Prest_400
Multiformat
Whoops!
I like my digital m43, but, aesthetically wise, I prefer film. Portra shot with people in the right conditions is very pleasing.
From Film to Digital
- Thread starter djpin89
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 59
- Views 6K
I like my digital m43, but, aesthetically wise, I prefer film. Portra shot with people in the right conditions is very pleasing.
Corran
Well-known
Agree with mani.
Film color is completely different than digital, and in my opinion, vastly superior.
In fact, if I absolutely had to shoot digital, I'd rather b&w, than color. Color film is absolutely beautiful and digital looks just completely bland and boring, or, overdone if someone tries to "emulate" film.
Film color is completely different than digital, and in my opinion, vastly superior.
In fact, if I absolutely had to shoot digital, I'd rather b&w, than color. Color film is absolutely beautiful and digital looks just completely bland and boring, or, overdone if someone tries to "emulate" film.
dmc
Bessa Driver
I love having a negative as a permanent copy of my shot. Digital files can, and do, go missing.
mani
Well-known
I just don't get why some people see their own preferences as universal rules. Nor why they insist on repeating them at EVERY possible occasion.
Anyway, don't want to lead the thread astray. Just seeing that 'factual' statement ONE MORE TIME just blew my mind.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
That is very poetic, Helen. But ... Digital captures light, just like film does. Film does some of the rendering for you as a function of how it captures and is processed, whereas you have to do all of the rendering with digital. In the end, the look—the rendering of light—becomes a matter of your skill in image processing combined with the capability of the image processing tools.
That's how I see it anyway. I avoided digital for years because I wasn't getting the rendering I wanted, then decided to go into it whole hog and see if I could get what I wanted. After a bit of time and practice, I found I could get what I originally wanted, and lots more. So now I shoot film to see if I can get what I want out of it and use digital as my reference... 🙂
G
My budget is always pretty tight too so I can hear where you are coming from. But life is short. If you love making images with your Rolleiflex don't stop. To me part of the solution is about quality versus quantity. Film imaging comes with a built in incentive to try your best with every frame, unlike digital where you pay for the hit up front and can then blast away virtually cost free. Depending on when and what you shoot, slowing down with the button a bit can help. Developing your own film makes a huge difference to the overall costs. If you're not doing much black and white, consider its virtues. I still shoot colour film but it's probably 80/20 in favour of B & W these days and I'm happy with that.
Sourcing film online can help a lot with price too. I still buy some retail because I want it to be available locally but also online. If you're in Dallas you have a head start on me. I can buy cheap film from US suppliers, but except for Freestyle, the cost of mailing it to Australia kills any savings.
Despite the initial hit for equipment, you should do whatever you can to facilitate your own scanning process, as not only will you save a lot of cash in the long run, you'll have more control over how much you scan. As has already been said, why pay to scan 12 frames a roll if you only want half those?
Best
Brett
Sourcing film online can help a lot with price too. I still buy some retail because I want it to be available locally but also online. If you're in Dallas you have a head start on me. I can buy cheap film from US suppliers, but except for Freestyle, the cost of mailing it to Australia kills any savings.
Despite the initial hit for equipment, you should do whatever you can to facilitate your own scanning process, as not only will you save a lot of cash in the long run, you'll have more control over how much you scan. As has already been said, why pay to scan 12 frames a roll if you only want half those?
Best
Brett
Roger Hicks
Veteran
jloden
Established
I just got into film *very* recently so take my advice for what it's worth.
The cost of film + developing was a serious reason for me to not consider shooting film on a regular basis and stick with all digital photography. Getting film developed by mail and scanned at decent quality would be something like $20+ per roll, and that's just not tenable for me.
What ended up changing my mind was finding that I could develop my own B&W film for a fraction of the cost, and C41 developing (without scans) can be done locally for < $3 a roll, which is within reasonable bounds for me to shoot film regularly. For scanning, I already own a DSLR and a macro lens, so I'm using the "duplicating" method. I know it has its detractors, but it works well enough for me that I'm happy with it until such time as I either quit shooting film or decide it's worth it to me to invest in a scanner. 🙂
If you're going to shoot large amounts of film, it's likely going to quickly become cost-effective for you to develop and/or at least scan your own. I'd second those recommending you look into a suitable scanner that fits your budget, and it should pay for itself pretty quickly. Good luck to you, whatever you end up deciding!
The cost of film + developing was a serious reason for me to not consider shooting film on a regular basis and stick with all digital photography. Getting film developed by mail and scanned at decent quality would be something like $20+ per roll, and that's just not tenable for me.
What ended up changing my mind was finding that I could develop my own B&W film for a fraction of the cost, and C41 developing (without scans) can be done locally for < $3 a roll, which is within reasonable bounds for me to shoot film regularly. For scanning, I already own a DSLR and a macro lens, so I'm using the "duplicating" method. I know it has its detractors, but it works well enough for me that I'm happy with it until such time as I either quit shooting film or decide it's worth it to me to invest in a scanner. 🙂
If you're going to shoot large amounts of film, it's likely going to quickly become cost-effective for you to develop and/or at least scan your own. I'd second those recommending you look into a suitable scanner that fits your budget, and it should pay for itself pretty quickly. Good luck to you, whatever you end up deciding!
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I'll concentrate on the options for getting good enough scans from 120 film to pick the winners, which would then get better scans:
1. Turn your iPhone into a negative loupe… Put your negatives on a light table. Settings > Accessibility > Invert Colors. Start up the camera app. Look at your negatives.
2. DSLR Scan… Rig up a way to back light and hold negatives in place, use a macro lens. To deal with the orange mask make your illumination as blue/green as possible and tell the camera it's tungsten. Make the film edge neutral gray, then invert the image. Resolution should be fine, B&W is easy, good color from negatives is harder.
3. Epson V500 or V600 or similar are dirt cheap and will give you good color and enough resolution for, in my view, 6x to 8x the linear dimension of the film. That's a 12x12" print or maybe a bit larger from your 120 negatives.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
What?
I have DSLRs, but it has nothing to do with MF frame size and things related to it.
Learn how to develop and scan yourself. Or buy digital and become one of the boring one from millions. As I'm 😉
Gregoyle
Well-known
I'll echo what some of the people here have said, and maybe add a little.
If your hangup is cost, and not convenience, then I certainly have some suggestions. WIth black and white, processing your film yourself can cost <$0.50 a roll if you use an economical developer like Xtol or HC-110 and Arista fixer, stop, and photo-flow. You kind find entire home processing kits as part of darkroom sales on Craigslist and eBay for peanuts.
For color, you are going to pay more per roll for processing yourself, but you can do a whole lot better than ~$10 a roll like you have been. Freestyle has Arista C-41 and E6 kits tha average +/- $1 per roll, and the Tetenal kits are only a little more but still way under $2 per roll.
I would echo others' comments not to scan everything. An Epson V500 would get you all the resolution you need for web or smaller prints, and if you have something you want to make a larger print of, you can send out that one neg to get scanned at ultra high resolution. You can use a Lomography negative holder with a viewing light and any decent digital camera to proof your negs and even make lower resolution scans FAST.
Like I said, if cost is really the issue and not convenience, there are a lot of areas you can look at to save money. Convenience is a little of a tougher problem if your favorite camera is a Rolleiflex. If you shot 35mm I'd suggest a Pakon scanner as someone else mentioned.
I would also add that you will not find any digital camera that even comes close to the experience of shooting your Rollei TLR.
-Greg
If your hangup is cost, and not convenience, then I certainly have some suggestions. WIth black and white, processing your film yourself can cost <$0.50 a roll if you use an economical developer like Xtol or HC-110 and Arista fixer, stop, and photo-flow. You kind find entire home processing kits as part of darkroom sales on Craigslist and eBay for peanuts.
For color, you are going to pay more per roll for processing yourself, but you can do a whole lot better than ~$10 a roll like you have been. Freestyle has Arista C-41 and E6 kits tha average +/- $1 per roll, and the Tetenal kits are only a little more but still way under $2 per roll.
I would echo others' comments not to scan everything. An Epson V500 would get you all the resolution you need for web or smaller prints, and if you have something you want to make a larger print of, you can send out that one neg to get scanned at ultra high resolution. You can use a Lomography negative holder with a viewing light and any decent digital camera to proof your negs and even make lower resolution scans FAST.
Like I said, if cost is really the issue and not convenience, there are a lot of areas you can look at to save money. Convenience is a little of a tougher problem if your favorite camera is a Rolleiflex. If you shot 35mm I'd suggest a Pakon scanner as someone else mentioned.
I would also add that you will not find any digital camera that even comes close to the experience of shooting your Rollei TLR.
-Greg
thegman
Veteran
Much as I'd love to participate in film/digital argument, for the OP, I'd suggest the use of a flatbed scanner. I found, for my needs, that a Canoscan 9500f is more than good enough for medium format, assuming you're not printing too big, and even if you are, it's surprising what it can do. I ended up getting a Epson V700 to replace the one I was using, as I wanted to do 4x5 also, but for medium format, I can't say I thought the V700 was noticeably any better.
What I'm saying is that for medium format, I think you can get away with a used, $100 scanner. The BetterScanning kits make all the difference too.
If you love film, and don't print that big, maybe consider a little 35mm too, I swore off it for a while, only shooting medium format at bigger. Now I'm shooting a bit more though and 36 exposures per roll can be good fun vs. 12 from the Rollei. You can get a good 35mm camera for way under $100 too.
Digital is free as an ongoing cost of course, and if you get models a few years old, they've already depreciated 80% as far as they'll go. If cost is a big deal to you, film cannot compete with digital, as much as I like film.
For me though, they feel like two different hobbies, one I enjoy and one I don't.
What I'm saying is that for medium format, I think you can get away with a used, $100 scanner. The BetterScanning kits make all the difference too.
If you love film, and don't print that big, maybe consider a little 35mm too, I swore off it for a while, only shooting medium format at bigger. Now I'm shooting a bit more though and 36 exposures per roll can be good fun vs. 12 from the Rollei. You can get a good 35mm camera for way under $100 too.
Digital is free as an ongoing cost of course, and if you get models a few years old, they've already depreciated 80% as far as they'll go. If cost is a big deal to you, film cannot compete with digital, as much as I like film.
For me though, they feel like two different hobbies, one I enjoy and one I don't.
djpin89
Member
Does anyone have opinions on the Jobo?
http://dallas.craigslist.org/mdf/pho/4699073974.html
Found this on craigslist, and it seems to be a deal. I definitely would love to start developing if it's as easy and fun as everyone says.
http://dallas.craigslist.org/mdf/pho/4699073974.html
Found this on craigslist, and it seems to be a deal. I definitely would love to start developing if it's as easy and fun as everyone says.
Axel
singleshooter
Yes you can get complete Sets for home use for all processes.
michaelwj
----------------
I'll echo Brett here, my budget is super tight, I had to go without beer for 2 months to buy a scanner! Yes it was very hard. Do what you can, even a second hand Epson Vxxx will give you more control over your scans. It will pay for itself in not much time at all.
Michael
Gregoyle
Well-known
That price looks like a steal with the lift.
I don't have experience using Jobos, so I can't speak to how much they make things easier/faster/more efficient.
-Greg
znapper
Well-known
Save some money for a v750 and you can scan all formats
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/426128-REG/Epson_B11B178061_Perfection_V750_M_Pro_Scanner.html
If you are able to get hold of a used scanner in very good condition, you'll save some bucks on that.
Buy HC-110 or Rodinal and the bits and pieces needed to develop film, and you can go on for a long time, with the only expense being film itself.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/426128-REG/Epson_B11B178061_Perfection_V750_M_Pro_Scanner.html
If you are able to get hold of a used scanner in very good condition, you'll save some bucks on that.
Buy HC-110 or Rodinal and the bits and pieces needed to develop film, and you can go on for a long time, with the only expense being film itself.
Vics
Veteran
My brand new Epson V500 cost me $127 at Amazon (on sale). I agree with positive comments re Tri-X, home development (I use D-76), printing contact sheets. All are wonderfully fun and simple.
djpin89
Member
That method would be making the film in a dark room then scanning the negatives and converting on photoshop?
Swift1
Veteran
I disagree that you need a $1000+ scanner. A $150 Epson V500 will most likely give you much better scans than those that the lab is giving you.
And you can easily print up to 24"x24" from a 2400 dpi scan of a Rolleiflex negative.
