Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Both shooting film and shooting digital can get expense, and doing both I think has even more added costs.
If you want to annoy people, be like me and concentrate on image capture to become a better photographer/shooter. IMHO this means learning how to nail exposeure like a deadly Kung-Fu move and concentrating on shooting. In my book printing can happen later, meanwhile you can really advance your skills by concentrating on just image capture, and this is the most photographic output for the dollars spent.
For me this meant shooting only B&W because color is more expense and because you already have a film camera. Going or adding digital means buying another camera.
I do not have a darkroom, and I live in a Madhattan apartment, but with a changing bag and an eight reel tank I can develope my own negatives and even though it is a lot of work, I save mucho money. What I'm suggesting is concentrate on image capture and making negatives, but realize that printing is another expense that can happen later.
In my case I especially annoyed many of my photographer friends who demanded, "I want to see prints," when knowing I have mucho good negitives and images.
Even my girlfriend yelled at me, "I want to see prints."
Now understand that since 2007 when I got back into photography in a big way since having gone to art school in the 70's when someone compares you to Garry Winnogran it is not in a good way because my behavior is looked upon as being selfish and reckless because I openly am hoarding images and not sharing them. Realize that perhaps some years I have shot over a thousand rolls of film and processed all that film myself saving tons of money, and that over the past 7 years I only had a few enlargments made because later when I have more time and money I will print my images when it is good for me
Remember Robert Franks only shot about 800 rolls of film to create "The Americans" which he printed later, after he concentrated on just image capture.
So about five years after 2007 when I returned to being a photographer, guess what I did? I bought a Leica Monochrom, but like my analog photography I concentrated only on image capture continuing my legacy as a selfish photographer who purposely choose not to share his images. Again printing can be done later, but now after two years of owning the Monochrome I am almost ready to print. I own a 27 inch Eizo calibrated monitor; an Epson 3880 17x22 inch printer; and tricked out Mac Book Pro.
Anyways if you want to annoy people you can do mucho photography for the least amount of money by concentrating on only B&W film and limiting yourself to only making negatives for printing later. No scanning film for me because this is like taking the same photograph twice.
Cal
If you want to annoy people, be like me and concentrate on image capture to become a better photographer/shooter. IMHO this means learning how to nail exposeure like a deadly Kung-Fu move and concentrating on shooting. In my book printing can happen later, meanwhile you can really advance your skills by concentrating on just image capture, and this is the most photographic output for the dollars spent.
For me this meant shooting only B&W because color is more expense and because you already have a film camera. Going or adding digital means buying another camera.
I do not have a darkroom, and I live in a Madhattan apartment, but with a changing bag and an eight reel tank I can develope my own negatives and even though it is a lot of work, I save mucho money. What I'm suggesting is concentrate on image capture and making negatives, but realize that printing is another expense that can happen later.
In my case I especially annoyed many of my photographer friends who demanded, "I want to see prints," when knowing I have mucho good negitives and images.
Even my girlfriend yelled at me, "I want to see prints."
Now understand that since 2007 when I got back into photography in a big way since having gone to art school in the 70's when someone compares you to Garry Winnogran it is not in a good way because my behavior is looked upon as being selfish and reckless because I openly am hoarding images and not sharing them. Realize that perhaps some years I have shot over a thousand rolls of film and processed all that film myself saving tons of money, and that over the past 7 years I only had a few enlargments made because later when I have more time and money I will print my images when it is good for me
Remember Robert Franks only shot about 800 rolls of film to create "The Americans" which he printed later, after he concentrated on just image capture.
So about five years after 2007 when I returned to being a photographer, guess what I did? I bought a Leica Monochrom, but like my analog photography I concentrated only on image capture continuing my legacy as a selfish photographer who purposely choose not to share his images. Again printing can be done later, but now after two years of owning the Monochrome I am almost ready to print. I own a 27 inch Eizo calibrated monitor; an Epson 3880 17x22 inch printer; and tricked out Mac Book Pro.
Anyways if you want to annoy people you can do mucho photography for the least amount of money by concentrating on only B&W film and limiting yourself to only making negatives for printing later. No scanning film for me because this is like taking the same photograph twice.
Cal
Prest_400
Multiformat
I'd love those 120-150$ V500s you get on the US. Over Europe, it seems all of them are around the 200€ mark, 250$.
znapper
Well-known
Yes, this is also called hybrid-processing, you scan your results, you only need a toilet with no windows to process film....or, to be exact, to get your film into the developing-tank (you can even get a dedicated pouch for that,so you can do everything in daylight).
I do that exclusively these days, because I don't have any room in my new place for the enlarger and trays.
In any case, you'll have your negatives and you can make prints at a later date if you like.
After scanning and adjusting, you can have them printed online for a fraction of the cost of printing them yourself on a dedicated ink-jet.
(ink and paper cost a lot....really, no point having your own photo-printer and if I could choose again, I would not have bought my Epson 3800 A2+ printer).
This really boils down to what you want, if you want to go digital, for the ease of use and speed and yes, the long-run cost, you should.
If you want to keep on shooting and processing traditionally, do that, with the added knowledge but speed/ease penalty that involves.
I shoot everything (fully film-to-paper, hybrid and pure digital with photoshop and the whole shebang, from Rollei's and Bessa's and Hasselblad's to Canon 5D mk III, the various processes all have their place over here).
- First thing I will do in a new place, is to set up a fully working dark-room with an enlarger again.
HHPhoto
Well-known
+ 1 !!
This permanent total bashing of colour film is also very counterproductive for BW film, it significantly hurts BW film!!
Colour film production is the backbone of the industry, and BW is very dependant on that.
In the case of Kodak und Fujifilm BW is even completely dependant on colour film production. BW is only a niche there. Colour film volume is needed to keep the machines running.
Without Provia, Velvia, Pro 400H, Superia: No Acros possible!
Without the Portras, Gold and Ultramax: No Tri-X and T-Max possible!!
Even Ilford had quite clearly said that they will be significantly hurt if Kodak and Fuji would stop their colour film production.
Film needs the whole ecosystem to be healthy.
If you want BW film to stay: Just shoot not BW film only, but shoot also colour film, reversal and negative.
Shooting only BW film and colour with digital is not a sustainable solution to keep BW film healthy.
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
There is a easy solution for you:
Shoot reversal film (transparencies, slides).
With reversal film you only need developing, you already have a finished picture in perfect quality.
No need for scans. No cost for scans.
No need for prints. No cost for prints.
Just use a light table
http://www.kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/produkte/2_1_sortiment.asp?w=381
and a good slide loupe for medium format. I can highly recommend the 3x medium format loupes from Schneider and Rodenstock.
With these loupes you get an enlarged picture of 18x18cm in outstanding quality.
Much much better than any scan.
And much better than a print of the same size (better contrast range, sharper, better brillance, almost "3D" effect).
So you get the best quality at the lowest costs.
Medium format slides are absolutely breathtaking! You will be hooked.
And with projection you can enter an additional league of its own.
Cheers, Jan
P.S.: BW slides you can get from dr5 lab in excellent quality.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Depends on the lab.
Used The Darkroom for processing and scanning and they beat my V500 hands down. https://thedarkroom.com
The cost vs. time of scanning is the issue.
But the whole concept of shooting film to scan really defeats the purpose. Film is meant to be projected onto paper or from slides. Or straight to print if you are using a lab. I still very much enjoy getting hard copy prints back, but I agree the cost of film processing is now the biggest barrier to regular use. I am personally a huge fan of Ektar 100 and Portra 400. If you are shooting film to share web images, then frankly you are wasting your time and money. Shoot digital and use a DSCO pack for pre-set film-like images because because no one can tell the difference once digitized.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
ian_watts
Ian Watts
I wish that was the case as I find digital so much more convenient than film. However, there is a world of difference in the basic look before you even get to considering the colour and this difference can be seen in even the crummiest screen res scans.
djpin89
Member
As far as I understand my only options for transparency and slide films are provia and velvia but there are no B&W options? I really like this idea though!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Schneider-G...600?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item339881d118
would this^ be what I'm looking for?
Also, are you saying to ship out B&W to a lab? I looked up dr5 but it just looked like a processing lab.
Thanks for the reply!
Drew
Last edited:
skopar steve
Well-known
I would scarf up that Jobo in a heart beat. Used one for 10+ years for B&W and E-6 film developing, as well as Cibachrome printing.
Gives great consistent results.
Gives great consistent results.
djpin89
Member
Thank you for the reply Steve, I think I'll try and pick it up as he said it's still available. Glad to know it worked well for you.
f16sunshine
Moderator
The Jobo and get yourself an epson V-series scanner.
I use a V700 for medium format. It's probably what your lab is using as well unless you are getting super hi-res results.
For me the Epson does a perfectly nice job making scans for web and screen viewing and moderate prints.
It's a perfect way to pre-view images before wet printing as well.
When I have an image that I want a higher resolution scan of I send it out to be done n equipment I can not afford to own and maintain (and a higher skill level of scanning tech than I am as well
).
I use a V700 for medium format. It's probably what your lab is using as well unless you are getting super hi-res results.
For me the Epson does a perfectly nice job making scans for web and screen viewing and moderate prints.
It's a perfect way to pre-view images before wet printing as well.
When I have an image that I want a higher resolution scan of I send it out to be done n equipment I can not afford to own and maintain (and a higher skill level of scanning tech than I am as well
).HHPhoto
Well-known
Hi Drew,
Don't worry, you have more options:
- Provia 100F
- Velvia 50
- Velvia 100
- Rollei CR 200
- AgfaPhoto CT Precisa (in 135 format)
- Wittner Chrome 200D (in 135 format)
And next year FilmFerrania will start reversal film production again, in 135 and 120 format.
For BW you have many more options. 70-80% of all BW negative films are offered by dr5 for reversal processing as transparencies.
See the link below.
That one is not complete: There must be also a "closed foot" (I don't know the correct English term) for transparencies, and a transparent foot for looking at prints (that is a general advantage of these loupes that they can be used for both).
So this offer is not in proper condition, it is not complete and not properly usable without the 'foots'.
They are a processing lab which runs a special reversal process for BW films.
You can use lots of BW (negative) films and they process them for you as transparencies:
http://www.dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/filmreviewdev1.html
You are welcome.
Cheers,Jan
Don't worry, you have more options:
- Provia 100F
- Velvia 50
- Velvia 100
- Rollei CR 200
- AgfaPhoto CT Precisa (in 135 format)
- Wittner Chrome 200D (in 135 format)
And next year FilmFerrania will start reversal film production again, in 135 and 120 format.
For BW you have many more options. 70-80% of all BW negative films are offered by dr5 for reversal processing as transparencies.
See the link below.
That one is not complete: There must be also a "closed foot" (I don't know the correct English term) for transparencies, and a transparent foot for looking at prints (that is a general advantage of these loupes that they can be used for both).
So this offer is not in proper condition, it is not complete and not properly usable without the 'foots'.
They are a processing lab which runs a special reversal process for BW films.
You can use lots of BW (negative) films and they process them for you as transparencies:
http://www.dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/filmreviewdev1.html
You are welcome.
Cheers,Jan
Skiff
Well-known
Another vote here from me for the reversal film solution / recommendation.
It gives outstanding results at low overall costs.
And no hassle and additional time needed for scanning.
I am using this workflow often by myself, and I am absolutely satiesfied.
It gives outstanding results at low overall costs.
And no hassle and additional time needed for scanning.
I am using this workflow often by myself, and I am absolutely satiesfied.
skopar steve
Well-known
Not to hijack the thread, but has anyone here actually tried the dr5 process? I sent a roll of HP5 to them last week to give it a try. Hope I can use "ICE" function on my Minolta 5400 Elite scanner.
The process is not cheap, and you have to run the film speed a stop or two slower per their recommendations. HP5 seems to be the exception.
As for color negative (C41) images, Ektar 100 shot on an old Vitessa T is what got me shooting film again.
The process is not cheap, and you have to run the film speed a stop or two slower per their recommendations. HP5 seems to be the exception.
As for color negative (C41) images, Ektar 100 shot on an old Vitessa T is what got me shooting film again.
Skiff
Well-known
Yes, I have.
With some films it is good, with some very good, with some excellent, and with some not so good (they overdeveloped my Retro 80S).
The owner is a complete choleric guy, very unfriendly, and he thinks he is never making mistakes.
You have to take him "with a grain of salt"
.Don't talk to him, just enjoy the slides
.And the Europeans have much better options in their home market with Photo Studio 13, Agenzia Luce and Mr Wehner for example.
djpin89
Member
Why do you have to shoot a stop or two slower... I thought you basically shoot at the recommended film iso or shoot the same iso for the whole roll and they develop it according to what iso you shot it at. I am curious about how well it works too though, it doesn't seem like a cheap process... I feel like I might just be better buying the scanner and color correcting in a third party program... as 14.00 a piece would start to get pricey. Although, if you want to pay for convenience then it's not a problem.
skopar steve
Well-known
djpin89,
On the dr5 site they list the B&W films they run the process on as well as the film speed recommended for said films. HP5 is one of the few rated at box speed. Your right it is expensive, but I'm hoping the slides scan better than B&W negs do on my scanner.
Skiff,
Thanks for the tip. I'll avoid talking with the owner. Don't know how many different films I'll try at $14. a roll.
On the dr5 site they list the B&W films they run the process on as well as the film speed recommended for said films. HP5 is one of the few rated at box speed. Your right it is expensive, but I'm hoping the slides scan better than B&W negs do on my scanner.
Skiff,
Thanks for the tip. I'll avoid talking with the owner. Don't know how many different films I'll try at $14. a roll.
V-12
Well-known
Process your own film, buy a V800 scanner (for 120), and you have all you need for high quality work.
Processing C41 is as easy as normal B&W at the kitchen sink and uses the same tanks etc. Scanning your own means you aren't wasting money on large high quality scans or prints you ultimately don't want, you just scan at high res the good ones and print the good ones.
But above all you get much more flexibility being able to pick and choose developers for traditional B&W, experiment without thinking too much about the cost, and have fun. If you have never processed your own before, or scanned before, both are a big learning curve, but look how many people can do it and not all are Einstein
V
djpin89
Member
Process your own film, buy a V800 scanner (for 120), and you have all you need for high quality work.
Processing C41 is as easy as normal B&W at the kitchen sink and uses the same tanks etc. Scanning your own means you aren't wasting money on large high quality scans or prints you ultimately don't want, you just scan at high res the good ones and print the good ones.
But above all you get much more flexibility being able to pick and choose developers for traditional B&W, experiment without thinking too much about the cost, and have fun. If you have never processed your own before, or scanned before, both are a big learning curve, but look how many people can do it and not all are Einstein
V
Does that mean different developers for B&W processing develop quite differently? and I assume it isn't the same for color then. I am very new to all of this but am very interested in the DIY version rather than the take it to the lab.
Also, I see the v800 is new which is great. I think I'll be picking one up. I really appreciate the post. Very helpful indeed and motivation!
I'm looking forward to getting my hands dirty. The only real difference between the scanners is
$739.99 vs $899.99 ------- $160
SilverFast SE 8 Software Included vs SilverFast SE Plus 8 & i1 Scanner
one set of film holders vs two sets of film holders
Worth the $160?
Also, the fluid mount.. not sure what that is but is the general consensus is that it produces better scans?