” below.

Feel free to leave your comments, & critiques below!

Related posts:

1. Matching Digital to Film | Richard Photo Lab | Shooting Film, Part 5 of 5
2. VSCO Film Review | Digital Mimicking Film | Shooting Film
3. Oscars Photo Lab vs. Richard Photo Lab | Shooting Film, Part 4 of 5

First, some leftover flowers from our styled shoot with Gingerleaf Floral.

All of these images are from one roll of Kodak’s brand new Portra 160 film, which I received free at Jonathan Canlas‘ platform at WPPI. I wish I had run around the room snatching up the extra rolls off empty chairs. Kodak’s Portra 160 gives incredible saturation in all the right ways, bringing out these amazing reds and greens. I am seriously floored by how these cherry blossoms turned out. The most amazing thing is that the photos just come back to you like this– barely any retouching needed, except a curves bump here or there.

Favorite! Thank you to my cousin Theresa & her boyfriend Rob for waking up early just so I could shoot off this roll before returning the camera I’d rented. Aren’t they extra cute on film?

Love, love, love. Especially the tinge of pink along the left side and the tinge of blue on the metal posts.

I even love this next one, though the focus is on the background. We’ll say I did it on purpose.

And a final shot with San Francisco and the Giants’ ballpark in the background.

Why am I so crazy, raving about analog film in this digital age? So many reasons. And that is what I will be telling you in part three of my “Shooting Film” series– film vs. digital. In part four, I’ll show you a comparison between two processing labs– my local Oscars Photo Lab and the LA-based Richard Photo Lab. Part five, we’ll do a little experiment in processing digital to look like film. And maybe we’ll add more parts later, but I think five is good for now. Excited? I am!

If you missed it, here is part one from this “Shooting Film” series– And Now We Wait.

Related posts:

1. And Now We Wait | Contax 645 | Shooting Film, Part 1 of 5
2. Spring Colors of Atlanta | Kodak Portra 400 | Shooting Film
3. Matching Digital to Film | Richard Photo Lab | Shooting Film, Part 5 of 5

Debby & Justin share an unabashed passion for life and a beautiful sense of adventure. They were married this past fall, but we got together for a great lifestyle shoot in San Francisco’s Mission District. Debby’s hair and makeup were beautifully done by Mina Tran of Bellamina Aesthetics.

We started off with the amazing graffiti murals of Clarion Alley in the Mission.

Gorrgeous!

Once Justin had the idea that he wanted to get on a motorcycle, there was no stopping him. And I’m quite glad he did.

We rounded off the session on the rooftop of Medjool, a popular restaurant/lounge in the Mission.

Thanks, Debby and Justin, for being such an awesome couple to work with and for sharing your inspirational story! Thanks also to my business partner Kevin Yau from Seaglass Cinema for filming this session for a promo video we have up our sleeves, and again to Mina & Van from A-List for contributing your services to the project. (Yes, we have video to look forward to!)

Related posts:

1. Best of 2010: Engagement & Couples
2. Sarah & Andrea Axtell | Twin Sisters | San Francisco Family Lifestyle Photography
3. Sun & Elliot | Sutro Baths | San Francisco Lifestyle Photography

The air was almost as damp as the ground, but the greenery came to life in neon fashion, and the beautiful, unmatched smell of soggy redwoods filled the air. Breathe. Nature. It’s enough to dwarf us. It’s enough to make even rambunctious children stop and really look. Walk silently while staring upwards. Get excited about dead centipedes. Wonder aloud about life.

My cousin Theresa and her boyfriend Rob are visiting San Francisco on spring break (from teaching in Phoenix). Theresa’s family and our family used to live together in Grand Rapids, Michigan, until we moved away, so we grew up together in a way, though we haven’t seen each other in years. She and Rob had the misfortune of coming on four consecutive days of rain, but at least Muir Woods still held its end of the bargain.

To begin, a bit of Where’s Waldo? And a sense of scale.

You’ll see a bit of Rob’s goofy side through this shoot.

And the sweet side too.

Cousins! This one is for our moms.

And my new desktop background, perhaps soon to be a canvas print?

I’ll let you in on a little secret (not really a secret) too… I’ve been shooting FILM this weekend! So if it does turn out, you’ll be seeing a little bit more of Theresa and Rob in the near future too.

Related posts:

1. Debby & Justin | San Francisco Mission District | Couples Lifestyle Photography
2. Color Me Pretty | Kodak Portra 160 | Shooting Film, Part 2 of 5
3. Sarah & Andrea Axtell | Twin Sisters | San Francisco Family Lifestyle Photography

To kick off this Valentine’s Day listening to Elliot’s mom beam with pure maternal pride that her son’s found someone so well suited for him has been an absolute pleasure. I don’t often have these conversations directly with clients’ or friends’ parents, but there was really something incredible about hearing her describe her own reaction to flipping through these photos on a car ride to the airport.

These two aren’t even engaged (yet), but we wanted to get them some photos together before Sun moved. We headed to the Sutro Baths, ruins of a 19th-century public pool tucked away behind Cliff House where San Francisco meets the Pacific Ocean. On top of everything else, these two are just a gorgeous couple. To Sun & Elliot– I just want to join in the chorus and declare that I have only the highest of highest hopes for you both. Long distance can be incredibly trying, but I know you both have the love and support behind you to get you through it all. Count me amongst the support. And I hope you love these photos as much as I do!

This last one is my absolute favorite. Elliot, I’m going to make a giant canvas of this and hang it in our apartment. Hope you’re ok with that.

Happy Valentine’s Day, everyone!

Related posts:

1. Debby & Justin | San Francisco Mission District | Couples Lifestyle Photography
2. Sarah & Andrea Axtell | Twin Sisters | San Francisco Family Lifestyle Photography
3. Shelly & Mark | Palace of Fine Arts | San Francisco Engagement Photography

Happy Holidays! Happy New Year! May 2011 be amazing beyond your wildest dreams.

Related posts:

1. Happy New Year!
2. Candace & Tony’s Castro Valley Shoot | San Francisco Wedding Photographer
3. Love and a New Year

Kristina & Peter’s Engagement Session at his wonderful family farm in Sebastopol, California

Richa & Eduardo’s Engagement Session at the Ferry Building in San Francisco, California

Margaret & Eric’s Engagement Session at the Berkeley Marina, California

Melissa & Nori’s Engagement Session in Berkeley, California

Gina & David’s Engagement Session in Cincinnati, Ohio

Kristen & Matt’s Engagement Session at Sanford University, California

Jenny & Kevin’s Engagement Session at the LACMA, Los Angeles, California

Laura & Phil’s Lifestyle Session in Oakland, California

Love!

Related posts:

1. Best of 2011: Engagements & Couples
2. Best of 2009: Weddings & Couples
3. Anny & John | Indian Rock & Berkeley Marina | Engagement Photography

Laura is about to move to Beijing, China, to work with an organization called Teach for All, while Phil needs to stay in Oakland another year for school before he can try to join her there. Long distance is never fun, but not even the Pacific Ocean can keep these two apart. We picked some good Oakland locations to get these two some portraits before she embarks.

We started the session at the Morcom Rose Garden, tucked away off Grand Ave. right here in Oakland.

If I haven’t mentioned it lately, I love magic hour sunshine. It only hangs around in the 45 minutes before sunset, but it’s truly magical.

Laura and I went to Duke together, and even before I really knew her, I knew of her and was often there photographing events where she’d perform with Chinese Folk Dance and Sabrosura.

Stunningly Beautiful.

Then we headed over to Lake Merritt for some classic Oakland backdrops.

Sunset over downtown Oakland.

So here’s to wishing them all the best with these life changes coming up. And Laura, I hope to see you when you visit!

Related posts:

1. Little Isla | Oakland Rose Garden Family Portraits
2. Best of 2010: Engagement & Couples
3. Mark Simons, Guitarist | Oakland Headshots Photographer