Notes from learning film after years of shooting digital.

Field note 01

Starting Film After Years of Digital

What began as a small experiment has changed how I look at every frame. There is something so freeing about not knowing exactly what you captured, having to wait for the roll of film to be developed, and to have a finite number of shots you can take. It has forced me to slow down, to take stock of all the manual components of the camera, and really focus on how to capture exactly what I am seeking.

Field note 02

What I Learned From Ruining My First Roll

On my first roll of film, I may have opened up the camera prematurely, developed an empty roll of film, and discovered that most old cameras have a sticky shutter problem. But what a fun experience to try and fail and learn. I went into my first few rolls thinking "if I get anything remotely cool out of this, I will be happy." My expectations could not have been lower, and what a delight to have come back with a handful of wonderful shots, mixed in of course with a bunch of bad ones. But isn't that how we learn anyways?

Field note 03

Metering Finally Made Sense

For years, I understood exposure without really understanding metering. With digital, I could take the photo, check the screen, adjust, and try again. RAW files gave me even more room to fix things later. Film made me understand what the meter is actually telling me. A camera doesn’t know which part of a scene matters. It measures light and gives you an exposure based on where you’re pointing it. So when someone says “meter for the shadows,” they’re telling you to measure the darker part of the scene where you still want to retain detail. That distinction finally clicked. If the subject of my photograph is a house sitting in shade against a bright sky, metering the sky can leave the house too dark. Instead, I can meter a shadow area on the house where I still want detail and expose based on that reading. With color negative film, I’d generally rather give the film enough light and preserve that shadow detail than underexpose it. So now, instead of thinking of metering as “Is this photo bright enough?”, I think of it as: What part of this scene am I exposing for?

Field note 04

Portra 400: What I'm Actually Learning

I started shooting Portra 400 because I loved the photographs I saw other people making with it. What I’m learning is that the film stock is only one part of why those photographs look the way they do. Portra 400 is flexible, but it isn’t a preset. The same roll can look warm and creamy, cool and muted, bright and airy, or rich and contrasty depending on how it’s exposed, the light you’re shooting in, and—something I initially underestimated—how it’s scanned. The biggest thing I’m learning is that Portra generally handles extra light better than too little. Slight overexposure can give me cleaner shadows, softer contrast, and the colors I associate with the Portra look. I’m also paying much more attention to the light itself. Portra isn’t going to turn harsh midday light into soft golden light just because it’s Portra 400. And then there are the scans. Two labs can interpret the same negative differently, and adjustments to color, contrast, and density can substantially change the final image. My photos from the east coast and west coast are produced by different labs, and I love them both! But they are very different interpretations of the same image.