Does scanning defeat the purpose of using certain film stocks and lenses?

[gnuyork]

I use vuescan and I don't quite get the film presets. I just use the default setting and go from there. Generally I try to get a scan that captures all the tones (and usually looks quite flat) then I make curves and other adjustments in Lightroom.

I feel like the look of different films come through. I've scanned TriX, HP5+ and Tmax films. They all have their own look. Same goes for color film and slides... their distinct character comes through.

 

[PKR]

I printed in my wet darkroom for about 10 years and thought I was reasonably good. I have scanned film and printed digitally for the last 16 years.

My scanning workflow has only one objective. That is to capture in a digital file as much information on the film as possible. That means my output from the scan is flat and lifeless. So no conclusions can be drawn from that.

I take that flat lifeless scan file and adjust it to how I want the final output to look. And that is the same regardless of the film or lens originally used.

So basically, other than the slightly larger grain from higher speed films, any differences in film or lens is neutralized in the post processing.

I do the same and expect exactly the same as Bob does, Re file info.

Film is archival by nature. It can be scanned 50 years from now with whatever is current in technology. Adjustments in PS/LR/C1 are up to the creator. A print will serve as a guide for printing/adjusting with future advancements in technology.

Previsulization is the key. If you know what you're doing, the print will look as imagined.