Tuolumne
Veteran
" Ok ok back to reality - I don't see a viable replacement for digital in the near future yet but I love film.
It is more fun & less work in front of the computer."
How is film less work in front of a computer, unless you just have the lab process it altogether, or use a wet darkroom? I know that I sit for hours in front of my computer scanning film I have shot. It is less by a factor of 3x or 5x when I have an all digital workflow.
/T
It is more fun & less work in front of the computer."
How is film less work in front of a computer, unless you just have the lab process it altogether, or use a wet darkroom? I know that I sit for hours in front of my computer scanning film I have shot. It is less by a factor of 3x or 5x when I have an all digital workflow.
/T
windraider
Established
Tuolumne said:
Well with chips & processors inside them aren't all digital cameras computers
?Ok didn't mean to be flippant but I don't usually scan my negs after processing them. Even with digital I don't usually do image manupilation on the computer after downloading.
When shooting with digital, I tend to adjust the camera settings (ie ISO, WB, vividness etc) based on the light conditions and mood I'm trying to capture. While this thought process do improve the technical quality of the image, the flurry of button pressing tend to distract & detach me from the atmoshpere of the scene. Also digital tends to feed the perfectionist streak in me, thus multiple shots at different settings in the pursuit of getting the perfect picture tend to make the final image manufactured.
I'm no pro and I don't work in the photographic industry, I just take pics for my pleasure to capture moments with my loved ones and my life. Hence my shots are mainly on events, people and expressions.
It is simpler with film, I just pop my fav slide or neg films and let the light conditions and compositions determine the shots that I'll take. Less flexible but more natural. All I do is focus on is capturing the moment. Also pics taken by film tends to emotionally connect you to that moment in the past. I don't usually get that with digital - either too many images (didn't print) or can't recall the event because too busy fiddling around with the camera.
Hard to choose which is better for the future of photography.
I like having digital around as it provides a great technical solution for making images. But I'm just glad that film is still available to meet another aspect of image making - for me it is the emotional one.
Whatever it is I like my images good out of the box - don't make me tweak a finished product
amateriat
We're all light!
Well, this depends on a lot of things, but I do know my film scans require a good deal less PS tweaking than my digital-capture stuff, and I know at least one other photographer who has had the same experience; he ditched his dSLRs and went back to film for this very reason (but like me, he keeps a pretty good digital p/s for assorted things). This is NOT a "film rulz/digital sux" diatribe, but simply making the point that there are a lot of differing experiences out here. In the end, it's really a matter of approach, but sometimes the "straightest" route isn't necessarily the most obvious.Tuolumne said:
- Barrett
Tuolumne
Veteran
Well, here is my film scanning work flow:
1) Hold film up to light until I see something that might be pretty good.
2) Put on white cotton gloves.
3) Adjust white cotton gloves that never fit very well.
3a) Cut film into scannable strips, unless processor has already done this. But the strips are usually too long so cut them anyway.
4) Remove film from its plastic holder the processor put it in, being careful not to scratch or dirty it.
5) Place 1 film strip in negative carrier.
6) Adjust negative carrier so film is flat and fits properly into the carrier.
7) Readjust white cotton gloves that don't fit very well.
8) Readjust film so it is flat again and positioned properly in the negative carrier.
8a) Use blower to remove dust from negative and scanner bed.
8a') Readjust film in negative carrier after the blower blows it out of alignment.
8b) Place negative carrier on scanner platten.
8c) Make sure you don't jostle negative when placing it on platten.
8d) If jostled out of position, adjust white cotton gloves and go to 5).
9) Start initial scan
10) Highlight negative of interest and do another preliminary scan.
11) Start real scan
12) View image in post-processing software of choice.
Total elapsed time for 1 negative - about 10 minutes. (And that's without Digital Ice. If you use Digital Ice, total elapsed time for 1 negative will be closer to 30 minutes.)
By the same token, I can view and correct about 40 digital only files in Picasa in about the same 10 minutes, usually much more because most of my digital files don't need that much adjustment.
The amount of time it takes to scan has nothing to do with post-processing. All the time is taken by selecting and adjusting the negative and then doing the actual scan.
If your scan times are appreciably faster than this, please let me know how.
/T
1) Hold film up to light until I see something that might be pretty good.
2) Put on white cotton gloves.
3) Adjust white cotton gloves that never fit very well.
3a) Cut film into scannable strips, unless processor has already done this. But the strips are usually too long so cut them anyway.
4) Remove film from its plastic holder the processor put it in, being careful not to scratch or dirty it.
5) Place 1 film strip in negative carrier.
6) Adjust negative carrier so film is flat and fits properly into the carrier.
7) Readjust white cotton gloves that don't fit very well.
8) Readjust film so it is flat again and positioned properly in the negative carrier.
8a) Use blower to remove dust from negative and scanner bed.
8a') Readjust film in negative carrier after the blower blows it out of alignment.
8b) Place negative carrier on scanner platten.
8c) Make sure you don't jostle negative when placing it on platten.
8d) If jostled out of position, adjust white cotton gloves and go to 5).
9) Start initial scan
10) Highlight negative of interest and do another preliminary scan.
11) Start real scan
12) View image in post-processing software of choice.
Total elapsed time for 1 negative - about 10 minutes. (And that's without Digital Ice. If you use Digital Ice, total elapsed time for 1 negative will be closer to 30 minutes.)
By the same token, I can view and correct about 40 digital only files in Picasa in about the same 10 minutes, usually much more because most of my digital files don't need that much adjustment.
The amount of time it takes to scan has nothing to do with post-processing. All the time is taken by selecting and adjusting the negative and then doing the actual scan.
If your scan times are appreciably faster than this, please let me know how.
/T
Last edited:
R
rich815
Guest
I have found that spending just a bit extra on quality white gloves has made all the difference in my photography....
Tuolumne said:
R
rich815
Guest
Oh, and a decent film processor, scanner and neg carrier AND keeping the room less dusty has helped too.
There. That eliminated about 8 out of your 12 steps right there.
There. That eliminated about 8 out of your 12 steps right there.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Film processor = Dwaynes
Scanner = Epson 4990 and Minolta Dimage 5400
Negative carrier = stock + anti-newton glass to keep neagtives flat (takes even longer to adjust than stock carrier and doesn't help much anyway)
Dusty environment = not very, but every puff of blower before scanner saves 5 minutes in post-processing
So, how long does it take you to scan a negative, beginning to end?
/T
Scanner = Epson 4990 and Minolta Dimage 5400
Negative carrier = stock + anti-newton glass to keep neagtives flat (takes even longer to adjust than stock carrier and doesn't help much anyway)
Dusty environment = not very, but every puff of blower before scanner saves 5 minutes in post-processing
So, how long does it take you to scan a negative, beginning to end?
/T
MikeL
Go Fish
1. Plop negative (s) into tray.
2. Blow off dust.
3. Plop into machine.
4. Scan all at decent resolution. Do something else while it's scanning.
5. Come back and review scans.
6. IF any worth rescanning, do it then. Do something else again.
7. Remove from tray, keep negative if it has any I like.
Done. I don't get the big fuss. If you don't like it, digital first, is a nice alternative. I don't get the whole RAW thing. If you have an LCD, like others have argued, you can check out white balance and histogram there.
2. Blow off dust.
3. Plop into machine.
4. Scan all at decent resolution. Do something else while it's scanning.
5. Come back and review scans.
6. IF any worth rescanning, do it then. Do something else again.
7. Remove from tray, keep negative if it has any I like.
Done. I don't get the big fuss. If you don't like it, digital first, is a nice alternative. I don't get the whole RAW thing. If you have an LCD, like others have argued, you can check out white balance and histogram there.
Tuolumne
Veteran
MikeL said:
So, 10 minutes?
/T
MikeL
Go Fish
Yeah, about 10 minutes for 12 images, which includes reviewing. Some of the Epsons are nice since you can scan 24 at a time.
photogdave
Shops local
Gee, if you don't like the film workflow, why don't you just SAY so?!Tuolumne said:
Tuolumne
Veteran
MikeL said:
No, I meant 10 minutes for a single image that you want to keep and print. If you're going to do a batch scan you have to include the time for loading all of the strips, adjusting them, etc. This was in response to the comment above that if you use film and scan, you spend alot less time in front of the computer. For an equal number of photos, I spend alot - alot - more time in front of my computer with film and scanning than with an all digital workflow.
/T
MikeL
Go Fish
Tuolumne, film is obviously not working for you. Are you still using it? Given the frustration evident in your description of your workflow (especially the white gloves), you should drop film and go full digital. Look ma, no gloves!
MikeL
Go Fish
Tuolumne said:
Got it. Digital is easier and less time consuming, especially when you are not developing black and white. I'm doing that too. I just don't judge what I'm doing solely on time. Process can allow me to take a break from all the other stuff, so I don't mind it. If I did mind it as much as I'm getting from you, I'd go full digital. It's supposed to be enjoyable, unless it's your living and the sh++ just needs to get done.
Tuolumne
Veteran
MikeL said:Tuolumne, film is obviously not working for you. Are you still using it? Given the frustration evident in your description of your workflow (especially the white gloves), you should drop film and go full digital. Look ma, no gloves!
I do still use film, but I find that I only enjoy using it for unique formats that I can't replicate in digital: Noblex panoramics, Xpan panoramics, and various medium formats. When it comes to shooting 35mm, I find myself picking up the R-D1 to the exclusion of everything else. I just can't seem to justify all the time it takes to fiddle with 35mm negatives on a scanner. The other formats do things no digital camera in my price range can do, so I don't feel so impatient when dealing with those negatives.
/T
amateriat
We're all light!
Tuolumne: Digital is always going to be faster on the draw here...that's a big part of the reason it exists.
On the other hand: I did a photo shoot for a fave local music duo late yeserday afternoon. Needed a relatively quick turn-around, but I did the bulk of the shoot on b/w film (yes, chromogenic, both for the sake of quick local processing turnaround plus the ability to use Digital ICE on my Minolta 5400), plus a few quick digital snaps for good measure. Had the film in my hands about an hout and a half later (would've been earlier, but I had some other stuff to do before picking it up), and, since I didn't have time to look at anything last night–digital or otherwise, I'm getting set to scan and review as I type this up. Should have the bulk of keepers done before taking off for another computer-tech gig at noon, then come back, run off a bunch of small JPEGs and e-mail them. Slower than an all-digital shoot? Yep. But fast enough to hit my deadline, and working in a manner I prefer.
Vive la Differénce, and all that.
- Barrett
On the other hand: I did a photo shoot for a fave local music duo late yeserday afternoon. Needed a relatively quick turn-around, but I did the bulk of the shoot on b/w film (yes, chromogenic, both for the sake of quick local processing turnaround plus the ability to use Digital ICE on my Minolta 5400), plus a few quick digital snaps for good measure. Had the film in my hands about an hout and a half later (would've been earlier, but I had some other stuff to do before picking it up), and, since I didn't have time to look at anything last night–digital or otherwise, I'm getting set to scan and review as I type this up. Should have the bulk of keepers done before taking off for another computer-tech gig at noon, then come back, run off a bunch of small JPEGs and e-mail them. Slower than an all-digital shoot? Yep. But fast enough to hit my deadline, and working in a manner I prefer.
Vive la Differénce, and all that.
- Barrett
DougK
This space left blank
I'd say it's even money at this point.sitemistic said:Perhaps a more important question is, will film outlast this thread?
feenej
Well-known
I'm thinking about getting a Jobo color film dev setup, rather than buying a digital camera. For me, the most difficult thing about film is the time and expense of having to have the color film developed at the nearest good lab from me, which is 25 miles away from where I live.
Tuolumne
Veteran
feenej said:
Just 25 miles? I live in New Jersey, near Manhattan, and send mine to Dwayne's in Kansas!
/T
windraider
Established
Tuolumne said:
Why?
You seem to be some kind of a sado-machoist when it comes to using film
.If you intend to store or use the images in the digital format, images off a good digital camera would always be better than those scanned from the best scanner and off the most perfect negative/slide.
I guess the reasons for using film are:
a) using the image in a medium whereby the superior technical qualities of film are significant (ie print enlargements from MF or LF, projection of slides)
b) intended use is only restricted to film (IR photography, x-rays and forensic evidence are what I can think of)
c) going to places where only a film camera would do (underwater, freezing environments, long photoassignments in the desert or amazon)
d) use of vintage film cameras by enthusatic collectors
& retro loverse) people who prefer to use film for emotional reasons
f) you live in a less develop region where electricty, computers or money is scarce
Back to the original question on the survival of film, I agree with those that say that film will last as long as it is economically viable. But based on the reasons above, apart from (f), all other reason seems to reflect niche uses. And as IT & computers becomes more advance, cheaper and more prevalent in the less developed countries, digital would seem to be the more efficient & logical imaging tool for the mass market of photographers.
In the event that digital replaces film in the mass market (a dark day for me
), I suppose film could survive as a niche product, but costs might be higher and choices limited. But digital imaging is still evolving, with the convergence of cameras, communications and other applications, the face of photography is changing radically (imagine today they are selling refrigerators which you can watch TV and have a video conference ). Film might even outlast memory cards and hard drives as a storage medium.
Last edited: