Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Rulez. Wee don need no steenkin rulez.
:angel:
I hear you, though.
:angel:
I hear you, though.
Does It Really Matter Anymore? Do We Even Understand the Rules Now?
- Thread starter NickTrop
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 57
- Views 4K
NickTrop
Veteran
I'm not trying to be a smartass but:
The longer you leave your film in developer (to push it) the grainier your negative will be and more tonality it will lost. You will be stuck with a negative that has few gray tones and a lot of grain.
DelDavis
.
So the real answer to all the problems is neither film nor digital. It is a diffraction-limited, infinite ISO technology I've patented called Filgital. Look for it in coming weeks...
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
take a frame on tri-x. there is no way you can lightroom it, or photoshop it, or whatever it on a computer, to make it work like exposed at 1600 if you developed it in some low speed developer instead of using diafine.
There are some valid points you brought up regarding the "character" of certain films, but it still matters where you start from, with the digital tweakings.
An underexposed or underdeveloped frame will never give the same good results than a properly exposed one.
Same holds for e.g. out of warranty C41 film. I had some rolls of nps 120 which went out of warranty 3 years ago and although kept in the fridge, it shows. No matter what i do in photoshop, they will never look like fresh, proper 6x6 nps.
There are some valid points you brought up regarding the "character" of certain films, but it still matters where you start from, with the digital tweakings.
An underexposed or underdeveloped frame will never give the same good results than a properly exposed one.
Same holds for e.g. out of warranty C41 film. I had some rolls of nps 120 which went out of warranty 3 years ago and although kept in the fridge, it shows. No matter what i do in photoshop, they will never look like fresh, proper 6x6 nps.
kevin m
Veteran
I think the hybrid workflow rocks, for lack of a better term. Better control, faster work, repeatability.
How is exposing film to suit the limited dynamic range of whatever paper you use to print any different than exposing film to suit your scanner?
The precise control of the digital darkroom trumps the look of B&W paper, IMO. You gain so much for the little you lose.... And I bet Ansel Adams would toss his burning and dodging tools in the trash about five minutes after he met the PS "lasso" tool. 😀
Guess what film stock this pic was shot with:
How is exposing film to suit the limited dynamic range of whatever paper you use to print any different than exposing film to suit your scanner?
The precise control of the digital darkroom trumps the look of B&W paper, IMO. You gain so much for the little you lose.... And I bet Ansel Adams would toss his burning and dodging tools in the trash about five minutes after he met the PS "lasso" tool. 😀
Guess what film stock this pic was shot with:
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
The answer is 42...
amateriat
We're all light!
In brief: Charlie and Jay nail this one. The film, and the process, still matter. I regard my scanners, Photoshop, and the computer that links them both together, as transcription devices for the film I've shot. XP2 comes out looking like XP2; Portra comes out looking like Portra; HP5 souped in HC-110...you get the idea. Not just "kinda-sorta." Otherwide I'd chuck it all and get a D300 or something. The beauty of digital post is that you can, indeed, make the process what you want. You can do the transcription thing as I do, or go to town with all the virtual knobs and levers at your disposal.
And, because of my careful choice in film, and having both very good scanners and a decently-profiled computer/monitor/printer setup, I usually don't sweat bullets to get what's on that piece of film into a digital file, and into a print.
Process still matters.
- Barrett
And, because of my careful choice in film, and having both very good scanners and a decently-profiled computer/monitor/printer setup, I usually don't sweat bullets to get what's on that piece of film into a digital file, and into a print.
Process still matters.
- Barrett
Last edited:
nightfly
Well-known
If you've developed and scanned film and tried to get a digitally captured image to look this way, you know the answer. Unless you are very talented at Photoshop and start with something like an image from a Canon 5D, you're not going to get close. The response of film and a digital sensor is different.
A scanner is just an enlarger with a different set of imperfections. Film still looks like film and digital still looks like crap for the most part (I'm speaking of black and white). My wet darkroom prints and my scans and ink jet prints are very similar except that I'm a better digital printer than I ever was an analog one.
Using film is like having a huge set of PS actions already encoded in the negative some of which don't even exist in the digital world. I find my low end Epson 4990 is fairly "faithful" to the negative, maybe a little unsharp but honestly my end prints using an Epson 1280 with black only carbon ink look as good or better than one of my darkroom prints although the paper lacks some of the luster of a nice fiber based paper but I've got some new papers to try that promise to narrow this gap.
Seriously people, this ain't magic. Use what works for you. I'd love it if I could could get a digital camera without an on/off switch and with real controls that allow me to glance at the camera and see my film speed, aperture and hyperfocus in a millisecond and change any of these by feel and produced full tonal range black and white images and wasn't gigantic and didn't cost $5000 but it ain't happening.
Film is cheap, manual cameras feel great and work fast and last forever. Why not have a "full frame" sensor for $3/roll.
A scanner is just an enlarger with a different set of imperfections. Film still looks like film and digital still looks like crap for the most part (I'm speaking of black and white). My wet darkroom prints and my scans and ink jet prints are very similar except that I'm a better digital printer than I ever was an analog one.
Using film is like having a huge set of PS actions already encoded in the negative some of which don't even exist in the digital world. I find my low end Epson 4990 is fairly "faithful" to the negative, maybe a little unsharp but honestly my end prints using an Epson 1280 with black only carbon ink look as good or better than one of my darkroom prints although the paper lacks some of the luster of a nice fiber based paper but I've got some new papers to try that promise to narrow this gap.
Seriously people, this ain't magic. Use what works for you. I'd love it if I could could get a digital camera without an on/off switch and with real controls that allow me to glance at the camera and see my film speed, aperture and hyperfocus in a millisecond and change any of these by feel and produced full tonal range black and white images and wasn't gigantic and didn't cost $5000 but it ain't happening.
Film is cheap, manual cameras feel great and work fast and last forever. Why not have a "full frame" sensor for $3/roll.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I send my Scala there.
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
yes, x5. And I use the hybrid work-flow, and shoot B+W.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Guess what film stock this pic was shot with:
That crunchiness is Tri-X.
If it isn't, then I'd like to know your secret (and film stock).
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
The experts are dead.
The experts are dead.
Sorry I came to this thread late... as usual. :-(
Thanks Nick for the well-crafted original post! And, as usual, thanks for stimulating my brain cells a bit.
I've grown up around film. I did my tour in the darkroom, read Adams' books, sought out the perfect film for every occasion, etc.. And through all that I suppose I assumed that there was a point of perfection that could be achieved. Today, I wonder if such a "point of perfection" can be found or achieved any more.
After many, many shutter releases, many galleries visited, and many flickr pics seen, I now see that photography has been a chain of "points of perfection". At each point, some characteristics were claimed to be the best by some expert/critic. Today, I can't imagine any such expert would be foolish enough to declare some photographer's work as "perfection"... there's just too much great stuff out there now. And its being produced in sooooo many ways.
So I declare the experts dead. We can now go out there and make photographs any way we want... Walgreen's film processing included. 🙂
The experts are dead.
Sorry I came to this thread late... as usual. :-(
Thanks Nick for the well-crafted original post! And, as usual, thanks for stimulating my brain cells a bit.
I've grown up around film. I did my tour in the darkroom, read Adams' books, sought out the perfect film for every occasion, etc.. And through all that I suppose I assumed that there was a point of perfection that could be achieved. Today, I wonder if such a "point of perfection" can be found or achieved any more.
After many, many shutter releases, many galleries visited, and many flickr pics seen, I now see that photography has been a chain of "points of perfection". At each point, some characteristics were claimed to be the best by some expert/critic. Today, I can't imagine any such expert would be foolish enough to declare some photographer's work as "perfection"... there's just too much great stuff out there now. And its being produced in sooooo many ways.
So I declare the experts dead. We can now go out there and make photographs any way we want... Walgreen's film processing included. 🙂
NickTrop
Veteran
Wow - you still have Scala? BW slides - a thing of beauty. The DR5 process - for those who don't know them, will work with any traditional silver black and white film (NOT C41) and will produce gorgeouos black and white slides from almost any film stock. The site has ISO recommendations.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I'm so far down the line now, this has probably been said. But 2 and 2a, one thing that has happened to me is I can develop roll film normally or for as many lighting situations that it can handle, and now I can do N-1 or N+2 using editing programs. My favorite Ansel Adamsesque program is LightZone, it can do simple contraction and expansion or something Ansel couldn't expand or contract specific zones. I still think you get a different 'look' to different films and developers, not just grain and sharpness.
gregg
Well-known
I really like Kodak 400CN (and its professional partners) for scanning - very smooth and you get to use ICE. I haven't seen much of a difference among the 400 color films - I usually convert to B&W so use the cheapest I can get my hands on locally.
On the traditional B&W side I haven't found a good answer other than what many have already said - whatever works for you. None of the film/developer manufacturers in business today have "bad" products. They do have products and combinations you may prefer more or less.
Off-the-shelf Neopan 400 in D76 1:1 looks as good and scans as well (FOR ME) as any of the exotic t-grain, reducing, two bath, gold laced, standing combinations I've tried along the way. I like the look and it works for me.
On the traditional B&W side I haven't found a good answer other than what many have already said - whatever works for you. None of the film/developer manufacturers in business today have "bad" products. They do have products and combinations you may prefer more or less.
Off-the-shelf Neopan 400 in D76 1:1 looks as good and scans as well (FOR ME) as any of the exotic t-grain, reducing, two bath, gold laced, standing combinations I've tried along the way. I like the look and it works for me.
C
Charly
Guest
Kevin M - First I thought Tri X but now I think it could be digital with grain applied (very well) with a filter. I've also seen Neopan 400 look very similar to this and there in an outside chance it's HP5+. Okay, so it's 400 speed and not T-Max!
Oh wait, it's out dated Sainsbury's 100 that you converted in PS.
Seriously, my money is on Tri X but I'm not certain and this raises a good point - but a further one I think is that different people get different results in the same stuff - I can't stand my Tri-X in HC110 but others make it sing.
Oh wait, it's out dated Sainsbury's 100 that you converted in PS.
Seriously, my money is on Tri X but I'm not certain and this raises a good point - but a further one I think is that different people get different results in the same stuff - I can't stand my Tri-X in HC110 but others make it sing.
NickTrop
Veteran
Apologies for "bumping" my own thread. However, got tied up at work last night, got some sleep, and it's right back in this morning. I will post "the definitive answer" to all this as soon as I have a chance.
Sorry for keeping youse in suspense.
|
C
Charly
Guest
lol @ Nick, the laugh is on the rest of you 😉
