Does It Really Matter Anymore? Do We Even Understand the Rules Now?

[NickTrop]

In the age of hybrid digital processing, where you develop negatives and scan them into your PC, and using sophisticated SW like Lightroom and Photoshop CS to manipulate raw or DNG files - does:

1. The film you use really matter? The scanner "scans" it the way it sees it, largely if not wholly, stripping away the latent character of the film. Vuescan uses profiles - want your film to look like TMax 100? 400? What density would you like? PS plug-ins and actions like Exposure tweak the curves to match specific film profiles - Tri-X, TMax, Delta, whatever. Should you just buy what's on sale?


2. Does developer matter? Why use Diafine or other developers to push film if in Lightroom I can - again, futz with curves, add or subtract exposure stops, tweak gamma, brightness, and contrast in post?
2a. Wouldn't it be better, then, to shoot at lower ISOs, get an underexposed neg, with all the tonality intact in the properly exposed zones, and make the necessary adjustments digitally, instead of pushing the negative several stops above box (or real) speed and losing contrast? Why use Rodinal for better edge sharpness when I can get all the edge sharpness I want using SW?

3. Does the alchemy of development matter - agitation vs inversion, how many times, how many seconds, dilutions of developer matter for the same reasons?

If we're processing and scanning, and so much can be done (and frankly better and with far, far, far more control) in digital "post" that used to be a function of variables associated with physically/chemically developing the negative...

... and we're now really dealing with the negative twice in the workflow. First the physical development of the neg, then a second time "developing" the digitized neg (DNG or "RAW") file...

Does anything of what we learned from Ansel Adams (The Negative) matter? Is any of it still relevant? And what should our objective be in the "first" negative process (chemical) to facilitate manipulation in the "second" processing of the negative? What characteristics or properties should be a function of the initial chemical negative process, and what should we be manipulating in the digitized negative? What image characteristic is more suited to each phase? Or does it even matter? Should I try to get more sharpness in the chemical development of the negative via developer choice? Or should I chose a less "sharp" developer (or method, or dilution) that produces better tones but add edge sharpness digitally? (As an example...)

What are the rules for this now? Does anyone truly understand it?

 

[SolaresLarrave]

No, but it's fun, and that's why it matters, Nick. Go out and shoot now and stop fussing about these things. 🙂

 

[NickTrop]

No, but it's fun, and that's why it matters, Nick. Go out and shoot now and stop fussing about these things. 🙂

It's not really "fussing". And yes - it is fun. And I do shoot. But the entire process has fundamentally changed and I really don't think anyone genuinely understands it, or how to get the max quality from their images. What should be done as part of the chemical process, what should be done in the digital process, or even if it matters.

Asking the questions is fun too. This is a blog after all 😉

 

[JeremyLangford]

I for one basically get my colors, sharpness, and exposure exactly how I want it due to scanning myself and then post-processing on the computer. I think If I wanted to get the colors I wanted without "cheating" I would have to cross-process which costs may more than my $1.47 per roll to develop at Wal-Mart.

 

[jan normandale]

Nick.. currently my modus operandi is "go big or go home" Digital still has a long way to go to catch up to a 4x5 unless you're a gazillionaire and you can afford a 5 kg digital back for $60,000.00

For me it's still fun and we all set 'handicaps' for ourselves in our games. Film is mine for photography.

 

[JeremyLangford]

It's not really "fussing". And yes - it is fun. And I do shoot. But the entire process has fundamentally changed and I really don't think anyone genuinely understands it, or how to get the max quality from their images. What should be done as part of the chemical process, what should be done in the digital process, or even if it matters.

Asking the questions is fun too. This is a blog after all 😉

Yea. Sometimes I wonder if Im missing out on the true photography process. But I honestly dont think I would be happy with the results (mostly the colors) I could try and get without doing any type of post-processing.

 

[tripod]

I can do what I want to do, and how I want to do it. I continue to do it the old fashoined way so I don't have to worry.

 

[Thardy]

Yes, the scanner scans what it sees but what I've observed is that you can't really change the character of the film through software (I've tried). If a film is smooth or grainy, sharp or soft the scan seems to reflect those traits.

 

[Bob Michaels]

There are many steps, from film selection, exposure, and focus, through developer choice, scan parameters, photoshop actions, all the way to the final dither algorithm in the printer.

Each of these many steps is a zero gain, where you just try to minimize your losses step. You can never make up for an unsharp neg no matter what you do with sharpening in an image editor. You cannot minimize grain other than by blurring the image so it doesn't show. You can't recapture data lost to unexposed shadow detail or recover a truly blown out highlight.

In other words, if it ain't on the neg, no process will ever get it back.

 

[Al Patterson]

Riles? We don't need no stinkin' rules...

So far I've been lazy. If I shoot film, I develop it and hardly ever scan. I shoot digital in JPEG format. Now, I could scan my film and play with it, but I already spend WAY to much time in front of the computer as it is. Maybe when I retire I can take the 40 plus computer hours that used to be called "work" and use them for post-processing and manipulation. Or I can shoot more.

 

[NickTrop]

The question is, the workflow and process has fundamentally changed in how we MAKE a photo for many of us who are still film shooters. We are processing our negatives twice now (and I'm mostly speaking of black and white here). There is overlap in terms of the image characteristics we traditionally agonize over between the chemical process and the digital process.

When we MAKE a photo, what should be manipulated through the chemical process of "The Negative", and what should be manipulated in the digital part of "The Negative" to maximize emotional impact to make the best photo we can make. What roll does the chemical process play, and is it even relevant? Should I shoot at box speed and develop everything in D76, leaving this part of the process mundane - just get a negative that "scans well" and manipulate everything - from sharpness, to pushing, to contrast level - etc., etc., etc. digitally? Or should I still "make choices" in terms of dilution, times, developer used, inversion, agitation, "adding other chemicals" like sulfates or vitamen C (whatever - and, no, I've never done this)? Does even my choice of film matter?

I don't think anyone understands the hybrid workflow, personally.

 

[Thardy]

I've read that some people expose and process to render a "flat " negative, then use software to get the contrast they want.

For those of us who don't process our film, we're at the mercy of the lab tech of the day.

 

[JeremyLangford]

The question is, the workflow and process has fundamentally changed in how we MAKE a photo for many of us who are still film shooters. We are processing our negatives twice now (and I'm mostly speaking of black and white here). There is overlap in terms of the image characteristics we traditionally agonize over between the chemical process and the digital process.

When we MAKE a photo, what should be manipulated through the chemical process of "The Negative", and what should be manipulated in the digital part of "The Negative" to maximize emotional impact to make the best photo we can make. What roll does the chemical process play, and is it even relevant? Should I shoot at box speed and develop everything in D76, leaving this part of the process mundane - just get a negative that "scans well" and manipulate everything - from sharpness, to pushing, to contrast level - etc., etc., etc. digitally? Or should I still "make choices" in terms of dilution, times, developer used, inversion, agitation, "adding other chemicals" like sulfates or vitamen C (whatever - and, no, I've never done this)? Does even my choice of film matter?

I don't think anyone understands the hybrid workflow, personally.

It is truly personal preference, but I would definately look at a photographers photos differently if I knew that he never did any processing on a computer and got his desired affects through chemical processes.

I personally, dont ever shoot B&W film because I love color photos and I would hate to miss out of some sweet color opportunitys because my camera was loaded with B&W film. I do, however, appreciate how B&W film can help the viewer focus more on subject, composition, and DOF more clearly.

All I shoot is color C-41 film. I usually hate how the picture looks right after it is scanned. But I am getting better every day at messing with the curves in Photoshop to achieve the desired exposure and colors.

If I wanted to get the desired results without a computer, I would buy a Lomo-LCA camera and have my photos cross-processed. But Im not goinf to do that because I love using my fisheye on my SLR.

 

[NickTrop]

.

Yeah - a 16 year old film shooter. Or is that a misprint? Oh - what the hell, "yeah" anyway.

 

[NickTrop]

Oh - and PS, of course I know the answers to the questions I posed. I'm just checking to see if the dunderheads here (a term of endearment, so no flames please) who call themselves photographers do. There are correct answers to these questions. Do you know what they are?

n'ght all.

 

[craygc]

In the age of hybrid digital processing, where you develop negatives and scan them into your PC, and using sophisticated SW like Lightroom and Photoshop CS to manipulate raw or DNG files - does:

1. The film you use really matter? The scanner "scans" it the way it sees it, largely if not wholly, stripping away the latent character of the film. Vuescan uses profiles - want your film to look like TMax 100? 400? What density would you like? PS plug-ins and actions like Exposure tweak the curves to match specific film profiles - Tri-X, TMax, Delta, whatever. Should you just buy what's on sale?

I largely disagree with this view. The character of the film is what it is and is there on the negative. A good scanner will capture that character. There is a noticeable difference between a Delta/Tmax/Trix scan.

Vuescan profiles are merely starting points and dont make one film look like another. All youre doing is applying some gamma and or curve correction to a linear ouptut from the CCD. To even attempt that you would need to have a profile that knew what the base emulsion was. Just having a Tmax profile doesnt make Trix look anything like it. The response curve and tonal range of films are different and are captured in a scan.

2. Does developer matter? Why use Diafine or other developers to push film if in Lightroom I can - again, futz with curves, add or subtract exposure stops, tweak gamma, brightness, and contrast in post?
2a. Wouldn't it be better, then, to shoot at lower ISOs, get an underexposed neg, with all the tonality intact in the properly exposed zones, and make the necessary adjustments digitally, instead of pushing the negative several stops above box (or real) speed and losing contrast?

If you need to push film to get an image, then Software isnt going to provide the same capabilities - you first need to capture it in scanning and that is where the problem lies. If the image isnt developed on the neg then you cant scan it. (BTW, if you push film speed you will not be losing contrast 😀)

"Properly Exposed Zones" is a bit of a loaded phrase. You can always move your zones around, include some, exclude others, expand them or compress them. All of this will be achieved much better on film than digitally on the scanned image. Some reasoning for this; any tone on film (B&W at least) is some representation of grain density. Its the this mix of grain (light blocking) and no grain (light passing) areas that represent the tone, and that is also how its scanned. Whenever you start trying to move a tone significantly form its actual representation you are exaggerating the grain density rather than changing the actual density and that can noticeably impact the appearance of an image.

Why use Rodinal for better edge sharpness when I can get all the edge sharpness I want using SW?

The sharpness you get from developers such as Rodinal is very different to what you can achieve in software.

 

[Thardy]

Not 16 y/o....it's supposed to be 61!

Hey, my 17 y/o daughter has a friend who shoots film for school events..her dad is a professional photographer though.

My other daughter (15y/o) will take photography next year and they still process BW film!

Keep hope alive.

 

[craygc]

I've read that some people expose and process to render a "flat " negative, then use software to get the contrast they want.

This is more to ensure you avoid bullet proof negs for the poor little scanner lights 😀 Apart from that, negs represent a DR of about 2.0 so as most scanners can easily exceed that, a scanned neg will always look a little flat out of the scanner without adjustments.

 

[JeremyLangford]

Yeah - a 16 year old film shooter. Or is that a misprint? Oh - what the hell, "yeah" anyway.

Yup. Im 16 and I hate digital cameras more than anything. Im film all the way. I shoot with an old, fully manual Minolta SRT-101.

But dont think I am perfect. The reason I got into photography was thanks to my dads Canon 30d digital slr.

And also, Im not strictly RFs. I love street photography, but I sacrifice the noise and size of a RF so that I could easily switch around from my 3 lenses (50mm f/1.7, 35mm f/2.8, and 16mm f/2.8). Also, I really wanted to have Depth of Field preview a lot. I use it a lot, especially with my f/1.7.

 

[jan normandale]

Dear Nick Trop (interestingly "trop" in french means "too much") if I'm a "dunderhead" I guess you're the "dundee head" LoL

Anyway to the question you pose "Do you know what they are?" Sure do! Hope you do too and it's not a rhetoric question.

cheers Jan
... btw a gallery is a good thing if you discuss photography