Film/digital hybrid process

[David Noble]

I have a very simple question about film and digital—and no, it is not which is better.

I happen to like digital very much, and it was an Epson R-D1 that led me into this forum. I have no serious experience with film (when I used it years ago it was P&S and drugstore prints). And right now I have an all-digital workflow I am basically happy with.

But I had been getting curious about medium format film, and just stumbled across a Mamiya 6 and two lenses for a very decent price. I thought I would try it, and if it didn't work for me, sell it again.

So my question, to people who have experience with both: does scanning 6 x6 b/w negs or chromes on something like the Epson v700 and then printing them using a pigment printer like the HP B9180 actually make sense?

In other words, is the extra cost, work, and time going to produce an end result with MF film that is noticably better than what I would get by sticking to my digital rangefinder or DSLR?

Or to put it another way, are the things said to be advantages of film (better tonal range and tonality, better gradations, and in the case of MF, better resolution) not likely to be lost in translation, given the two digital proceesses (scanning and printing) it would be going through?

I say this because I am on the verge of buying the scanner ( I have the printer already). I am sort of viewing it as a large digital back for the Mamiya. But I honestly don't want to go through all this rigamarole and expense if it is going to give me something virtually indistinguishable from what I am already getting from purely digital means.

Does this make sense?

I am interested in giving film a go, but only if—with the setup described—I can get visibly different results. If I can't, sticking with digital is simpler and cheaper for me, as I have already invested in the equipment.

Thanks for any light you can shed on this.

 

[soulkitchen]

I'm not familiar with the specific equipment mentioned. I have shot 35mm film and scanned it with a Minolta Dual IV and printed on an Epson R800 with decent results. However, the scanning does introduce extra work, and processing the film introduces extra time.

I had a hard time finding a lab that didnt give me scratched and dirty negatives. So I spent a lot of time dealing with dust and scratches. And of course there's the cost of film processing and the time it takes. (A lot of the guys here process their own film, so they will likely have a different opinon on this part of the process.)

I don't think you will get a "better" digital image by shooting and scanning film (unless maybe you shoot large format and have it drum-scanned) it's more about whether you enjoy that process or not.

I think the only way to know if you'll like working this way is to try. It depends on how you want to work. When shooting film, you don't get the immediate feedback available with digital. I happen to like that about it. However, I do not enjoy the scanning as much.

 

[Fabian]

If cheap and simple is what you like stick with your all digital workflow.
The problem with film is that you either have to develop yourself (b/w) or leave it to a mediocre lab or leave it to a professional lab and pay a lot of money.
Next problem is the scanner. Its surely not a bad one but it will loose some information anyway.
In the end I think the differences would be small and the effort huge.

Here is another thought. Why don't you use the digital for all colorwork and the mamiya for b/w exclusively including developing your own film and printing in a darkroom.
Now that is gonna make a huge difference. B/w is where film still shines.
Darkrooms are cheap on ebay and getting started is easier than you think.

Regards Fabian

 

[lawrence]

I am interested in giving film a go, but only if—with the setup described—I can get visibly different results.

You will get different results! The reason is that whenever an element is changed in the photographic process or 'work-flow', the end result will change accordingly. For example, a medium format camera will necessarily give you a different result from a digital camera due to the longer focal length of the lenses for an equivalent field of view. Longer focal length means less depth of field at a particular aperture, so the tree in the background that looked sharp on digital now looks out of focus. If you use film as your medium of capture you are doing something fundamentally different from using a digital sensor and this is bound to influence the result. Similarly if you scan film you are again introducing another element into the work-flow.

The point I'm making is that every choice you make has an effect of some kind, hence the endless discussions here, on APUG and on photo.net about film-developer combinations, lenses etc. One thing I cannot say is whether the results will be 'better' because that's a subjective issue that only you can decide based on your original intentions. However I do have one recommendation: don't bother to go down the film route unless you are prepared to process it yourself. Without this, in my opinion you won't have sufficient control over the end results to ensure that they are repeatable.

 

[mfogiel]

David,
I have done the trip the other way round - started with a 6x6 MF plus an Epson V750, then went to digital, then bought a better scanner (Nikon CS 9000), then tried 35mm SLR,then tried a 35mm film rangefinder...
To get to the point:
Epson V7xx flatbed with a MF holder from Doug Fisher will give you a very nice scan for a 4-6 times enlargement, and it WILL give you pretty good scans from traditional B&W film, provided of course, that you are willing to spend quite some time scanning, and much more than that spotting. If you go to a better scanner like the CS , you can make a VERY good enlargement for up to 10-12 times, but you might have some difficulties extracting all the tonalities out of a silver negative.

So, to get to the point: if you want to shoot colour and do not want to go over 13x19 just stay with digital.

If you want to shoot B&W, for me you should use film anyway, but in my mind the smartest options are:

- either a 35mm camera+XP2+a good 35mm scanner (Nikon CS 5000 or Minolta 5400)
- or a 6x7 or even 6X9 camera, and an Epson 7xx with any film you like...

If you go 6x6, often cropping to 4x6 and scan on a flatbed, the results are going to be difficult to distinguish from a good XP2 35mm scan... however, in any case in B&W the result will be much nicer than digital... BTW with XP2 you can use digital ICE, so the spotting can be avoided...

 

[Joe Vitessa]

I think you should ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish by going to medium format and scanning. Are you unhappy with your results from digital cameras? If not, then I don't think you'll be noticeably happier with the Mamiya 6 and scanning. It is extra work and expense. That said, I don't shoot digital because I have a lot more fun with antiquated film cameras. And I get good results from (lab) scanning and printing. The investment you're talking about ain't cheap. Ask yourself if the payoff is worth it.

 

[anselwannab]

To me the MF film option looked best for wide angle shots. Besides my Zokri and CL that I use for travel, I use a 20D. In wide angle shots, the 20D can't resolve fine details like branches and and grass in landscape shots. I figured that the MF film camera and a V series scanner, I'd get what I needed.

I looked at GSW690 and Fuji GX680s. THey aren't cheep, with $500+ for a wide angle GSW690 and maybe $1000 for a nice GX. Then like $700 for a V series scanner and software. Plus film and processing. I started to think that I can leverage my EOS gear and get a 5D or even a 1Ds2 when the 1Ds3 comes out.

You could go cheaper with an RB or something, or another RF MF if you aren't worried about wide angle shots.

I haven't abandoned the idea, but my first instinct that I would save money probably isn't true. I do process and scan my own TMAX out of my Zorki and CL now, so I know what that all entails, and with a 2year old son and expecting a new girl in August, I don't have the time for another camera, digital or not right now.

$0.02

Mark

 

[Gid]

I did exactly what you are proposing. The Epson R-D1 brought me to this forum and then it was all downhill from there 😉 . I bought a Bronica RF645 and a couple of lenses and developed my own B&W which was then scanned on an Epson 4990 (forerunner of the V700). Next came a Hexar RF, a Leica M6 and then an MP. Then the experimentation with different films - B&W, C41, slides. Then the backlog of films waiting to be developed followed by a backlog of films to be scanned - scanning, I hate it, it is so time consuming :bang: In the end I looked at what I was producing using film and compared it to what I had been producing using the R-D1 and my photography had got worse ( I printed 3 shots to A3, one from 35mm, one from MF and one from the Epson and asked my family which they preferred and they all picked the Epson 🙁 ). In the end I didn't think it was worth the hassle and time I didn't have. All my film cameras (except for an old Canon F1) are now gone and I am much happier as a result.

I will say that there is something special about the tonality and character of B&W film, even when scanned.

 

[40oz]

Assuming this: "I thought I would try it, and if it didn't work for me, sell it again," I would go for it. You'll either like it or not. There are definite reasons to go to MF film. There are reasons why the RD-1 is working for you today, and that probably won't change. The RD-1 would definitely be a nice thing to have, if only for occasions where the Mamiya was not practical or for those days you just don't feel like processing film. There is no argument that renders the RD-1 meaningless, and no reason the Mamiya couldn't be a valuable asset.

Look at it this way - the MF film is going to allow you to capture more on the film in a single shot than your RD-1, tone-wise and in dynamic range. The film will reduce this to a range your scanner can capture for the most part. You might lose a bit, but not as much as your RD-1 would. Flatbed scanners get better every year, and it is very likely that in a few years, you'll have a better scanner than you have today, even if you don't get the Mamiya. So if you capture the images on film now, you can always go back and re-scan the images for a better digital capture. You can even have a lab make a very large wet print of the best images.

With the RD-1, what you are getting today, imagewise, is the best it will ever get. IMHO, that is not a plus or minus for the RD-1, just a factor when comparing to the Mamiya + film. A nice thing about MF negatives is it is much easier to see what you have by looking at the negative, so you don't really need to scan each and every one if you don't wish to. And processing without prints isn't costly. You will probably also acquire a better printer down the road regardless, just because printers get better every year just like scanners, so your prints will improve in time whether you go to film or not.

The sheer variety of films out there, and the history that goes along with them, is part of what I like about using film, even if there was no advantage at all.

 

[anselwannab]

I did exactly what you are proposing. The Epson R-D1 brought me to this forum and then it was all downhill from there 😉 . I bought a Bronica RF645 and a couple of lenses and developed my own B&W which was then scanned on an Epson 4990 (forerunner of the V700). Next came a Hexar RF, a Leica M6 and then an MP. Then the experimentation with different films - B&W, C41, slides. Then the backlog of films waiting to be developed followed by a backlog of films to be scanned - scanning, I hate it, it is so time consuming :bang: In the end I looked at what I was producing using film and compared it to what I had been producing using the R-D1 and my photography had got worse ( I printed 3 shots to A3, one from 35mm, one from MF and one from the Epson and asked my family which they preferred and they all picked the Epson 🙁 ). In the end I didn't think it was worth the hassle and time I didn't have. All my film cameras (except for an old Canon F1) are now gone and I am much happier as a result.

I will say that there is something special about the tonality and character of B&W film, even when scanned.

Ha, I've kept my Canon F1new also. What a war-horse with that match needle and all that cheap FD glass out there. You can even pull the pentaprism off and shoot it from waistlevel.

Mark

 

[JonR]

Pay for the scanning

Pay for the scanning

I have a Epson 7990 Photo scanner and have used it to scan in thousands of old negatives and dia but for all the film I take today with Nikon SLR´s or Yashica and Nikon rangefinder cameras I send the film for development and scanning to a professional lab. Yes - it costs a little bit extra but to me it pays off. I get it done in a consistent and professional way and I get superb digital files without all the hassel with dust etc at home. I spend my time taking photos and then printing and working with Photoshop.

It took some time to find a lab which I like but now I pay the extra for that and it is well spent money I think!

Jon

 

[Gid]

Ha, I've kept my Canon F1new also. What a war-horse with that match needle and all that cheap FD glass out there. You can even pull the pentaprism off and shoot it from waistlevel.

Mark

And a great weapon also, should the need arise.

 

[shadowfox]

David,

I'm mulling over the same setup as you are considering, a V700 scanner and a pigment ink printer (supposed to give you nicer BW prints on fiber-ish papers).

The only thing that stopped me for now is the cost per roll. The closest lab that will do a C-41 development for 120 charged me $12 per roll with scanning. That just prohibit me from using the 120 format too much. Yes, without scanning, it'll go down some, but how many rolls do I have to develop to recover the cost of the scanner and printer?

Now to the important part, do I like the results from my Bronica 645? you bet I do!!

What I like the most is the amount of detail visible, even on my monitor, let alone when printed big. To me, it's a big jump from 35mm.

 

[Ronald M]

With a good scanner, wet and dry are the same for me.

The question comes in with that scanner. It has a piece of glass between the lens and neg and there are focus issues as in you can`t except by raising the neg.

I give a qualified equal if you keep the print to 8x10, maybe 11x14.

You will need a better scanner to go bigger.

 

[audible]

it's not really an easy question to answer 🙂

for starters, the way you shoot and the kind of subjects you tackle will be very different depending on whether you use an r-d1 or the mamiya.

if we set these aside for now, i'd say yes, you could get much much better results with the medium format. the greater dynamic range of film coupled with the fact that the negative will be several times the size of the r-d1 sensor means it's possible to capture much more info.

but it's not so simple. to get the kind of results this method is capable of producing, there's a huge learning curve to deal with. developing the film (to get best results you'll need to learn to do this well yourself), scanning the film and post processing it (need to scan for maximum info then tweak for the curve/tones/look you want) and then there's the printing workflow to get a hang of.

it will take a lot of time and work to master these (the r-d1 automates more of this process) and it will also be much more expensive. and even when you've got the workflow up, each new picture that goes from capture to print will be much more consuming.

the quantity of prints you make will definitely drop. but the quality can get better... if you really work for it.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I can only share my experience of the Mamiya 6 the 50 and 75mm lenses and using the Epson V750 Pro (using Doug Fisher's MF film Holder)

Mamiya 6 produces very sharp and detailed negatives that make for fine 20 x 20" fibre prints in a traditional darkroom. The negs scanned on the V750 yield files 200MB+ Grayscale TIFF if scanned at the higher resolutions. However i find the work involved in cloning out dust and adjusting curves etc in CS3 takes a very long time - much longer than in a darkroom. I don't have a printer so i can't compare differences from wet prints.

Both the scan film/digital workflow and the traditional film/darkroom are very different methods and both take a lot of time and care. It really depends how you want to use the final prints.

 

[Rhoyle]

Scanning film is time consuming, but I do what you are proposing on a regular basis. I've got a 25mmZM and a 40MM Rollei /Zeiss Sonnar and they both give me beautiful results. However, my 50 year-old Rolleiflex TLR on 6x6 negs (or chromes) blows the 35mm stuff out of the water. There is also more depth and detail in the 6x6 than any APS sized digital sensor can hope to capture. I then scan on an Epson 4870, which is 2 generations older than the V700, which gives me scans that are easily distinguishalble from those from a digital SLR. I blow them up to 12x18 with no loss of detail or increase of grain at all, where the 35mm and 6mp files are just barely starting to go soft. So like many other things in life, you must explore the effort-results ratio and make your own decision. Some people don't like to work hard in processing and post processing. Some people find lab scans to be plenty good. Others like to roll up their sleeves and spend a lot of time to get every speck of detail, balance, and tonality into their prints. Like "audible" states, "it'll take a lot of time to master" the process. Try it, stick with it and see how far you can take it. Only then will you be able to make an informed decision on your own.

 

[mojojones]

I like big files and I can't deny, medium format you've got to try...

I like big files and I can't deny, medium format you've got to try...

I shoot medium (and large) format film because I like big files. Shoot 6x4.5 and scan it at 4000 dpi and you'll have a 65 Megapixel file! Digital has a lot of advantages, but film has a many admirable qualities as well. Crucial to this workflow is a good film scanner. Drums scans are by far the best, Imacons (my choice) are the next best thing, and the Nikon 9000 is very good as well. Flatbeds just don't cut it when you're trying to eek out every bit of sharpness and tonal range. (It's worth noting that printing is an inherently low resolution process so sharpness ain't everything.) Another great thing is the wonderful range of cameras and great glass at bargain prices that's out there now.

I say give it at try. There are beauties to the film procedures that make photography a challenging and rich experience.

 

[David Noble]

Thank you, everyone, for such detailed and thoughtful replies. This forum is amazing for the depth of experience and knowledge of the folks here and their willingness to share it.

I realized soon after I asked that it was not really a simple question at all. The respnses are making me think more seriously about it than I had.
Rationally, I probably ought to just stick with digital, as I don't have a personal attachment to film and getting into it sounds a lot of work and expense.

But I am not doing photography for rational reasons. I think I want to connect with the tradition and history of film and some of the wonderful qualities it still offers. I suppose I am just old enough to have some sense that if I don't give film photography a serious shot while it (and I) am still only just past our prime, then I really will have missed something essential....

In any case, thanks . This has given me a lot of food for thought.

 

[audible]

But I am not doing photography for rational reasons. I think I want to connect with the tradition and history of film and some of the wonderful qualities it still offers. I suppose I am just old enough to have some sense that if I don't give film photography a serious shot while it (and I) am still only just past our prime, then I really will have missed something essential....

oh no! i hope we haven't put you off film with talk of expense and learning curves. i'm one of those who started with digital and wound up in the wet darkroom, and i must say i have absolutely no regrets. there's something about doing your own developing and wet printing that makes the process complete. and the physicality of agitating the chemicals and pulling the print out of the tray... maybe i'm getting too romantic, but it makes photography a completely different process.

anyway, you asked quite a specific question earlier about whether it made sense to scan negatives and print them on an inkjet. i think i shall let far finer photographers than myself speak on this:

paul butzi's journey into digital printing
barry thornton's digital transition